Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?

[Caustic Logic]

When one side comes solely from government sources that have already been caught falsifying accounts, and the other comes from a wide range of witnesses from a wide range of sources, than you don't really have an alternative story to debate.

A nice collection of blatant government propaganda to be sure, but hardly anything factually relevant to this case.

So yeah, that characterization is under question.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074d54b459448e8.gif[/qimg]

Please read my post #603 and the discussion on the last page.

Your claim that the one set is only based on SANA/ANNA accounts is plain untrue, and a lot of the other set is based on unverifiable Skype/phone interviews from the rebel side which have been caught in falsehoods time and time again.

True. This knife cuts one way, and HB might well be holding it backwards.

I also remind you that the UN report was after more than a month not able to tell which of the scenario's is true, so it's far from as obvious as you make it to be. You can find it linked on the wiki.

Very important point that's easy to miss given the lame mainstream coverage of that report. They harped how the report found the government might be responsible for many of the deaths, and glossed over the complementary finding that maybe not, and laid out both possibilities side-by-side. The UN CoI gave credence to the "regime witnesses"... but HB is way better informed.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Did you even check Yalda on google maps?

I'm looking now. Bordeline. Outer suburb on the southern fringe, streets and (presumably low) buildings dominating the north properly urban half, fields dominating the southern half.

CE said

This is all countryside, not even suburbs.

Okay, not totally wrong, but wrong enough you're right to challenge it. But it depends which part of Yalda was referred to.

Reports today about moves on rebel held area of Tadamon in Damascus.

Huh, immediately adjacent to Yalda. By coincidence rebels are in one area right after some people (protesters?) were killed in the area next door (by the regime?), with no rebel connection? Hmmm... I think it's either like the battle of Tremseh, or less likely, something even worse like Houla...

 

[HoverBoarder]

I also remind you that the UN report was after more than a month not able to tell which of the scenario's is true, so it's far from as obvious as you make it to be. You can find it linked on the wiki.

The UN investigation into the Houla incident was subject to an enormous effort by the Assad regime to block their investigation, by mobbing them with regime loyalists in order to prevent them from getting to Houla (a tactic that surely must be indicative of a side that has nothing to hide from the incident).

The mobbing of the UN observers, and other obstructionist acts from the regime can be seen in the following video on the UN report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25EwF3W3FM

After the UN team conducted their investigation, they found the regime supplied story to be "unlikely." Which is an extremely diplomatic phrasing driven by the greater UN mission at the time to try to get the Syrian regime to comply with the UN brokered ceasefire.

From pg. 10 of the report.

53. The Commission determined that while the anti-Government forces could access the Abdulrazzak crime scene despite the superior firing position of the Government, it would have been difficult (although not impossible) for them to access the Al-Sayed family site. Thus, while the CoI could not rule out the possibility of anti-Government fighters being responsible for the killing, it was considered unlikely.

Still, despite the carefully phrased condemnation of the Assad regime human rights violations in the report, the final account was pretty damming of the Syrian position:

51. Government positions at the National Hospital and the Water Company appear to have had a clear line of site to the Abdulrazzak and Al-Sayed homes making access for perpetrators not aligned with the Government difficult. Government shelling will have caused a number of the deaths, and controlling the timing and location of the impact would also have made it easier to control access to the crime scenes. Finally, the manner in which these killings took place resembles those previously and repeatedly documented to have been committed by the Government, including in this report (see section, Violations by the Syrian Government, Unlawful killings).

52. The village as a whole and the particular neighbourhoods in question appeared aligned to the opposition more than the Government. Leaving the sectarian aspect aside, the CoI found that the victims from the Abdulrazzak and the Al-Sayed sites were taken to areas controlled by the opposition and it was opposition groups who first arrived to the scene, cared for the wounded, prepared the deceased for burial, and were present in large numbers during the funeral.

...

If the best great hope and success for the Assad regime's side of the story is to be told that it is "unlikely" that they are telling the truth, followed by a damning report, than it is really not all that different from being told flat out that they are lying, in a nice kind of way.

 

[Her Grey Eminence]

I don't want to appear foolish here, but it would appear to me that if the rebels had deliberately killed children at close range with a main purpose to diplomatically embarrass the regime then it would not be possible for us to support them.

