Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?

[Childlike Empress]

It's win-win isnt it. A miracle survivor is suspect. No survivors is suspect. Difference in the stories are suspect. Identical stories would be suspect.

If only you looked at flyover witness with as much critique you may not support those morons that created that nonsense anymore!

Pathetic. If you don't want to discuss the topic, spare us your posts. But indeed the differences in the stories are of such kind like one who had just been passed by a huge plane can't tell if it was on his left or his right side. No honest mistake possible.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's win-win isnt it. A miracle survivor is suspect. No survivors is suspect. Difference in the stories are suspect. Identical stories would be suspect.

There is a point there. You're over-playing it, but...there's no total certainty in this area of witness analysis, and it's all psychology, with poorly recorded and re-arranged memories possible, as well as deception. And as soon as it's considered, could become double-deception, triple, a revolving door. Hypothetically.

That could mean eyewitnesses should be totally ignored. Clearly, our media isn't doing that, it's citing them like video cameras that can neither goof up nor lie. It could the lose-lose inversion of what you say I'm taking it as - and that's what the media is doing. By this, if they agree, it's because they both saw the same thing, if they disagree, it's natural variation proving they're real. If they miraculously survived, that happens. If they didn't, we should trust what lines the others attribute to them before the murder they probably personally witnessed from a convenient hiding spot.

Here's what I've found: the more specific you get, the answers to these ambiguities do narrow and can be assessed as more or less likely to be realistic variations as opposed to signs of poor co-ordination. What kind of miracle escape? Why almost exactly one from each and every house? What kind of inconsisties? The color of a person's shirt? The order of their attack? The time of day? Whether they looked and acted like Alawite militias or like Haytham al-Halaq'slocal crew and a bunch of foreigners? Whether heavy artillery or light mortars and RPGs were used? Which families were targeted and tallied? Their religion and political affiliation?

As I said, small inconsistencies will not play in very much, if at all, here. But the big picture is two big pictures. CE is right that no realistic memory difference can explain the vastly different versions told, broadly, by the two different sets of witnesses. One of them must be lying and, apparently, co-ordinating thei lies to approximate reality. Did Assad's people decide to do this slaughter right before Kofi Annan's visit and rely on their known media savvy and a few coached witnesses to get them out of trouble?

Or did the other side, with the actual known record of getting outsiders to believe them, kill and fake their way into it getting pinned on the other side? Because one of those two is probably the case.

 

[HoverBoarder]

The problem is that we have two rather strong sets of witnesses who both differ internally on details, but overall tell two stories almost diametrically opposed. See here.

Witnesses observing mass killings and human right abuses on both sides does not mean that they all wrong. Just different sides of a bloody civil war.

The primary difference is whether the outside supporters of either side will ignore, downplay, or dismiss the killings of one side in order to help justify their support. Which is effectively encouraging the impunity of the worst kinds of war crimes from both sides.

Understandably, some people's biases are more important to them than the people actually affected by the fighting.


Most people, even those that have direct financial and military interest in the country like Russia, admit that there are atrocities on both sides like Gennady Gatilov, the deputy Russian foreign minister:

“Bloody reprisal of the opposition forces over the government supporters in Aleppo proves that human rights are violated by both sides.”

 

[HoverBoarder]

Do you believe the Shabiha babysit soldiers to keep them from defecting? It's a pretty stupid claim.

Given the large number of witnesses who have described this happening in many parts of the country, I would expect that if there was a genuine interest in honestly assesing the situation that it would be taken seriously.

Instead of just "the dictator says it isn't so, so it cant be true."

or "it is easier in supporting a blanket anti-western ideology to ignore that and focus on unsupported propaganda that does."

I have no doubt the government has been unnecessarily harsh in spots, and is attacking people who are in cities. But they are only some, few, violent, sectarian, Salafist, deceptive, foreign-backed, foreign-armed, foreign-fighter-staffed people of Syria co-opted into a sick takeover tool for NATO and the Saudis. Yeah, no problem seeing them shut down. I predict it - in addition to other changes - would end the violence. Assad should step down - after all that, not before to reward it.

...right. So you think that a dictator who has tortured and killed over 10,000 of his own people should voluntarily step down only after he has killed everyone whom he deems to be the "bad guys."

First of all, why would a dictator ever declare that he is completely done fighting the "armed gang terrorist thugs" of former Syrian soldiers, ambassadors, and civilians, if he had to give up power afterwards?


