While they haven’t gotten nearly the coverage as the Syrian military’s “barrel bombs,” makeshift explosives-filled oil barrels rolled out of helicopters, Syrian rebel factions have turned to their own improvised weapons in the ongoing civil war.
Dubbing them “hell cannons,” the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights detailed the problem of rebels making improvised mortars out of old cooking gas containers filled with fertilizer 
and fired, by cannon, into government-held areas.
The problem is the same as that of the barrel bombs, they’re wildly inaccurate and tend to veer off-course, killing large numbers of civilian bystanders. The observatory confirmed over 300 civilians have been killed with the weapons since July, overwhelmingly in Aleppo.
Reports of hell cannon usage in Syria have been around for years, but this is the first report detailing the civilian consequences of such weaponry, something which has long been ignored.
Barrel Bombs? Hell cannons? What about drones? What about depleted Uranium? Agent Orange???….
Society — The organized will of those most greedy
Such a weapon of mass destruction being a great deal more damaging to the stability of society then terrorists could ever by, why is it that terrorists are able to terrorize the public like nothing else on earth?
Because government actions are by and large under the control of society, whereas, terrorists are unpredictable and under the control of conscience.
For a terrorist has a conscience and functions only by conscience, Whereas, society is the organized will of the upper half and functions by whatever will maximize pleasure and wealth.
How the MSM makes what the Arabs use seem so horrific. My God, the barrel bombs and hell canons are primitive and sound real bad. But weapons of the US lead forces are nicer in their carnage in blowing people to bits. The Hell Fire missile (US) doesn't sound so cozy to me. Great name. No matter what name weapons have, carnage is carnage.
I think people are missing the point of the article it is not just about the rebels using this terrible weapon, it is about how the U.S. is supporting people who use such a terrible weapon, while condemning others. The U.S. condemns Assad for killing civilians, but we support the rebels who do the same ting. the article is actually about the hyprocitical foreign policy of the U.S.
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a one man band in London who is pro the 'rebels'. I think the subtext may be 'they should be better supplied by the U.S'. Just how I read it.