Since we want to support the insurgency for the geopolitical reasons to bring in a regime in Syria that will cut off support to Hezbollah then obviously the rebels can not have done these killings and will never have done these killings. It is nothing person, none of us, not even Virus, likes to see children being killed. But sometimes we have tolerate it for the greater good.

I believe I have summed up the ideological positions of everyone in the debate. Let me know if I got anything wrong.

xoxox

Rosie

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't want to appear foolish here, but it would appear to me that if the rebels had deliberately killed children at close range with a main purpose to diplomatically embarrass the regime then it would not be possible for us to support them.

Since we want to support the insurgency for the geopolitical reasons to bring in a regime in Syria that will cut off support to Hezbollah then obviously the rebels can not have done these killings and will never have done these killings. It is nothing person, none of us, not even Virus, likes to see children being killed. But sometimes we have tolerate it for the greater good.

I believe I have summed up the ideological positions of everyone in the debate. Let me know if I got anything wrong.

xoxox

Rosie

Ummm, no. I don't see my position in there.

Welcome.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The UN investigation into the Houla incident was subject to an enormous effort by the Assad regime to block their investigation, by mobbing them with regime loyalists in order to prevent them from getting to Houla (a tactic that surely must be indicative of a side that has nothing to hide from the incident).

Where did you hear that? My impression was they never even entered Syria for their investigation, for reasons I'm not sure they explained. Hard to get mobbed that far away.

31. The CoI was unable to visit the site of the killing as it has yet to be afforded access to the country. This fact substantially hampered the investigation, and its findings should be viewed in that light.

That is to be considered. UNSMIS monitors did get to visit the site. I never heard of this claim of being blocked by pro-regime activists. That's what the video says, and allegedly shows. But if so, they eventually got inside, where rebels held sway following the brief incursion. It was their activists likely mobbing them then, ushering the monitors around to the mosque with the bodies and to any witnesses they spoke to (unclear on that point).

So where did you get that mobs blocked the UNHRC investigators? They say:

32. The CoI conducted its investigation by interviewing witnesses either by telephone/skype, or in person if they had fled the country. It collected and reviewed materials from a variety of sources, both governmental and non-governmental. The CoI reviewed satellite imagery taken prior to and after the incident, as well as other photographs and videos.

Pretty fair approach, considering. Your Al Jazeera video confirms the HRC investigators weren't allowed in country, by the regime they say, and maybe so. It says they conducted 383 interviewers! Wow! Wonder what kind of variety the accounts showed, how many under which heading? Were they mobbed by phone by alleged witnesses supporting the government version? Activist groups supporting the rebel version? How consistent were they? Will the UNHRC ever release these interviews?

As for the report, it does tend on balance to support the rebel version. It is not very clear, however, and that's odd. The UN at large and the Human Rights council have been about as bad as anyone at acting like each rebel report is true, if difficult to verify, condemning the gov., etc. but never announcing the opposite when a case falls apart, like it has a Tremseh, and should have for Houla. That they cast doubt on the government's story and reach for reasons to accept the rebel one is no surprise. That they (couldn't allow themselves to?) do that outright is what's unusual and telling.

Here's what they think happened, prior to the murky massacre:

The evidence collected by the CoI indicates that in the 24-hour period beginning at noon on 25 May 2012, at least 100 people were killed in the town of Taldou. Shortly after the Friday prayers, a demonstration took place near the town center. The protestors appear to have been fired upon or shelled by Government forces. Either in retaliation, or in a pre-meditated attack, anti-Government armed groups, including the FSA present in Taldou, fired upon the security forces checkpoints, probably overrunning one or two of them. Several people were killed in these clashes or as a result of the shelling. According to multiple accounts, shelling by Government forces continued throughout the day. The CoI was able to verify shelling damage to buildings by comparing satellite images from the morning of 25 and the morning of 26 May. Much of the damage appeared to be caused by mortars, including large caliber mortars, heavy machine guns or light artillery.

But only the Syrian regime possesses heavy artillery. The rebels only have weapons like machine guns and RPGs and mortars, capable only of... well, maybe about what the CoI saw. Main clear point - security positions were overrun, by rebel forces, in an apparently co-ordinated effort, at the same time of the alleged incursion prior to the massacres. The government version said that, and anti-regime activists never mentioned it. All the FSA types did in these stories was run away so they could be nowhere around when the massacre happened, returning later to pick up the pieces. The military guys they acknowledge dying, all defectors. They stayed behind, I guess, to fight the Shabiha.

