kscarbel2

Transport Topics / July 20, 2016 With heavy-duty truck demand sagging, Mack Trucks has scheduled several weeklong production shutdowns at its Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania, assembly plant. The weeks of Aug. 8 and Nov. 28 were previously scheduled, but Mack added the weeks of Sept. 12, Oct. 17 and Dec. 12 "based upon current order intake, North America market forecasts and dealer stock," according to an announcement sent to employees July 8. The shutdowns, or temporary layoff weeks, will idle a significant portion of Mack Lehigh Valley Operations' approximately 1,500 employees. Some employees, depending on department, classification and shift, may be required to work during any temporary layoff week, the announcement notes. In a statement e-mailed July 19, John Walsh, Mack's vice president of global marketing and brand management, said four of the down weeks — one each in August, September, October and December — are in addition to the plant's annually scheduled three down weeks, which includes two for a summer shutdown and the week of Nov. 28 for hunting week. "We will continue to monitor market conditions and adjust to meet demand," Walsh said. News of the shutdowns came on the same day that Mack's parent company, Volvo Group of Sweden, reported decreased second-quarter truck orders in North America. The company also again cut its full-year forecast for heavy-duty trucks in North America and promised to further reduce truck production in North America. "Production in the group's North American manufacturing system will be lowered further to meet the lower demand and allow for inventory reduction at dealers," Volvo wrote in the report. Fresh off a 21% decline in deliveries in the first quarter, Mack Trucks' numbers were again headed in the wrong direction during the second three-month stretch of the year. Mack delivered 5,588 trucks worldwide in the second quarter, a 22% decline from the 7,160 it sent out during the same period in 2015. That's the weakest second quarter for Mack since 2011, when it delivered 5,099 trucks during the period, Volvo reports show. And while Mack's net order intake actually increased 15% in the second quarter to 3,007, that figure is still down 32% year-over-year through the first six months. The decline is not unexpected. Volvo and Mack have consistently said that demand would weaken in 2016, especially compared with the peak year the heavy-duty truck market benefited from last year. In its report, Volvo said the total North American retail market for heavy-duty trucks declined 14% through the first six months of the year. To meet the expected reduced demand, Mack announced in December it would lay off about 400 people at Mack Lehigh Valley Operations, which took effect in late January. Mack's 1-million-square-foot plant in Lower Macungie is where all Mack trucks built for the North American market and export are assembled.

Speaking for an outraged America that thinks beheading a child is.......wrong, White House spokesman Mark Toner's strong words and firm demeanor must certainly put the "fear of god" into our enemies overseas (sarcasm on my part). "Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to claim that we're clueless on what happened. We only know what you know from CNN, and nothing more. That's our line and we're going to stick with it, " said Toner to reporters. .

The Cargo tractor is actually quite aerodynamic. The F-600/700/850 doesn't have any aerodynamic front fascia directing frontal air around the sides of the truck, rather than turbulently passing underneath the truck and causing drag. I can't imagine Ford even considering a proper aerodynamics package for an F-850 tractor. And designing a package around that cab and hood, really an oversized pickup by design, would be challenging. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaks of fuel efficiency thru aerodynamics at 3:50 (This truck is a global spec unit - Ford-Otosan production) .

Imagine, for a moment, adapting this intake configuration to a 6-cylinder inline diesel truck engine, rather than applying heavy, complex and expensive turbo-compounding to improve engine response (i.e. reduce turbo lag). The Dynamic Pressure Turbo system fitted to the Mazda CX-9’s 2.5-liter engine combines elements of twin-scroll and variable-geometry turbos in one small package. Like a variable-geometry turbo, the CX-9 constrains exhaust flow at low rpm to accelerate the gases, which helps spool up the turbo. It produces the same result as putting your thumb over the end of a hose, but instead of doing so inside the turbine housing, as in a variable-geometry turbo, Mazda puts its “thumb over the hose” upstream. The valve body fits between the cylinder head and the turbocharger. Below 1620 rpm, the three valves are closed, forcing exhaust gas into the smaller passages above the three butterflies. The constricted path accelerates the gas into the turbine and improves the turbo’s low-rpm responsiveness. At 1620 rpm, the exhaust volume is great enough that the valves open and the turbo operates normally. To manage the exhaust pulses as in a twin-scroll turbo, Mazda separates the engine’s waste gases into three distinct branches with a 4-3-1 exhaust manifold built into the head. The two inner cylinders blow their exhaust into a common runner, while the outer cylinders push their exhaust through individual pipes. Separating the gases has two effects: 1. Scavenging uses the fast-moving exhaust gases from a cylinder beginning its exhaust stroke to help draw out the remaining low-pressure waste gas from the cylinder just starting the intake stroke in the adjacent passage. 2. By separating the exhaust into three path­ways, the turbocharger is hit with more evenly metered pulses, like a twin-scroll turbo. Those timed pulses improve responsiveness and help reduce turbo lag. .

But.........they are of a religion of peace. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Islamic Law (aka. Sharia Law) derived from the Quran. Wahhabism, a strict form of Sunni Islam, is today the dominant for of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and seemingly at the core of world's dilemma. Its barbaric corporal punishments include flogging, amputation and eye gouging. Capital punishments include death-by-stoning, crucifixion and beheading. .

(Scenes from outside the Republican National Convention in Cleveland) Any American who intentionally desecrates (burns) the great flag of The United States of America should have their citizenship immediately revoked and be deported within 24 hours. I personally have zero tolerance for flag burning. Clearly disgusted with their life in the United States, I'm sure they'll be far more happy elsewhere. .

Nobody has word one to say about that child being beheaded ?

Rather than buy a throw-away 6.7L Powerstroke-powered Ford F-850 6x4 tractor to run intermodal up to 100,000 miles a year, it would be more prudent of me to buy a far more advanced, durable, comfortable and economical C-2335 Ford Cargo 6x2 tractor (liftable tag axle) with the 9L 350hp Ecotorq.

