Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?

[Caustic Logic]

The usual suspects praise Gaddafi as a democrat. That indicates how seriously their opinion should be taken.

So clever at unearthing "indicators." Just so you know, your avoidance of the facts provide aid and comfort to mass-murdering Salafist sicko false-flaggers. And they hate you, too. They have no respect for the infidels they "fool" into plunging nations into chaos for their benefit.

Funk De Fino: Any good reason a massive lie like this shouldn't have "holes" poked in it, or even be torn apart? Oh I know, it's not a massive lie, you think - the rebel report and eyewitness miracle escapee version is the truth.

Anything handy besides blind faith and habit to patch the holes up? If not, consider it torn up pretty good and take note.

Here's a challenge for either of you or anyone else: can you explain what's even remotely reliable about the testimony of the star witness for "what happened at Houla," 8-11-year-old Ali Al-Sayed? Can anyone tell me, from his testimony, what his father's name was? Or how many family members were killed? Did the men of the house get shot first, or last after hiding while everyone else was killed? Do you buy how a bullet graze on his hand turns to three faint scratches three days later? how he saw the same Alawite-accent-having soldiers at his own uncle's house asking about the house they just hit? and then caught this uncle on state TV the next day lying about "terrorist gangs" killing his family?

You seriously buy that? Or consider him coached but still his story must coincidentally be true? Why? Aside from blind faith and habit, do you have any reason?

 

[Virus]

So clever at unearthing "indicators." Just so you know, your avoidance of the facts provide aid and comfort to mass-murdering Salafist sicko false-flaggers. And they hate you, too. They have no respect for the infidels they "fool" into plunging nations into chaos for their benefit.

LOL.

And Gaddafi was a democrat.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Poking holes in the amazingly true rebel story:

After the high toll was announced from Tremseh, as was the case with Houla and other similar episodes, Western leaders lined up to condemn the mass killings of civilians. Col. Riad al-Assad, based in Turkey as the ostensible leader of the loose coalition of fighters called the Free Syrian Army, told the Arabic television network Al Jazeera on Thursday that there had been no opposition fighters in the town.

Although what actually happened in Tremseh remains murky, the evidence available suggested that events on Thursday more closely followed the Syrian government account.

New York Times

The observers have been there now, by the way-first time afield in about a month.

U.N. observers are unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the Treimseh, Syria, killings were a government massacre of civilians or the result of insurgent-government clashes.
...
the initial U.N. report makes no mention of bodies; remains may already have been buried.
...
But the U.N. team did conclude that "an attack," apparently by government forces, "appeared targeted at specific groups and houses, mainly of army defectors and activists," according to the preliminary report. "There were pools of blood and blood spatters in rooms of several homes, together with bullet cases."

LA Times
#1-how do they know those were activist homes? Because activists told them so? What if some of these were the homes hit in the pre-battle massacre?
#2 - Activists and defectors = rebel fighters = "terrorists" = civilians. We're all referring mostly to the same class of people under different names - and it's NOT noncombatant residents of Tremseh as it sounds when you say "an attack on Tremseh"
#3 - the Syrian army acknowledges attacking some homes.

A Syrian military source stated Friday the army killed "many terrorists" in al-Treimseh, but no civilians. "Army units carried out a special operation," the spokesman said, "targeting armed terrorist groups and their leadership hide-outs."

[The operation] "eradicated the terrorist groups' lairs and killed many terrorists," he said, adding that "the terrorists were dealt with, while there were no civilian victims."

The spokesman also said that after the operation, "our armed forces... carried out a search operation, and found the bodies of a number of people whom the armed terrorist groups had abducted and assassinated."

http://www.dp-news.com/en/detail.aspx?articleid=126168

Some new twists on the rebel story:

Abdulbaset Sieda, president of the opposition Syrian National Council, said on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” ... “The objective behind this massacre is to send a message of terror to the citizens and push the country toward a civil war between factions,” Sieda said.

The opposition group said as many as 305 people were killed in the assault on the Sunni Muslim village, some as they tried to flee the town.

Young men on motorcycles tried to flee. Punks.

I still think the attack was meant to "send a message of terror to the citizens and push the country toward a civil war between factions," but then the army showed up.

 

[JihadJane]

I await their reasoned arguments with bated breath!

 

[McHrozni]

#1-how do they know those were activist homes? Because activists told them so? What if some of these were the homes hit in the pre-battle massacre?

