BBC News' Outrage at Syrian rebel shown 'eating soldier's heart' Non-Fiction Blog Post

This article was about how a Syrian rebel was caught (in a video) apparently "taking a bite from the heart of a dead soldier".  It has been shocking to many people. The rebel, identified as Abu Sakkar, is a rather well known rebel from the city of Homs. The Human Rights Watch claims that this is a war crime, and it may be as the Syrian Coalition says he will be tried in court. This took place recently, in the war that still rages in Syria. Time Magazine said it has spoken to Sakkar, who confirmed that he had indeed bitten one of the soldier's organs, yet it is still unclear whether or not it was truly the heart, or another organ.

The author wants me to feel shock, disbelief, horror, and perhaps disgust. The author did not need to add much into the article for the reader to experience the  emotions, as the thought of biting an organ of another person is similar to the thought of cannibalism, and naturally, we pale at the thought of cannibalism. The author does use subtle phrases though, to plant the emotions into readers' minds. Such phrases include "taking a bite" as this phrase is often used casually and possibly positively, which in this case, that is neither casual nor positive, would be highly disturbing. The author also places others' reactions to the video into the article to propose to readers how they could/should feel about the subject. These reactions are all negative, such as describing how the video is gruesome and one of the worst ever seen by BBC's Jim Muir, or how the Human Rights Watch believes the subject to be "particularly disturbing".

I was shocked and slightly appalled by the subject of the article as removing  one's organ and biting it is cannibalistic and unnatural for the actions of people. Perhaps as people, we are disgusted by such actions as they seem too "animal-like" for us humans (although we are actually animals...). What drives people to act in such ways? War. War changes people, often for the worse. It's tragic, I believe, for perhaps the rebel would not have acted this way if his country was not war torn and with many societal issues (as all countries have at times of war). War is much more than just death and/or victory, as war has no victory, and there is no one in the war torn country that it doesn't affect. I believe that Sakkar's actions do not reflect merely the horror of his actions, but also the horror of war and its affect on those involved in it.

Putting him on trial will not change much, as the circumstances of Syria will probably not be greatly affected from one man's punishment.