Our nation has, in general, very competent and professionally trained state and local police. Protecting the public IS their job. These assault rifle-carrying gentlemen do NOT enhance the safety of our fellow Americans. Rather, they only further complicate the situation. Basically, there's a law that says they can "carry". So, they want to make a point, that they can......."carry". Did their presence at the Dallas protest stir fear in the gunman and cause him to cancel his massacre plans? NOT. With all their assault rifles, did they take out the Dallas gunman? NOT Who did take out the gunman? The dedicated, professional and highly trained Dallas police forced whose job it is to ensure our safety. "the cowards that do the shootings look for the defenseless populated areas" That doesn't fit the Dallas or Baton Rouge scenario. The gunmen didn't back down.....they weren't cowards in any regard.....they were fearless and bent on killing.

I see an F-850 6x4, like the GMC C8500 6x4, as a very low cost option principally for municipalities. In the past, VERY few were built/sold as tractors. 99% were rigids. For intermodal work, one would be smarter to buy a certified used Class 8 tractor with a warranty, than a new F-850 that will wear out in a fraction of the time and have no resale value. If the F-850 had a Cummins ISL and Eaton AMT, decent drive axles and Hendrickson HAS air suspension, then you might sell a few.

BBC / July 20, 2016 A Palestinian boy who was filmed being beheaded by Syrian rebels on Tuesday was not a fighter, a pro-government Palestinian militia has said. The Liwa al-Quds (Jerusalem Brigade) said Abdullah Issa was just a 12-year-old from a poor refugee family who lived in a rebel-held area of Aleppo. Members of the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement are accused of killing him. It said those responsible were handed over to a judicial committee, and denounced the killing as a "violation". The US, which has provided military support to the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement in the past, said it was seeking more information on what it described as "an appalling report". "If we can prove that this was indeed what happened and this group was involved... it would give us pause about any assistance or, frankly, any further involvement with this group," state department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. [ Just empty rhetoric from the camp that’s claims to lead the fight against evil and set an example for the world to follow ] Two short videos emerged online on Tuesday morning showing a boy being taunted and then beheaded by a group of Syrian rebels. The first shows the frightened child, who could be as young as 10, sitting in the back of a pick-up truck, surrounded by five men. One of the men grips him by the hair as they accuse him of being a member of Liwa al-Quds, a Palestinian militia that fights in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and was involved in clashes with rebels on Tuesday in Handarat, to the north of Aleppo. The second video shows the boy's murder. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the boy was seized by rebels in Handarat, but that the killing took place in Mashhad. The UK-based monitoring group could not confirm if the boy was a Palestinian or a child soldier. Liwa al-Quds issued a statement on Facebook saying that its investigation had found he was a 12-year-old Palestinian named Abdullah Issa, who lived in Mashhad with his family. It also said he had apparently been receiving medical treatment before being seized, noting that one photograph showed an intravenous drip in his arm. Liwa al-Quds accused the rebels of killing the child simply because he was Palestinian, in order to take "cheap and despicable revenge" for battlefield losses. Earlier this month, Amnesty International published a report detailing a series of violations allegedly committed by Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement fighters in Aleppo, including abductions and torture.

These fellows have too much spare time on their hands and/or need to get a life. If they want so much to play army, Syria is that way. Knock yourself out. Please get off our streets before someone gets hurt. .

An F-850 tandem with the AVL 6.7 Powerstroke and Ford 6-speed Super-Duty transmission? (and Hendrickson RT suspension?). I know the Navy would buy it on price, but I pity our boys who have to depend on it.

Cultural decay and declining standards of behavior in the United States (an ocean of trash) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ‘Worst thing that has come before this court': Mother financed addiction by letting drug dealer rape her child The Washington Post / July 20, 2016 “I can honestly say that, in three-and-a-half years on the bench, this is by far the worst thing that has come before this court.” So said Judge Leslie Ghiz of the Hamilton (Ohio) County Pleas Court as she sentenced April Corcoran to 51 years in prison Tuesday. Her crime: Corcoran, 32, had pleaded guilty in June to raising money to feed her heroin addiction by loaning out her 11-year-old daughter to her drug dealer, who, with the mother’s blessing, raped and abused her, sometimes videotaping it, reported the Cincinnati Inquirer. Thanks to Corcoran’s drug habit, this pre-teen was being forced to have vaginal, anal and oral sex with a 40-year-old man, according to the indictment against her. She pleaded guilty to multiple counts of complicity to rape, human trafficking and child endangerment. The alleged dealer, Shandell Willingham, was also charged and is awaiting a hearing. Corcoran had a special routine after her daughter was brutalized by her drug dealer. As a “reward,” she gave her 11-year-old daughter heroin, the court was told. The middle schooler vomited each time. This happened at four times between February and June 2014. Corcoran still hasn’t expressed any apologies for her daughter for drugs, the judge said in court on Tuesday. Now 13 years old, the girl is living out-of-state with her father and stepmother. She is taking medication, has had suicidal thoughts and is undergoing medical care, Ghiz said in court Tuesday. There’s doubt she will be able to cope. The authorities learned of the case in June 2014, when the girl moved in with her father, who reported it. The young teen’s plight didn’t shock locals in the rural area of Ohio where Corcoran lived, the paper reported at the time of her arrest. “I mean, things like this happen a lot down here,” resident Keith Benson said. “Probably not to this degree, but there’s constantly being reports of animal abuse and fights breaking out around. It’s a little bit surprising but not entirely unexpected.” [?????????] “As a parent, it is hard to imagine how you could use your child to satisfy your drug addiction,” Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters said at the time of the indictment. “Even after all my years as a prosecutor, I continue to be amazed at how badly parents treat their children. What this little girl endured is unimaginable and I can only hope that mom and drug dealer’s prosecution and intense counseling will help this child regain some trust in the world. This case is Exhibit A for how devastating heroin is to our communities.” .