To be able to assume this, you need to agree to following assumptions:
1. people who have nothing to do with rebels or even support the government stayed there, despite the dangers
2. the rebels knew where and when the attack will come and were able to enter the homes to massacre them just before the attack came
3. the rebels didn't use such golden opportunity for ambush
4. government side didn't notice that, even though it would be a propaganda coup

Unless you show some evidence for all four (or evidence for alternative, equally good explanations), this is just another rather pathetic attempt to defend Assad. Is he paying you for this by the way?

McHrozni

 

[JihadJane]

To be able to assume this, you need to agree to following assumptions:
1. people who have nothing to do with rebels or even support the government stayed there, despite the dangers
2. the rebels knew where and when the attack will come and were able to enter the homes to massacre them just before the attack came
3. the rebels didn't use such golden opportunity for ambush
4. government side didn't notice that, even though it would be a propaganda coup

Unless you show some evidence for all four (or evidence for alternative, equally good explanations), this is just another rather pathetic attempt to defend Assad. Is he paying you for this by the way?
McHrozni

I was impressed with your effort until the last, hilited bit, where the post, unfortunately, disintegrates into bland, tired clichée. Are you being serious?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks, JihadJane. You're more than fair to McHrozni here.

McHrozni, you're engaging and thinking. Thanks for that.

To be able to assume this, you need to agree to following assumptions:
1. people who have nothing to do with rebels or even support the government stayed there, despite the dangers
2. the rebels knew where and when the attack will come and were able to enter the homes to massacre them just before the attack came
3. the rebels didn't use such golden opportunity for ambush
4. government side didn't notice that, even though it would be a propaganda coup

Unless you show some evidence for all four (or evidence for alternative, equally good explanations), this is just another rather pathetic attempt to defend Assad. Is he paying you for this by the way?

McHrozni

First, I don't have to prove anything, let alone all four of those, to ask what if. Second, it would help though to make a case for that possibility.

And a little time for this is covered in my contract. I am getting paid big money by the Fascist dictator defense fund (FDDF). But they tell us to always say we're concerned for the people of Syria. So, back to the act

You could point out we don't know there was a pre-battle massacre at all. The rebels have the massacre after the shelling and gov. attack, after the rebel defenders fled. The gov. has the massacre happening first, being the reason they were called in. The details are still hazy on all sides, no firm opinion yet, but I have my professional bias as a starting point...

In this scenario, I don't imagine they were trying for an ambush, but for a massacre they'd blame on the regime - like Houla and Qubeir, but the size of both combined, the real realtipping point at the end of the observer mission.

If that's the case, it seems they had a swifter/stronger response than they thought (on active call-up duty whenever a UN meeting is called?), and hence the "massacre" (battlefield defeat).

There are signs of in-home killings in the style of the Houla or Qubeir massacres, setting that this probably happened in addition to the cited battle-some versions from both sides say as much, just blaming the other.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates more than 150 people died when government forces stormed the village. “Dozens were summarily executed,” the group said. “Some were killed by knives, blunt objects.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, ... The dead also included 17 women, children and elderly, the group said, along with 30 burned bodies that could not be identified.

"There were pools of blood and blood spatters in rooms of several homes, together with bullet cases." The monitors found that a wide range of weapons were used, including artillery, mortars and small arms. Observers saw a burned school and damaged houses "with signs of internal burning in five of them."

Five homes minimum, average six per, we can expect women and children among those 30s. Families targeted for what reason? Details will be treacherous...

 

[McHrozni]

I was impressed with your effort until the last, hilited bit, where the post, unfortunately, disintegrates into bland, tired clichée. Are you being serious?

Of course I'm serious. It's a fairly old pattern where CL constantly invents doubt about attrocities commited by criminals and then vehemently denies ever defending them.

That aside, since you ignored the glaring problems with his version of events, may I assume you agree his story is just ludicorus?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

First, I don't have to prove anything, let alone all four of those, to ask what if.

No one is denying you that right. However unless you show all four of those (or equivalents) were true, your "what if" just recieved a "then". The version of events you put forward is improbable enough to be considered impossible until you do. Good luck and have a nice day

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

Both comments, bull, smart-sounding words aside. The world has a history of manipulating people and you won't see it.

CL constantly invents doubt about attrocities commited by criminals and then vehemently denies ever defending them.