Take a moment here to say "Hmmm...." You need to do a little more of that.

If the best great hope and success for the Assad regime's side of the story is to be told that it is "unlikely" that they are telling the truth, followed by a damning report, than it is really not all that different from being told flat out that they are lying, in a nice kind of way.

Whatever valid points you have in there, this is another mostly failed assessment.

Side-note: no response to question about the link supporting "have been caught coercing the falsification of witness accounts in Aleppo" You cited Amnesty, the other day. I'm sure it's not what you meant, being HRW, March, but I found this:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/syria-armed-opposition-groups-committing-abuses

Human Rights Watch has reviewed at least 25 videos on YouTube in which Syrian security forces or their alleged supporters confess to crimes under circumstances in which it appears that their statements were made under duress. At least 18 of these videos show detainees who are bruised, bleeding, or show other signs of physical abuse. Human Rights Watch cannot independently confirm the authenticity of these videos.

That's not the one you were thinking of, was it? That puts you one behind in the game of allegations of coerced confessions that you started.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Pretty fair approach, considering. Your Al Jazeera video confirms the HRC investigators weren't allowed in country, by the regime they say, and maybe so. It says they conducted 383 interviewers! Wow! Wonder what kind of variety the accounts showed, how many under which heading? Were they mobbed by phone by alleged witnesses supporting the government version? Activist groups supporting the rebel version? How consistent were they? Will the UNHRC ever release these interviews?

Good question. When I read the report I didn't learn much new, and with many of the claims I knew who made them. Take for example the second half of point 52, which HoverBorder cut out:

[...] The Commission has testimony indicating that those who fled the area, fled to anti-Government controlled parts of town. Still, without further investigation, the CoI could not determine whether these specific families had loyalties one way or the other. There appears to have been a retired member of the security forces, and perhaps even one active member, among the deceased. Some information, including a video viewed by the Commission, indicated that, at least, one of the deceased children was wearing a bracelet bearing the Syrian National Flag. The video could not be verified. Nor could the CoI establish whether the Al-Sayed family and the Mashlab family (new member of parliament) were, in fact, associated.

That's the key to finding out whose lying here, me thinks: The affiliations of the victim families. We know who said that they were hiding with anti-government rebels: It was Maryam Sayyid, in her interview with the UN observers (of which we only have a snippet thanks to an NPR report). Yet it is the same Maryam whose father and brother are the two mentioned members of the security forces: father retired police colonel, brother active soldier.

To me, her story obtained by SPIEGEL and quoted by HB above in #611 doesn't indicate Shabiha at all, it indicates third force, targeting them because they were seen as government supporters, even if they didn't see themselves as such:

Father and brother work for the government, brother treated with suspicion by the army because he was from rebel-dominated Houla, no fear of the army when they passed in the afternoon (btw matching with what our "knowledgeable woman" says about one of the gangs, maybe in military outfits, approaching from the south in the afternoon after conquering the lower checkpoint), never heard the in-your-face "Shabiha" slogans, fled and hid with local "anti-government" folks.

 

[Childlike Empress]

btw, here is video of the leader of the Sunni Berri clan and his associates executed in a mind-boggling rage (very graphic). No wonder they are pissed off. It's entitled "18+ Aleppo Shabiha Militia Boss Executed..." And here's news from the kidnapped TV presenter Mohammed al-Saeed:

[...] Al-Nusra, a little-known Islamist militant group, claimed the kidnapping and execution of Saeed in a statement on Friday.

"The heroes of western Ghouta (in Damascus province) imprisoned the shabih (pro-regime militia) presenter on July 19," said Al-Nusra. "He was then killed after he had been interrogated."

Posted on a forum featuring the al-Qaeda flag, Al-Nusra's statement showed a photograph of Saeed looking frightened, with his back against a wall in an unknown location. [...]

Last month, international media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders issued a statement on Saeed's kidnapping, and urged his captors to release him.

"News media and journalists – both professional and citizen journalists – should not be targeted by any of the parties in a war or civil war," it said at the time.