United States v. Chrysler Corp., 232 F. Supp. 651 (D.N.J. 1964) U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - 232 F. Supp. 651 (D.N.J. 1964) August 17, 1964 232 F. Supp. 651 (1964) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CORP. and Mack Trucks, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 709-64. United States District Court D. New Jersey. August 17, 1964. *652 *653 David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., by Walter D. Murphy, Washington, D. C., and John M. O'Donnell, Daniel R. Hunter, Dept. of Justice, for the Government. Pitney, Hardin & Kipp, by Frank C. O'Brien, Newark, N. J., for defendants. Milton Handler, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, by Stanley D. Robinson, Kelley, Drye, Newhall, Maginnes & Warren, by Theodore R. Iserman, New York City, of counsel. WORTENDYKE, District Judge. In this action the plaintiff, United States of America, hereinafter Government, seeks injunctive relief by way of prevention of the consummation of a certain agreement, dated as of May 12, 1964, which has been entered into between Chrysler Corp., hereinafter Chrysler, and Mack Trucks, Inc., hereinafter Mack, providing for the purchase by Chrysler of all of the assets and business of Mack in exchange for certain convertible debentures of Chrysler in a principal amount estimated to be between $138,650,600 and $164,337,050.[1] The relief sought by the Government is predicated upon the allegations in the verified complaint, filed July 30, 1964, which charge that the consummation of the Purchase Agreement by the defendants will violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. This Court's jurisdiction is appropriately invoked under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, and Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, and venue is appropriately laid in this District by reason of the fact that although Chrysler is a corporation of the State of Delaware and Mack is a corporation of the State of New York, both transact business within the State of New Jersey, 15 U.S.C. § 22. Both defendants have appeared and defended in the cause, and concede that each is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the respective sections of the Clayton Act and of the Sherman Act under which the Government seeks relief. Upon the affidavit of Walter D. Murphy, Esq., an attorney employed by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice, filed with the complaint in this cause, a temporary restraining order was issued, prohibiting the defendants, their officers, directors, agents, employees and all other persons acting in their behalf, from taking any further action to consummate the acquisition of the business and assets of Mack by Chrysler; and from making any changes directly or indirectly in the corporate structure, commercial operations and properties of the defendants; other than in the regular and ordinary course of business. The same order provided, however, that its restraint should not extend to the meeting of the shareholders of Mack, which had been previously duly noticed to be held on August 11, 1964, for the purpose of ratifying the action of Mack's board of directors in entering into and authorizing Mack's consummation of the acquisition agreement and plan referred to in the notice of the stockholders' meeting dated July 8, 1964. On July 31, 1964 upon the Government's application, based upon affidavits filed simultaneously therewith, the Court issued its order directing Chrysler and Mack to show cause on August 7, 1964, why a preliminary injunction should not issue, pursuant to the prayer of the complaint, pending trial of the case on the merits. In opposition to this application for preliminary injunction affidavits were *654 timely filed in behalf of the defendants. Upon return of the order to show cause, oral testimony and documentary exhibits were presented in supplementation of the averments contained in the moving and answering affidavits. The hearing upon the return of this order to show cause continued beyond the expiration date fixed in the temporary restraining order; but during that hearing, the restraint of the order was extended by the Court with consent of the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, on August 10, 1964, the parties agreed that the restraint imposed by the order should be deemed to be continued pending the Court's decision upon the pending application for preliminary injunction. During the period of the extension of the restraint, drafts of proposed findings of fact were submitted to the Court by the respective parties, and a reply brief in behalf of the Government was submitted to and considered by the Court. The terms of a written agreement, dated as of May 12, 1964, and duly executed in behalf of each of the defendant corporations pursuant to authorization of their respective boards of directors, provided for a sale of all of the assets and business of Mack to Chrysler in exchange for Chrysler 4 3/8 % Subordinated Debentures due January 1, 1985, convertible on or before December 31, 1969, and the assumption by Chrysler of all of Mack's liabilities and obligations. The parties further agreed therein that, following the consummation of the sale, Mack would be completely dissolved and liquidated, and that, as soon as feasible after the closing date, August 12, 1964, Mack would withdraw all authority to do business as a foreign corporation in States other than the State of its incorporation; and that promptly after Mack's dissolution, and in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, it would be completely liquidated by the payment in cash of the full amount due its preferred stockholders ($54.00 per share plus accrued dividends), and by the distribution, by the designated liquidating agent, of Chrysler debentures to Mack common stockholders, at $50.00 principal amount of debentures for each share of Mack common stock. The agreement further provided that Mack's board of directors might, without further action of its stockholders, abandon the plan prescribed by the Purchase Agreement if the Agreement were terminated in accordance with its terms. Among the conditions precedent to Chrysler's obligation to consummate the purchase as stated in the agreement are (1) the approval of the plan by the holders of at least two-thirds of all Mack stock, with not more than 5% of the common stock dissenting;[2] (2) consent of the holders of Chrysler's 3½% promissory note to the creation and assumption of indebtedness incident to the acquisition of Mack; (3) procurement by Mack of consents of the holders of its 5 1/8 % Subordinated Debentures and its 5 3/8 % senior notes, to such modification as Chrysler might require; and (4) procurement by Mack of such modifications as Chrysler might require in Mack's outstanding contracts and in its various employee, pension, retirement and other benefit plans. The Agreement further provided that either of the parties thereto might terminate the purchase Agreement at any time if an action or proceeding were instituted or threatened which, in the opinion of counsel for the party desiring to terminate, made it "impossible or inadvisable" to consummate the transaction. The Agreement also expressly contemplated its termination at any time by the mutual consent of the boards of directors of the parties to it. The closing under the Agreement was fixed by the terms thereof for August 19, 1964 (thereafter advanced to August 12, 1964), subject to the right in either of the parties to postpone the closing for *655 not more than 45 days.[3] The mutual consent of the respective boards of directors of the defendants was, by the terms of the Agreement, sufficient to permit of the abandonment and termination of the Agreement at any time prior to its closing, without resultant liability on the part of either of the parties to the other. In the event the closing contemplated by the Agreement was not consummated, each of the parties became obligated to pay its own expenses in connection therewith. Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court makes the following findings of fact upon the affidavits filed and the evidence received upon the return of the order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be allowed: Chrysler is a progressive, diversified corporation engaged primarily in the manufacture and sale of automotive products, including trucks. It is the third largest corporation in the automotive industry and the seventh largest industrial corporation in the United States. It ranks fourth in size among the corporations manufacturing and selling motor trucks. Chrysler's after-tax earnings have increased in recent years. In 1963 its total net sales were approximately $3.5 billion. Its earnings in 1963 were a record high of $161.6 million as compared with $32.2 million in 1960, $11.1 million in 1961 and $65.4 million in 1962. Its total assets on December 31, 1963 were approximately $2.1 billion. Mack manufactures and sells, principally, motor trucks having a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds or more,[4] and is the nation's oldest and largest manufacturer of heavy duty motor trucks. Its 1963 sales of $305.8 million were the highest in the company's history. It ranked 181st among American industrial corporations, and as of December 31, 1963, its total assets were $235,836,711. Although, during the course of the argument and in the affidavits submitted in behalf of the defendants, it was represented to the Court that Chrysler intended, after acquisition of the assets and business of Mack, to operate Mack's business as a division of the business of Chrysler, the purchase Agreement contains no provision to that effect; nor is it expressed in the plan of complete liquidation and dissolution which Mack's shareholders were asked to, and did, approve. Upon the evidence submitted, it appears to this Court that there is a reasonable probability that the Government will prevail upon a plenary trial of the cause on the merits. There has been a prima facie showing that the consummation of *656 the purchase Agreement by the defendants will be violative of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The United States as a whole is the appropriate "section of the country" within the meaning of that phrase as used in Section 7 of the Act, with which we are here concerned. The following table discloses the market share and position of each of the defendants in each of the lines of commerce relevant to Section 7 of the Clayton Act: Chrysler Mack Line of Commerce Share (%) Rank Share (%) Rank =================== ================ All trucks 7.2 4 1.0 7 19,500-26,000 lbs. 5.2 6 0.6 7 26,001-33,000 lbs. 3.0 6 12.8 4 33,001 lbs. and over 0.8 7 16.6 3 Diesel trucks over 19,500 lbs. 0.9 6 25.4 2 For the purpose of their argument in opposition to the application for preliminary injunction, defendants accept the Government's definitions of the relevant commodity markets and lines of commerce against which the effect upon competition of the accused acquisition is to be appraised. There is already great concentration in the truck industry and in its submarkets. The share of the market controlled by the so-called "Big Four" (General Motors, Ford, International Harvester and Chrysler) ranges from 83% to approximately 90% in the lines of commerce referred to in the foregoing schedule. This concentration in the manufacture and sale of trucks in each of the lines of commerce would be substantially increased should Chrysler acquire Mack. During the period 1950-1963, Big Four sales in the 19,501 to 26,000 pounds category increased from 59.8% to 87.4%, and in the categories in excess of 26,000 pounds, from 26.7% to 53.9%. The proposed acquisition of Mack by Chrysler would increase the share of the Big Four in each of these categories in substantial degree.[5] Mack was a pioneer in the manufacture and sale of heavy duty trucks, and is an industry leader in that field. It possesses an extensive marketing and technical organization skilled in the sale and service of its products, and is a financially sound and independent manufacturer thereof. *657 That Chrysler presently competes with Mack in the manufacture and sale of motor trucks is uncontradictedly disclosed by the evidence. Although Chrysler has concentrated on the sale of light duty trucks in the past, it presently offers trucks in all weight categories excepting Group 3, but including heavy duty trucks, and possesses a number of dealerships, independently owned truck centers and company-owned factory branches for use in marketing its heavy duty trucks. In addition to Mack, there are five substantial producers of heavy duty trucks in vigorous competition with one another. Chrysler is financially capable of internal expansion, and contemplates expenditure of a billion dollars in the period 1964-1967 for plant and equipment, excluding special tooling. Chrysler has announced plans for substantial investment for the expansion of its heavy truck marketing facilities, but this contemplated investment would be unnecessary should it acquire Mack and thus secure the elimination of Mack's substantial competition in this field. Chrysler presently purchases its entire truck diesel engine requirements from diesel engine manufacturers. Mack, on the other hand, is a well-established, experienced manufacturer of high quality diesel engines for use in motor trucks, and it follows that if Chrysler acquires Mack, Chrysler's diesel engine suppliers may be foreclosed from a substantial present and future share of the market for their products. This would result in a lessening of competition in the sale of diesel engines to truck manufacturers, at least to Chrysler. The evidence before me is persuasive that the acquisition of Mack by Chrysler in accordance with the terms of the pending Purchase Agreement will eliminate Mack's substantial competition in the truck industry and remove it as a leading competitor in the heavy duty submarket. This will increase concentration both in the truck industry as a whole and in the heavy duty and diesel truck submarkets. The acquisition will obviously destroy all competition between Mack and Chrysler and thus remove the objective of Chrysler's announced internal expansion plans toward becoming a sixth major factor in the production of heavy duty trucks. The acquisition is also likely to encourage remaining independent producers in the heavy duty truck field to merge with one of the integrated full line companies or with one another, which would further increase the concentration. Defendants' argument that there has been no showing of irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction is irrelevant. Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act expresses a Congressional proscription of such an acquisition where its effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." This proscription is a legislative declaration that an acquisition having such an effect is against the public interest. The Government need not show that it will suffer irreparable damage qua Government, but only that there is a probability that it would prevail upon a trial on the merits. The public interest in preventing a violation of Sec. 7 outweighs considerations of losses to speculating or investing stockholders resulting from the prevention of possible enhancement in stock value which might result from the acquisition. Anticompetitive effects similar to those charged as likely to result from the pending acquisition upon the relevant markets and submarkets, were considered in Brown Shoe Company v. United States, 1962, 370 U.S. 294, 82 S. Ct. 1502, 8 L. Ed. 2d 510, which stated and discussed criteria for determining whether or not a violation of Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act appeared in a contemplated merger. The principles enunciated in Brown Shoe were reiterated in United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 1963, 374 U.S. 321, 83 S. Ct. 1715, 10 L. Ed. 2d 915, and, more recently, in United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 1964, 376 U.S. 651, 84 S. Ct. 1044, 12 L. Ed. 2d 12, and United States v. Continental Can Co., 1964, 378 U.S. 441, 84 S. Ct. 1738, 12 L. *658 Ed.2d 953. In the last cited case, at p. 1747 of 84 S.Ct., the Court said: "Market shares are the primary indicia of market power but a judgment under § 7 is not to be made by any single qualitative or quantitative test. The merger must be viewed functionally in the context of the particular market involved, its structure, history and probable future. Where a merger is of such a size as to be inherently suspect, elaborate proof of market structure, market behavior and probable anticompetitive effects may be dispensed with in view of § 7's design to prevent undue concentration. Moreover, the competition with which § 7 deals includes not only existing competition but that which is sufficiently probable and imminent." The following factors are to be taken into account in assessing the probability that a proposed merger would substantially lessen competition and thereby violate Sec. 7: "[T]he number and power of the competitors in the relevant market; the background of their growth; the power of the [corporations to be merged] * * *; the relationship of their lines of commerce; the competition existing between them and the power of each in dealing with the competitors of the other; the setting in which the [merger] * * * was created; the reasons and necessities for [the merger's] * * * existence; the [merged entities'] * * line of commerce and the relationship thereof to that of its [participants] * * *; the adaptability of [the merged entities'] * * * line of commerce to noncompetitive practices; the potential power of the [merged entities] in the relevant market; an appraisal of what the competition in the relevant market would [be] * * * if one of the [participants] * * * had" remained separate instead of merging. United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Company, 1964, 378 U.S. 158, 84 S. Ct. 1710, 12 L. Ed. 2d 775. The elimination of Mack, a vigorous independent competitor, from the market scene is a persuasive basis for inference that the pending proposed merger of the defendants will probably result in a substantial lessening of competition. United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 1964, 377 U.S. 271, 84 S. Ct. 1283, 12 L. Ed. 2d 314. The evidence presently before this Court in the instant case amply supports a finding of probability that consummation of Chrysler's acquisition of Mack will violate