Where doubt is warranted, yes to the first. On the latter, any citations?

For good measure, I'll try to answer your four points now, even with all the unknowns.

1. people who have nothing to do with rebels or even support the government stayed there, despite the dangers

We don't know enough about who was targeted in what part of town, how long the rebels were in town, in what neighborhood, openly or secretly, and so on. It sounds like the fighting part was rather sudden and they didn't have time to leave, even if they wanted. SOme people believe in holding their ground and keeping their homes and trying to ride the crisis out instead of running away.

2. the rebels knew where and when the attack will come and were able to enter the homes to massacre them just before the attack came

Either they knew an attack was coming and coordinated or, more likely, the army coordinated with the rebels after they initiated things. Take your pick.

3. the rebels didn't use such golden opportunity for ambush

Not sure what you mean here. They reportedly attacked the convoy, but it attacked back stronger, or another wave came in support, pick one. (I think they came all at once, in force)

4. government side didn't notice that, even though it would be a propaganda coup

Didn't notice the non-ambush? You'll need to
1) explain yourself better
2) explain why the Army is still functioning when every decent soldier wants to defect from their killing machine
3) make yourself a sandwich

If you cannot do these four things, you will lose a challenge.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And will Virus or FdF ever accept the challenge I set out above? Is there anything true about what that kid Ali says? Why do you guys buy activist myth laundered through an adorable 8yo kid?

Do you realize what happened at Al-Houla and why the truth of it matters? Or is this all just a game of 'get the dictator,' with truth or lies or whatever? Because if so you run the risk of playing the parallel game of 'absolve the false-flagging child slashers and put them in charge of all Syrians.' It can happen with or without your help, but you really want to keep playing these games?

 

[McHrozni]

On the latter, any citations?

For example:
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8453724#post8453724

For good measure, I'll try to answer your four points now, even with all the unknowns.

1. people who have nothing to do with rebels or even support the government stayed there, despite the dangers

We don't know enough about who was targeted in what part of town, how long the rebels were in town, in what neighborhood, openly or secretly, and so on.

So the whole theory has no factual backing whatsoever, it is purely your own imagination at work? I suspected as much, but it's nice to see you admit it.

2. the rebels knew where and when the attack will come and were able to enter the homes to massacre them just before the attack came

Either they knew an attack was coming and coordinated or, more likely, the army coordinated with the rebels after they initiated things. Take your pick.

The army coordinated the attack with rebels so they could massacre some people who support the government?

Wait, what?

3. the rebels didn't use such golden opportunity for ambush

Not sure what you mean here. They reportedly attacked the convoy, but it attacked back stronger, or another wave came in support, pick one. (I think they came all at once, in force)

So no ambush. Okay, it might have been just incompetence or lack of proper arms.

4. government side didn't notice that, even though it would be a propaganda coup

Didn't notice the non-ambush? You'll need to
1) explain yourself better
2) explain why the Army is still functioning when every decent soldier wants to defect from their killing machine
3) make yourself a sandwich

The army didn't notice the massacre of their own supporters, not the non-ambush that happened (?). There are also indecent soldiers in every army, so I don't know what your problems is with that.

If you cannot do these four things, you will lose a challenge.

Learn to count to four.
Hint: 3 < 4.

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

For example:
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8453724#post8453724

Not supportive of your characterization, but I can let it slide.

So the whole theory has no factual backing whatsoever, it is purely your own imagination at work? I suspected as much, but it's nice to see you admit it.

No, there's circumstantial evidence too, like what happened at Houla, the similar "branding" used here, the similar timing, etc. If you say my theory is based on nothing but imagination, what more supports the other side? "Activists say," several different versions this time. Hint: if activists say something, it's more evidence yet for the opposite.

So, no proof, few certain facts, but some evidence and not too much imagination required to see how it could all fit together.

The army coordinated the attack with rebels so they could massacre some people who support the government?

Wait, what?

Co-opting the word "co-ordinated." It's supposed to sound a little silly. What I meant was, they responded to calls from the town and that's how they got there - the rebels invited them, in a roundabout way, but might've hoped they would be slower, or maybe a smaller force they could ambush. We don't know what they were thinking. We don't know much, including if there's any real reason to accept the rebel version(s).

So no ambush. Okay, it might have been just incompetence or lack of proper arms.