So by now the story of "Assad's Alawite militia" seems to have worn out and all who are perceived as "government supporters" including Journalists and Sunnis are labeled as "Shabiha" by the terrorists.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Some information, including a video viewed by the Commission, indicated that, at least, one of the deceased children was wearing a bracelet bearing the Syrian National Flag. The video could not be verified.

Small error there. That video was posted by late April at the latest, when this edit of it was made to emphasize that fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZOTDbUvRMo
I gather the killing of this family was in Houla, was the family of a military officer, and happened in early April. It seems to have followed smoky alleged shelling that left the rebel neighbors cowering inside for a time. Very Houla-like, and that kid's got a Bashar-supporter bracelet on.

Nor could the CoI establish whether the Al-Sayed family and the Mashlab family (new member of parliament) were, in fact, associated.

Quite apparently so, considering all the dancing around the issue - especially our star performer Ali with the unnamed evil uncle and Ali now insisting to Spiegel Mashlab was so distantly related there's no possible connection, Mashlab's family wasn't killed at all maybe.

It was Maryam Sayyid, in her interview with the UN observers (of which we only have a snippet thanks to an NPR report). Yet it is the same Maryam whose father and brother are the two mentioned members of the security forces: father retired police colonel, brother active soldier.

Agreed that sounds like her dad (retired military, cop, Mashlab's brother) and her brother (active, broken leg, on leave). That's what I thought reading that just now. Maryam, weird character, not obviously bunk, but I haven't dug deep yet or even watched her whole interview (transcribing as I watch to let it soak in-it's slow)... I didn't realize the source of the snippet NPR had.

 

[HoverBoarder]

As for the report, it does tend on balance to support the rebel version. It is not very clear, however, and that's odd. The UN at large and the Human Rights council have been about as bad as anyone at acting like each rebel report is true, if difficult to verify, condemning the gov., etc. but never announcing the opposite when a case falls apart, like it has a Tremseh, and should have for Houla. That they cast doubt on the government's story and reach for reasons to accept the rebel one is no surprise. That they (couldn't allow themselves to?) do that outright is what's unusual and telling.

Here's what they think happened, prior to the murky massacre:

But only the Syrian regime possesses heavy artillery. The rebels only have weapons like machine guns and RPGs and mortars, capable only of... well, maybe about what the CoI saw. Main clear point - security positions were overrun, by rebel forces, in an apparently co-ordinated effort, at the same time of the alleged incursion prior to the massacres. The government version said that, and anti-regime activists never mentioned it. All the FSA types did in these stories was run away so they could be nowhere around when the massacre happened, returning later to pick up the pieces. The military guys they acknowledge dying, all defectors. They stayed behind, I guess, to fight the Shabiha.

Take a moment here to say "Hmmm...." You need to do a little more of that.

The military acknowledges all defectors? That wouldn't fit very well with their -all rebels are "armed gang terrorist thugs," mantra-.

A long as you are on the subject of hmmm'ing, where's the serious critical analysis of the regime story? If the regime had already been shown to have been involved in civilian massacres in Homs and elsewhere, what extunating circumstances would cause a break in the behavior patterns of the regime to make this case so much different than the past incidencts of massacres by the regime?

To go so far out of the way to focus on minor witness details just to ignore the vast numbers of Syrians that have been killed in this conflict seems disingenuous. It is in short, cherry picking the UN determination of the regime's story as "unlikely," as a success for not being more damning, while ignoring the current UN assement that over 19,000 people have been killed in Syria following a pattern of intentional massive civilian killings by the regime.


Given the regimes previous actions in Homs and elsewhere, the inconsiseancy of the people that were killed vs. the government supplied story, the distribution of forces in the area, and witness interviews, CoI found the government story to be "unlikely."

Since the report overwhelmingly pointed toward government involvment in the Houla Massacre, they would have liked to have had more access to Syrian regime forces for investigation, but they were not given much cooperation from the Syrian regime.


Which is an understandable reaction from the Assad regime. Given that the situation in basically akin to having a police investigator who has overwhelming evidence to investigate a mass murder suspect whose story he considers "unlikely," but is required to ask permission from the suspect to be able to conduct the investigation, and is required to obtain permission from the suspect on what he is allowed to investigate.