the proscription of Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act. The possibility that the Government's success after a plenary trial may be rendered effective by future divestiture of Mack from Chrysler does not render inappropriate preliminary injunctive relief. Most apposite to the situation which would be presented upon divestiture proceedings is the language in United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., D.C. Pa.1963, 218 F. Supp. 530, affd. 3 Cir. 1963, 320 F.2d 509. In that case, the District Judge said, at p. 542, in a factual situation paralleling that presently before this Court: "I find it difficult to understand the defendants contention that this case be allowed to go to final hearing without injunction, and that if a violation of Sec. 7 has occurred that the remedy of divestiture then be effected. Considering the hardships of divestiture actions with their ramifications and complications and their painful impacts upon all whom they touch, it is hard to understand that such a device can be reasonably considered as the ultimate remedy to be employed here. * * * It is as Mr. Chief Justice Warren says in Brown Shoe Co., * * * `We cannot avoid the mandate of Congress that tendencies toward concentration in industry are to be curbed in their incipiency * * *'." In affirming the District Court in granting a preliminary injunction in Ingersoll-Rand, *659 the Court of Appeals, per Biggs, C. J., said, at p. 525: "[W]e take the view that all the United States is required to establish at the present stage of this case is the * * * lessening of competition and a showing of a reasonable probability of success on final hearing * * * The trial court had to weigh the possibility of injury to the defendants, the effect of divestiture as opposed to injunctive relief, and the respective positions of the parties. It decided in favor of granting injunctive relief to the United States." A balancing of the equities favors the granting of the preliminary injunction. These defendants are chargeable with knowledge of the proscription contained in Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act and with anticipating the probability that the proposed acquisition of Mack by Chrysler will adversely affect competition. Since the plan was publicly disclosed, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has manifested interest in the proposed acquisition and has made numerous inquiries of the defendants respecting their businesses and plans. The terms of the Purchase Agreement itself disclose that the parties contemplated possible obstacles in the way of its consummation, including the possibility that litigation might be instituted which might prevent or render impractical the consummation of the Agreement. During the argument upon the return of the order to show cause, and in the affidavits of executives of the respective defendants, the Court was told that if a preliminary injunction should be granted, the contemplated transaction between the defendants would be voluntarily terminated. The Purchase Agreement contemplates that, in the event of a termination of the Agreement, each of the parties thereto would assume its own expenses in connection with the negotiations resulting therein and in the procedure anticipating the consummation thereof. The harm, if any, to the defendants which would result from the granting of a preliminary injunction would be such as the parties fully anticipated and provided for. Such a preliminary injunction will simply maintain the status quo between the defendants pending a plenary trial, provided the defendants themselves do not voluntarily terminate the transaction and thereby eliminate all possibility of consummation thereof, even in the event that the Government ultimately is unsuccessful on the merits. On the other hand, if the consummation of the acquisition be not restrained pending final adjudication in the cause, Mack's position as a profitable, independent manufacturer and effective competitor in the relevant markets would completely vanish. Its corporate existence would disappear, and if the Government were to be successful in finally securing the relief sought in its complaint, the possibility of divestiture and of restoring to viability the dissolved and liquidated Mack corporation would present problems which might prove insurmountable. Mack is presently a strong competitor in the field of heavy duty truck manufacture and sales. It has acquired facilities, know-how and goodwill. If these are destroyed or eliminated, the restoration of the existing status quo, which the preliminary injunction would preserve, will probably be impossible. In addition to charging a violation of Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act, the complaint charges that the contemplated acquisition will violate Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act as an unlawful combination in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce. Here, as in United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, supra, I need not, and therefore do not reach the question of the alleged violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act since the evidence before me clearly discloses the probability that the Government will be able to prove its charged violation of Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, a preliminary injunction should be and is hereby granted, enjoining the defendants Chrysler and Mack, their officers, directors, agents, employees *660 and all other persons acting in their behalf, from taking any further action (other than the holding of the meeting of Mack's stockholders which has already occurred) to consummate the Purchase Agreement of May 12, 1964 between the defendants, and from making any changes directly or indirectly with respect to the capital stock or in the corporate structure or properties of Mack, or in the operations and policies of said defendant with respect to the manufacture and sale of any of its products, pending final adjudication of the complaint in this cause. NOTES [1] The precise amount was made to depend on the exercise of certain outstanding warrants and employee stock options of Mack. [2] Defendants have advised the Court that on August 11, 1964, the Purchase Agreement received the necessary Mack stockholder approval. [3] The closing has been adjourned from day to day pending the Court's ruling upon the pending application for a preliminary injunction, in accordance with the temporary restraining order. [4] Automotive trucks are classified in the industry according to their gross vehicle weight (g.v.w.), i. e., the weight of the truck together with the weight of the maximum load which it is designed to accommodate. These classifications are as follows: Group G.V.W. 1 6,000 lbs. and less 2 6,001 to 10,000 lbs. 3 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. 4 14,001 to 16,000 lbs. 5 16,001 to 19,500 lbs. 6 19,501 to 26,000 lbs. 7 26,001 to 33,000 lbs. 8 33,001 lbs. and over. Trucks in Groups 7 and 8 are commonly referred to as heavy duty trucks. In 1963 Mack's truck sales totalled 13,305 units, made up of 407 units in Group 6, 2,054 units in Group 7 and 10,844 units in Group 8. For the same year, Chrysler's total unit sales were 75,025 made up of 36,141 units in Group 1, 22,512 units in Group 2, 3,311 units in Group 4, 7,000 units in Group 5, 4,763 units in Group 6, 889 units in Group 7, and 409 units in Group 8. Neither defendant sold any units in Group 3. Mack makes no trucks in Groups 1 through 5, which represent 92% of Chrysler's truck registrations. All of Mack's trucks are in Groups 6, 7 and 8, which account for only 8% of Chrysler's truck registrations. 96.9% of Mack's trucks are in Groups 7 and 8, whereas only 1.7% of Chrysler's trucks are in these groups. [5] In addition to Mack, there are five substantial competitive producers of heavy duty trucks. The largest of these is International Harvester Company (listed as one of the Big Four herein), registering, in 1963, 37.6% in Group 7 and 25.2% in Group 8. Its sales were just under $2.0 billion for the fiscal year ended October 31, 1963, and its earnings increased from $36.3 million in 1954 to $68.3 million in 1963. White Motor Company is the second largest heavy duty truck producer, ranking second in Group 7 with 24.2% and third in Group 8 with 20.4%. It markets its trucks under the names of White, Autocar, Reo, Diamond T and Freightliner. Among White's six acquisitions since 1955, is that of the Industrial Diesel Engine Division of National Supply Co. Ford (another of the Big Four) ranks fourth in size as a manufacturer of heavy duty trucks. By the end of 1963 its sales of all products were $8.7 billion and its assets $5.9 billion. General Motors, the world's largest industrial corporation (which, with Chrysler, Ford and International Harvester, makes up the Big Four) ranks fifth in the sale of heavy duty trucks. Its 1963 sales of all products were $16.5 billion and earnings $1.6 billion. The sixth largest heavy duty truck producer is Pacific Car and Foundry Company, with 96% of its heavy duty truck production in Group 8, representing 7% of all trucks produced in that group. While Pacific Car sells principally in eleven Western States, it is expanding its sales in the Mid-West and East.