Both, probably, but mainly Lack of arms - the government would be hitting harder now that it's considered open war. Hence, the activists lost and were "massacred."

The army didn't notice the massacre of their own supporters, not the non-ambush that happened (?). There are also indecent soldiers in every army, so I don't know what your problems is with that.

The government (and its one named witness so far) have cited the killing of people, in homes, and kidnapped, their throats slit in an olive grove. Although now the overall numbers are getting strangely small, given the groupings of bodies previously described. This all still could use a lot more sorting out - it's extra confused this time.

Learn to count to four.
Hint: 3 < 4.

McHrozni

Learn to presume I can. I was being silly, hoping to lighten things up a tad by giving you a challenge you couldn't meet. You could have made two sandwiches and squeaked by, though.

 

[McHrozni]

Not supportive of your characterization, but I can let it slide.

That's unusually weak, even for you

"Activists say," several different versions this time. Hint: if activists say something, it's more evidence yet for the opposite.

Why is that? Are they all pathological liars and therefore psychologically incapable of telling the truth (easily), or are the government side saints and unable to do any bad? These are pretty much all the options you have. Any other explanation and you can't take their claims as evidence for anything else.

So, no proof, few certain facts, but some evidence and not too much imagination required to see how it could all fit together.

Well, it's proof you're indeed trying very hard to defend the regime. I mean come on, presenting a claim of government atrocities as evidence the atrocities weren't committed by the government is a tad too obvious to ignore.

Co-opting the word "co-ordinated." It's supposed to sound a little silly.

That's one thing you managed to do properly at least, making your explanation sound silly. I'm happy for you.

What I meant was, they responded to calls from the town and that's how they got there - the rebels invited them, in a roundabout way, but might've hoped they would be slower, or maybe a smaller force they could ambush. We don't know what they were thinking. We don't know much, including if there's any real reason to accept the rebel version(s).

You seem to be pretty happy at accepting a (pro-) government version however. Why is that?

The government (and its one named witness so far) have cited the killing of people, in homes, and kidnapped, their throats slit in an olive grove. Although now the overall numbers are getting strangely small, given the groupings of bodies previously described. This all still could use a lot more sorting out - it's extra confused this time.

Convenient how there is only one "witness" and therefore zero chance of having multiple versions. Obviously that makes the story much more credible by your standards
Secondly, notice how the number of dead drops as the government controls the area longer. It's exactly as if they were actively involved in a cover up. I would expect an exactly opposite turn of events, had there been a massacre of government supporters.

Learn to presume I can.

I have learned to expect little from you. I have not yet been wrong in this regard. You proved me right yet again.

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

Still weak. A few (not really) clever word games, victory dances, lots of "you," and questions for me indicating you think you've "got my number." Everywhere you've imagined the stupidest version of what you think I might've meant, to make me seem stupid, you are wrong. Feel free to make more respectful guesses, if you like, or just keep pretending with your little straw men.

I've acknolwedged there's little here we know, that we're dancing in the muck trying to argue over this "Tremseh massacre," and your argument is basically to try and push me down in the muck with every little ... oh, it's too complex to explain, but I can see it, and it's annoying. I don't think you mean to, but man, it is annoying. No,you didn't win anything for real.

Convenient how there is only one "witness" and therefore zero chance of having multiple versions. Obviously that makes the story much more credible by your standards

Something like that is a fair point. But you can't hold it against me. There's only one witness named with details in English that I know of yet. Sorry.

The government would also rely on army reports, and they're witnesses. You surely consider them physically incapable of telling the truth, ever, because of Assad's mind control rays. Clearly indicative of the level of logic to expect from you, and well-justifies my presumption that everything you say is bound to be a steaming pile of dodo doodoo.

(see what I did there? Tha's one example back atcha)

Why are YOU, McHrozni, so eager to use every little trick possible to ridicule every new idea I offer? Why so little tolerant, skeptical, open-minded examination?

Why do you feel such a need to consider the rebel version of this event true? Is it because you consider them saints, made of pure sentiment and angel tears, incapable of deceit or unwarranted violence?

And if we can get more on-topic, more solid ground with more established facts and some possible footing, do you find their record on Houla encouraging here? Which witness - or what other piece of evidence - convinces you THAT was a regime massacre, M? That would count as circumstantial evidence in furtherance of the rebel version(s) here.