That would mean a neverending conflict for the Syrian people, and do you honestly believe that that course would result in the least civilian deaths?

Even if you are not going to address the war crimes of one side in the conflict due to personal bias, it should be clear that giving impunity to either side is not in the best interests of the Syrian people.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I wonder how those people who really have a horse in the race would approach groups that acknowledge war crimes on both sides. Amnesty Interantional and Human Rights Watch have for example issued statements condeming the recent video taped executions by rebels as well as other reports of war crimes, but they have also condemed the Syrian regimes leathel atacks on civilians and protesters which brought about this conflict:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/syria-all-out-repression-armed-conflict-aleppo-2012-08-01

The new report All-Out Repression is based on first-hand field investigations by Amnesty International in Aleppo city at the end of May.

It documents how security forces and the notorious government-backed shabiha militias routinely used live fire against peaceful demonstrations, killing and injuring protesters and bystanders, including children, and hunted down the wounded, the medics who treated them, and opposition activists.

“The current onslaught on the city of Aleppo – which puts civilians even more at grave risk– is a predictable development which follows the disturbing pattern of abuses by state forces across the country,” said Donatella Rovera, Senior Crisis Response Adviser at Amnesty International, who recently spent several weeks investigating abuses in northern Syria, including in Aleppo.

The new report provides evidence that families of demonstrators and bystanders shot dead by security forces have been pressured to sign statements saying that their loved ones were killed by “armed terrorist gangs”.

If there is evidence that doesn't support those engaged in the Assad or Rebel side, it is predictable how the most biased observers will act. However, if groups acknowledge abuses on both sides, does that mean that they will still be dismissed or ignored?

Or will the most biased parties just cherry pick the evidence that supports the side they are cheerleading for?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Witnesses observing mass killings and human right abuses on both sides does not mean that they all wrong. Just different sides of a bloody civil war.

We are talking about witnesses to one event here. The so-called Houla massacre.

 

[A'isha]

We are talking about witnesses to one event here. The so-called Houla massacre.

You don't deal with it in the other thread, either.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You don't deal with it in the other thread, either.

"Either"? lol. CL, it seems the link to our wiki is somehow invisible.

 

[HoverBoarder]

We are talking about witnesses to one event here. The so-called Houla massacre.

Exactly, and the pattern of cherry picking sources is the main reason why this is even being debated in the first place.

 

[Childlike Empress]

My goodness folks, this is like talking to a brick wall.

*CLICK HERE*

Any suggestions how to make it MORE neutral?

 

[funk de fino]

Pathetic. If you don't want to discuss the topic, spare us your posts. But indeed the differences in the stories are of such kind like one who had just been passed by a huge plane can't tell if it was on his left or his right side. No honest mistake possible.

I was discussing your approach to the topic. Just a shame you dont put the same effort into the lies that those CIT buffoons spread. It just might help you with your credibility problems here.

 

[funk de fino]

There is a point there. You're over-playing it, but...there's no total certainty in this area of witness analysis, and it's all psychology, with poorly recorded and re-arranged memories possible, as well as deception. And as soon as it's considered, could become double-deception, triple, a revolving door. Hypothetically.

That could mean eyewitnesses should be totally ignored. Clearly, our media isn't doing that, it's citing them like video cameras that can neither goof up nor lie. It could the lose-lose inversion of what you say I'm taking it as - and that's what the media is doing. By this, if they agree, it's because they both saw the same thing, if they disagree, it's natural variation proving they're real. If they miraculously survived, that happens. If they didn't, we should trust what lines the others attribute to them before the murder they probably personally witnessed from a convenient hiding spot.

Here's what I've found: the more specific you get, the answers to these ambiguities do narrow and can be assessed as more or less likely to be realistic variations as opposed to signs of poor co-ordination. What kind of miracle escape? Why almost exactly one from each and every house? What kind of inconsisties? The color of a person's shirt? The order of their attack? The time of day? Whether they looked and acted like Alawite militias or like Haytham al-Halaq'slocal crew and a bunch of foreigners? Whether heavy artillery or light mortars and RPGs were used? Which families were targeted and tallied? Their religion and political affiliation?