U.S. Suit Kills Chrysler, Mack Trucks Merger The Detroit Free Press / August 18, 1964 The proposed acquisition of Mack Trucks, Inc., by Chrysler Corp. was dropped Monday following the issuance of a preliminary injunction in Newark, New Jersey Federal court against the plan. Lynn Townsend, president of Chrysler, and C. Rhoades Macbride, president of Mack, in a joint statement said: “It is impractical for both business and financial reasons to keep a transaction of this nature in suspense for the extended period of time which would necessarily be consumed before the case could be tried and decided, even without regard to a possible appeal.” “Accordingly, although we adhere to our belief that the transaction would not lessen competition, but on the contrary would provoke competition, and is entirely lawful, we have no alternative but to terminate the transaction." The temporary injunction was issued by Judge Reynier J. Wortendyke at the request of the Justice Department which, charged in its suit that the proposed deal would be in violation of the Clayton anti-trust act. Judge Wortendyke said: "The evidence before me clearly discloses the probability that the Government will be able to prove its charged violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act." Mack stockholders at a meeting last week voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed acquisition.

Mack merger plans ended by Chrysler The Chicago Tribune / August 18, 1964 U.S. Injunction Is Final Straw Chrysler Corporation today dropped plans to acquire Mack Trucks, Inc., after a court injunction was issued in an anti-trust case opposing the acquisition. Judge Reynier J. Wortendyke Jr., of federal District court in Newark, New Jersey, issued a preliminary injunction barring the acquisition at the request of the Justice Department, which contends the acquisition would tend to reduce competition in the truck field. Chrysler and Mack immediately stated that while they disagree that lessoned competition would result, they have terminated their agreement rather than keep plans suspended pending a final decision. Stock Prices Fall Shortly after the news broke, Mack stock was off $6 at $41.25 and Chrysler stock was off 25 cents at $53.63. The Chrysler-Mack statement, issued by Lynn Townsend, president of Chrysler, and C. Rhoades MacBride, Mack chairman and president, said: “It is impractical for both business and financial reasons to keep a transaction of this nature in suspense for the extended period of time which would necessarily be consumed before the case could be decided.” “Accordingly, although we adhere to our belief that the transaction would not lesson competition but on the contrary would promote competition and is entirely lawful, we have no alternative but to terminate the transaction.” Had Shareholder’s O.K. The Justice Department contended the deal would have reduced competition in the truck and diesel engine industries, in violation of the Clayton anti-trust law. Shareholders of Mack Trucks gave overwhelming approval on August 11 to the proposed acquisition. Their action came after the anti-trust move by the government. Mack President MacBride told the 150 shareholders present at the August 11 meeting that the acquisition plan would be dropped if the courts granted the preliminary injunction. He was not available for comment on today’s court decision. MacBride said a long delay in the courts would make the deal “impractical and unworkable” for both companies.