I cut you a little slack, because you've shown some ability to acknowledge things in the past, with pletiful qualifiers of course (however... that doesn't mean.... etc.) so What do you think of Ali? All the qualifiers you like, but is there anything you feel is reasonable to concede? The link yet again in case it's too far back now.

 

[DC]

Still weak. A few (not really) clever word games, victory dances, lots of "you," and questions for me indicating you think you've "got my number." Everywhere you've imagined the stupidest version of what you think I might've meant, to make me seem stupid, you are wrong. Feel free to make more respectful guesses, if you like, or just keep pretending with your little straw men.

I've acknolwedged there's little here we know, that we're dancing in the muck trying to argue over this "Tremseh massacre," and your argument is basically to try and push me down in the muck with every little ... oh, it's too complex to explain, but I can see it, and it's annoying. I don't think you mean to, but man, it is annoying. No,you didn't win anything for real.


Something like that is a fair point. But you can't hold it against me. There's only one witness named with details in English that I know of yet. Sorry.

The government would also rely on army reports, and they're witnesses. You surely consider them physically incapable of telling the truth, ever, because of Assad's mind control rays. Clearly indicative of the level of logic to expect from you, and well-justifies my presumption that everything you say is bound to be a steaming pile of dodo doodoo.

(see what I did there? Tha's one example back atcha)

Why are YOU, McHrozni, so eager to use every little trick possible to ridicule every new idea I offer? Why so little tolerant, skeptical, open-minded examination?

Why do you feel such a need to consider the rebel version of this event true? Is it because you consider them saints, made of pure sentiment and angel tears, incapable of deceit or unwarranted violence?

And if we can get more on-topic, more solid ground with more established facts and some possible footing, do you find their record on Houla encouraging here? Which witness - or what other piece of evidence - convinces you THAT was a regime massacre, M? That would count as circumstantial evidence in furtherance of the rebel version(s) here.

I cut you a little slack, because you've shown some ability to acknowledge things in the past, with pletiful qualifiers of course (however... that doesn't mean.... etc.) so What do you think of Ali? All the qualifiers you like, but is there anything you feel is reasonable to concede? The link yet again in case it's too far back now.

and your guesses about the interviewed people from Syria are repsectfull?

 

[Caustic Logic]

and your guesses about the interviewed people from Syria are repsectfull?

What do you mean?

If it's what I think:
Between me and McHrozni: We're fellow forum members, and he evidences a lack of respect. Within rules and all, but I don't like it.
ETA: And it's poor argument strategy, encouraging one to celebrate false victories while avoiding the actual ideas at play.

Between me and Ali: I'm examining a crime, and that star witness can't even remember which name goes with his father, uncle, or brother.

ETA: Respect, literally, means to give a second look, as if it matters, to not just presume and walk on by, but stop and re-consider. It's because I respected Ali, in this manner, instead of just pigeon-holing and stereotyping him as some "witness," that I was able to notice he probably isn't one, and has been sorely misunderstood.

 

[JihadJane]

Of course I'm serious. It's a fairly old pattern where CL constantly invents doubt about attrocities commited by criminals and then vehemently denies ever defending them.

That aside, since you ignored the glaring problems with his version of events, may I assume you agree his story is just ludicorus?

McHrozni

You seriously think it's likely that Caustic Logic is being paid by the Assad regime? Wow!

I haven't seen any indications in any of Caustic Logic posts that his research is motivated by an interest in defending the Assad regime. I see someone who is interested in exploring the possibility that we are (yet again) being deceived by rampant war propaganda.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yeah, thanks JJ. I just sort of ignored the accusation as a weak joke or some kind of bait. But to the extent he's serious (I'm starting to wonder), and for the record: No, I'm not getting paid by anyone. That's a weak attempt, if serious, to again cast doubt in a roundabout Rube Goldberg way. My opponent is a paid agent, is insane, can't count to four, is a lefty, is whatever I pretend and therefore whatever they're saying (no direct answer available) must be wrong.

Virus' quest for "indicators" is similar. Lots of different ways to indirectly admit they suspect they're actually wrong, and desperately seek easy, formulaic escape routes.

 

[McHrozni]

Why are YOU, McHrozni, so eager to use every little trick possible to ridicule every new idea I offer?

Not every little trick, not by a long shot, but I do pull a few here or there to piss you off. I call it entertainment

McHrozni