As I said, small inconsistencies will not play in very much, if at all, here. But the big picture is two big pictures. CE is right that no realistic memory difference can explain the vastly different versions told, broadly, by the two different sets of witnesses. One of them must be lying and, apparently, co-ordinating thei lies to approximate reality. Did Assad's people decide to do this slaughter right before Kofi Annan's visit and rely on their known media savvy and a few coached witnesses to get them out of trouble?

Or did the other side, with the actual known record of getting outsiders to believe them, kill and fake their way into it getting pinned on the other side? Because one of those two is probably the case.

You have some good points. I guess other things that infuriate me are the changing attitudes towards HRW and Amnesty and the UN depending on what story is being told. This happens with those of the left and the right, the pro Israel and the Pro Palestine, the Islamophobes and the anti semites.

There is a great bias from all sides and I am in no way saying you are the only one. Quite frankly some of the posters here have disgusting attitudes towards other human beings but that doesnt make them wrong all the time as it doesn't always make you wrong (despite the many assumptions and cherry picking you tend to do). A better balance from both sides would help the issues at hand as you are doing nothing for the people affected here. I thought maybe the silly stuff you posted during the Libya uprising threads might have opened your eyes a little. Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it yet. I see some talent being wasted? That is all.

 

[HoverBoarder]

My goodness folks, this is like talking to a brick wall.

*CLICK HERE*

Any suggestions how to make it MORE neutral?

Neutral?

You have a wide range of witnesses on one side, versus a blatant government propaganda channel run by the side widely agreed to have been involved in committing the massacres.

Neutral?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Neutral?

You have a wide range of witnesses on one side, versus a blatant government propaganda channel run by the side widely agreed to have been involved in committing the massacres.

Neutral?

And how were you able to form this opinion? Maybe by NEUTRAL PRESENTATION? Eh?

 

[HoverBoarder]

And how were you able to form this opinion? Maybe by NEUTRAL PRESENTATION? Eh?

You posted a source with information based upon interviews from a government propaganda channel run by the side that is widely accepted to have been involved with many massacres including Houla.

How is that supposed to be a neutral representation of both sides?

 

[Childlike Empress]

You posted a source with information based upon interviews from a government propaganda channel run by the side that is widely accepted to have been involved with many massacres including Houla.

How is that supposed to be a neutral representation of both sides?

What are you talking about? You and others accused me and CL of not paying attention to the other side, being biased, cherry-picking, and then you come back from a visit to our wiki telling us that it is full of "other side" witnesses and "our" set didn't convince you? Have you no intellectual honesty?

We might not agree with your conclusion but we ENABLED you to form it by treating both sides neutral, and we invited everyone to participate - just receiving a blank stare.

 

[HoverBoarder]

What are you talking about? You and others accused me and CL of not paying attention to the other side, being biased, and then you come back from a visit to our wiki telling us that it is full of "other side" witnesses and "our" set didn't convince you? Have you no intellectual honesty?

If you could put a percentage on how reliable you think the information coming out of SANA is, what would it be?

Especially after all of the video, witness accounts, and reporting that contradicts them.

How reliable did you think Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf was during the end of the Saddam regime?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Admit that we treated the issue neutrally or don't expect me to interact with you any further.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Admit that we treated the issue neutrally or don't expect me to interact with you any further.

Which means that I would be required to agree that the validity of the information provided by the Syrian state run news agency SANA is "neutral," which is what one side of the argument in the link that you provided is based off of.




You can never be 100% assured of the validity of any story, but we make reasonable assumptions as to what is and is not true based on bias (both personal and the source), past patterns of behavior, factual data, and your best judgment.

There are plenty of accounts of rebel war crimes on civilians, and primarily captured prisoners, as well as accounts of attacks and war crimes from Syrian regime forces as well. Reported from a wide range of news sources worldwide. It is reasonable to assume that many of those stories are true, and that there are major human rights abuses committed by both sides.

However, in Houla when one side of the story can only be found by sources that are directly involved in the incident, and is contradicted by the vast majority of sources on the issue. It is hard to reasonably judge that to be neutral.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Which means that I would be required to agree that the validity of the information provided by the Syrian state run news agency SANA is "neutral," which is what one side of the argument in the link that you provided is based off of.

Not all all does it mean that. It means that you admit that we treated both sides neutrally in collecting and presenting the information (just in case you still didn't get it: That wiki was created by me and the information there is 99% collected by CL and myself). That says nothing about the validity you or I give to any of the sources. This really can't be too hard to understand, can it?