Mack Trucks Approves Offer From Chrysler The Montreal Gazette / August 12, 1964 Stockholders of Mack Trucks, Inc. have approved a plan under which Mack’s assets will be acquired by Chrysler Corp. and Mack shareholders will receive Chrysler debentures in exchange for their shares. A total of 78.3 per cent of the Mack shares were voted in favor of the plan, somewhat in excess of the required two-thirds vote. C. Rhoades MacBride, Mack president and chairman, told the meeting that whether or not the deal goes through now rests entirely with a decision of the U.S. District Court. Mr. MacBride said that a decision is expected in ten days by the court on an application by the government for an injunction barring the merger. The Mack executive said that if the injunction is issued, the deal will be dropped at once. If it is denied, the transaction will be consummated. He explained that it might take a year for Mack to appeal an adverse ruling of the court which would provide a too long period of uncertainty to be undertaken as a good business risk. Earlier, a federal judge at Newark, New Jersey, reserved decision on the government’s request for a preliminary injunction barring Chrysler from acquiring Mack. Judge Reynier J. Wortendyke Jr., also continued for another 10 days a temporary restraining order enjoining the firms from taking any action on the acquisition. The government contends the transaction would be a violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The restraint was continued with the consent of attorneys on both sides.

Stockholders of Mack Trucks Back a Merger with Chrysler The New York Times / August 12, 1964 Stockholders of Mack Trucks, Inc. gave the green light to the proposed acquisition of the company by the Chrysler Corporation with an overwhelming vote yesterday Consummation of the plan however, depends upon the outcome of the Justice Depart­ment's antitrust suit filed ir Federal court in Newark, N. J Some 2,350,192 shares of Mack Trucks representing 78 per cent of the 3,377,000 out­standing shares voted for the multi-million dollar transaction at a special meeting in the Hotel Biltmore yesterday. There were 44,886 shares voted against the merger at the session, which lasted an hour and fifteen minutes. C. Rhoades MacBride, presi­dent of Mack Trucks, told some 150 shareholders present that ”unless the Government suc­ceeds in getting a stay, we will hold the closing as soon as pos­sible after the decision, if it is in our favor. Decision Up to Court “If the preliminary injunc­tion is granted, the transaction will be called off by both par­ties since in the opinion of out attorneys and Chrysler's, the time required for preparation, trial and decision of the case would be a year or more, and the deal, naturally, cannot be held in abeyance for that long,” Mr. MacBride said. He said the court has been so informed. He explained to the share­holders that the Government was seeking to prevent the pro­posed deal on the ground that it might substantially lessen competition and that it would violate the antitrust laws. “In our opinion,” he asserted, ”the opposite is true.” The Government has asked for a preliminary injunction and the companies involved have vigorously opposed such action. The matter now awaits the de­cision by the court in Newark. This is expected within 10 days and until then, the court has ordered that the closing not be completed. If the court denies the pre­liminary injunction, the Govern­ment has indicated that it would try to appeal and to ob­tain a stay pending the appeal. If the acquisition plan falls through because of Government opposition, “we have well timed targets in other directions,” Mr. MacBride said. He declined to elaborate on this statement, but it was believed he would pro­ceed with several internal pro­grams or other mergers. Should the merger take ef­fect, Mack Trucks would be op­erated as an independent sub­sidiary, but would function as a self-contained division of Chrysler. The joining would im­prove the company's position more rapidly, Mr. MacBride said. He noted that Mack Truck had only one line of business, that of making extra-heavy ­duty trucks. The Chrysler Corporation, which is based in Detroit, an­nounced plans to acquire Mack Trucks last May. The transac­tion would involve about $150 million. The proposed merger would provide Mack stockholders with a $50 Chrysler debenture bear­ing 4% per cent interest for each share of Mack stock held. The debentures already are be­ing sold on a when-issued basis of $56 or $57, Mr. MacBride told shareholders. Mack Trucks earned $4,527,­000, or $1.52 a share, in the first six months this year, com­pared with $3,856,000, or $1.28 a share in the 1963 first half. Earnings for the second quarter dipped to 52,115,000 or 70 cents a share from $2,369,999, or 80 cents a share in the 1963 sec­ond quarter. The Chrysler Corporation manufactures only a few heavy­-duty diesel-engine trucks. Both Mack Trucks and Chrysler con­tend that the deal actually would increase competition by enabling Chrysler to compete with large producers of trucks and diesels. The Justice De­partment charges that the ac­quisition of Mack by Chrysler would substantially reduce com­petition in the truck and diesel engine industries.

Chrysler Files Exchange Plan Securities and Exchange Commission News Digest / June 2, 1964 Chrysler Corporation,341 Massachusetts Ave., Highland Park, Michigan, filed a registration statement (File 2-22464) with the SEC on May 28 seeking registration of $164,337,050 of 4-3/8% convertible subordinated debentures (due 1985), to be issued by Chrysler as part of the consideration for its purchase of Mack Trucks, Inc. The debentures are to be offered initially at the rate of $50 of debentures for each share of Mack common outstanding at the closing of the purchase, and are also to be issued by Chrysler from time to time thereafter upon the exercise of presently outstanding warrants for the purchase of Mack common at the rate of $50 of debentures for each share of Mack common that would have been issuable if the Mack warrants had been exercised prior to the closing. Also included in the statement are (1) $20,000,000 of Chrysler 5-l/8% subordinated debentures due 1981, consisting of presently outstanding debentures of Mack, to be modified in certain respects and assumed by Chrysler at the said closing; and (2) 33,000 Shares of Chrysler common, issuable upon the exercise subsequent to the closing of employee stock options hereto granted by Mack which are to be assumed by Chrysler. According to the prospectus, certain stockholders of Mack may offer for public sale from time to time the Chrysler debentures or the Chrysler common shares into which the debentures may be converted. Chrysler is engaged primarily in the manufacture, assembly and sale in the United States of Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler and Imperial passenger cars, Dodge trucks, and related automotive parts and accessories, and in the sale of Simca passenger cars. Upon the acquisition of Mack Trucks, it will also engage in the manufacture and sale of extra-heavy trucks (including truck tractors). In addition to indebtedness, the company has outstanding 37,256,690 shares of common stock, of which management officials as a group own 389,800 shares. George H. Love is listed as board chairman and Lynn A. Townsend as president.

Chrysler Board Backs Bid To Acquire Mack Trucks The New York Times / May 13, 1964 The proposed acquisition of Mack Trucks, Inc., by the Chrysler Corporation moved a step closer to completion yes­terday with the approval of the transaction by the directors of both companies. The proposal originally had been announced on May 1. It must be approved by share­holders and holders of the funded debt of Mack at special meetings yet to be called. In a complicated arrange­ment, Chrysler plans to issue up to $164.5 million in convertible subordinated debentures to acquire the truck manufacturer. The exact amount will depend on the extent to which outstanding warrants for the purchase of Mack stock and employee’s stock options are exercised.

Mack Truck, Chrysler in Merger Move The Chicago Tribune / May 2, 1964 Officials Give Tentative O.K. A proposal under which Chrysler Corporation would obtain control of Mack Trucks, Inc. will be considered by the respective board of directors at special meetings in the near future. This was announced today by Lynn A. Townsend, president of Chrysler, and C. Rhoades MacBride, chairman of the board of Mack Trucks. They said management representatives of the two firms have agreed tentatively on general terms. Will Issue Debentures The proposal is that Chrysler issues to Mack 20-year subordinated 4-3/8 per cent debentures of Chrysler which Mack would offer to its stockholders at the rate of one $50 debenture for each Mack share outstanding on the date of purchase. The debenture would be convertible until December 31, 1969 into one share of common stock of Chrysler upon surrender of the debenture and payment of $15 by the debenture holder. Range to 164-1/2 Million Total issue of debentures will be approximately $138,700,000 to $164,500,000, the exact amount depending on the extent to which the outstanding warrants for purchase of Mack stock and employee stock options are exercises, a Chrysler spokesman said. Acquisition of Mack would permit Chrysler to diversify its commercial vehicles line, which currently is restricted to the Dodge truck line. Mack manufactures many heavy truck lines. Spokesmen said that if the acquisition is approved, present plans are that Mack Trucks, which has headquarters in Plainfield, New Jersey, will function as a self-contained operating division of Chrysler Corporation.

Volvo: "The cartel is not profitable" Dagens Industri / July 19, 2016 The EU Commission is punishing Volvo and four other truckmakers with a massive fine of approximately SEK 28 billion. Although Volvo recognizes its 14 year long participation in a truck pricing cartel, CEO Martin Lundstedt says the coordination of truck prices [by European truckmakers] did not affect profitability. In that case, why did Volvo participate in the cartel? He finds it hard to explain.

What do these "colorful" people from Charlottesville eat for breakfast? Unbelievable News flash: The only aspect that matters about illegal (undocumented) immigrants is that they leave this country within 24 hours, and then follow our laws and procedures on "legally" immigrating into the U.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Black Lives Matter protesters shut down I-95 in Virginia Land Line (OOIDA) / July 19, 2016 A group of protesters forced Interstate 95 in Richmond, Va., to be shut down during rush-hour traffic on Monday, July 18. Thirteen people were arrested in the incident. Protesters blocked the southbound lanes at 5:45 p.m. near mile marker 76. The protest included some 30 people from the Black Lives Matter movement. Police arrived on the scene about 6:20 p.m. Thirteen people were arrested for being pedestrians on a highway, and for impeding the flow of traffic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Richmond Times-Dispatch / July 18, 2016 Thirteen people were arrested Monday evening after a group of protesters shut down rush-hour traffic on Interstate 95 south of the Belvidere Street exit. The demonstration, which began shortly before 6 p.m. in the southbound lanes, was in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, according to a news release from the group. The group of about 30 protesters held signs — one of which read “White silence is violence” — while shouting, “Black lives matter,” and “No justice, no peace, no racist police." The news release said “the protesters emphasized the crisis faced by black trans women and black women in Virginia, especially at the hands of the police.” By 6:20 p.m., Richmond police were on the scene and after two warnings to move from the road to the grass, several protesters were in handcuffs. Those who refused to exit the interstate were charged with being pedestrians on a highway and for impeding the flow of traffic. Thirteen protesters were arrested and transported by two police vans to the Richmond City Justice Center for processing. Those who chose to move stood along Belvidere continuing to protest. One woman in handcuffs shouted “Black lives matter” from the street below, while those on the sidewalk above echoed her chants. In the release, which protesters handed out along Belvidere Street, the group cited several black trans women they said had gone missing or were killed, adding, “As in the rest of the country and the rest of the world, Virginia does too little to love and protect black trans women from harm.” The group also cited several people killed by police. “We support the national Black Lives Matter movement’s demands to disarm the police, divest from prisons, and ensure safe and clean housing for black communities,” the release said. The protest was organized by a group out of Charlottesville via social media, said protester Nqobile Mthethwa. “As an ally and a white person, it’s important to take action. I’m a supporter in ending racism and police brutality,” said protester Noah Goodwin. .

Americans really should start scrutinizing our involvement in the Middle East. These people laugh at the west's political correctness, and fear of acting in any way that could be remotely viewed as racist. Since 9/11, we've vividly known the madness of the Middle East is no longer contained within the borders of that region. Using Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt as a mentor, America should be walking with a big stick. We needn't be arrogant, but we must be rock solid in firmness. While we welcome genuine friendship, "our enemies must fear us". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States and Turkish-backed Syrian rebels behead child A United States-backed (CIA) Syrian militant group has been filmed beheading a child. On the 19th July 2016, during the northern Aleppo offensive, Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki fighters recorded themselves beheading a Palestinian child named Abdallah Issa who was aged between 10-13. The al-Zenki claimed he had been fighting for the Syrian government in Aleppo with Liwa al-Quds. Liwa al-Quds refuted this and claimed the child was a Palestinian refugee who was kidnapped. The murder took place north of Aleppo in Handarat, in an unofficial Palestinian refugee camp named Ein El Tal. Prior to being displaced by rebel groups in 2013, the camp housed 7,000 Palestinians. The video captures Nour al-Din al-Zenki fighters in the back of a pickup truck with a child they claim is an al-Quds soldier supporting Assad's Syrian forces. One of the fighters shouts “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) after taking a small knife to the boy's throat and cutting his head off at the Handarat Palestinian Refugee Camp in Northern Aleppo. Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki has received both fiancial aid and weapons, including U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles, from the United States. As of 2014, it is reportedly one of the most important rebel factions in Aleppo. According to the Amnesty International, Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, along with the 16th Division, the Levant Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and the al-Nusra Front, has been involved in abduction and torture of journalists and humanitarian workers in rebel-held Aleppo during 2014 and 2015. .