If there was an investigation into Jamil Hassan, head of Air Force Intelligence, who is reported by a witness as being a central part in the government involvement of the Houla massacre, than maybe there would have been more damning testimony for the Syrian regime in the report.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The military acknowledges all defectors? That wouldn't fit very well with their -all rebels are "armed gang terrorist thugs," mantra-.

No, surprisingly, you misread that. It's the rebel sources saying those were defectors, I think. The DCHRS victim list has ten killed soldiers listed, the first translating as a "dissident lieutenant," the others just "lead the army." The gov. and some eyewitness (complelled liars? No clear opinion aside from ignorable?) said the soldiers were loyal and were killed at the security posts that were overrun by rebel forces shortly before the families were attacked.

A long as you are on the subject of hmmm'ing, where's the serious critical analysis of the regime story? If the regime had already been shown to have been involved in civilian massacres in Homs and elsewhere,

IF, to any meaningful extent, the government were shown to do this kind of thing - slaughtering whole families after attacking their own security posts, just ahead of Annan's crucial late-May visit, etc. - you'd have a strong point. What we see instead is a pattern of serious crimes like that being alleged.

In fact, the one regime killing of a little kid in Homs with a sniper that I've studied in detail is quite clearly a fobbed-off rebel crime. They shot 9-year-old Christian kid Sari Saoud late last year, after the army had withdrawn and killings escalated, and passed it off as the kind of proof you're looking for here of deliberate regime killing of kids. The link again, as you're either not looking, or it's not sinking in. Admittedly, one case doesn't establish much of a pattern, but how many specific cases have you brought to the table?

So if they killed Sari and just blamed the regime and urged foreign intervention ...

... what extunating circumstances would cause a break in the behavior patterns of the rebels?

As if I need to add to the backlog of points and questions you've ignored as I get and remain specific and you look for broad-sweep generalizations presented in simplified essays, aiming for a slam dunk, but without even leaving the ground.

To go so far out of the way to focus on minor witness details ...

Did you notice the major ones being covered too? Some say the attackers were rebel fighters, locals from Rastan they recognized, with foreign helpers. That's not a "minor detail."

...just to ignore the vast numbers of Syrians that have been killed in this conflict...

Just to do that? Is that why I've been analyzing witness accounts about the Houla massacre critically? To avoid conceding a vague impression of lots of other killings in other places?

Why does Ali Al-Sayed at least fail to even remain consistent with himself? You believe these witnesses, with little study, so... is he right when he said the Shabiha stole a vacuum cleaner alongside the TVs and computer, or when he said it was a washing machine? Is his father named Aref, Ali, or Shaoqi? Were the men killed first, or only at the end? Did he smear himself with blood to look dead, or simply lay his hand across his face? (Do you need the link again to ignore again?)

No answers expected, as usual. Main thing is, he must be right on the attack being a regime crime, because the corporte media has trusted him, and because the alternative story is just too hard to consider ...

...seems disingenuous.

It is in short, cherry picking the UN determination of the regime's story as "unlikely," as a success for not being more damning,

You seem extra hung up on repeating that one "unlikely" that came out a schizophrenic report. The UN is not an impartial observer - it's no big victory that they came out supporting the rebel version on balance and called the government's account "unlikely" in at least one easy-to-quote spot. They also disagree with huge important details of the rebel story and support crucial parts of the government's one. What they report doesn't really make sense, but they were trying to believe all the nearly 400 witnesses, when one set must be lying. We don't know how big the sets they heard from were and which one collectively made more sense, but the CoI, again, remained cautious and presented both narratives as possible, and both supported by at least some of the confused evidence they had. The media, and you, in presenting it, have been less cautious.

(ETA: So have I, of course. I don't have to appease New York, so I'm more free to read things differently and to say just what I mean)

...while ignoring the current UN assement that over 19,000 people have been killed in Syria following a pattern of intentional massive civilian killings by the regime.

That list of names, if the number's even fully accurate (sounds reasonable) includes everyone killed so far. Last I heard the government claimed around 4,000 soldiers, which sounds reasonable, and is probably much higher by now. It includes loyalists executed by rebels, kidnappees executed by either/both sides, Syrians killed by an Israeli rocket strike in May 2011, civilians killed in government shelling or murky massacres, rebel Syrian fighters killed in action, and probably quite a few foreign fighters KIA. Just to be clear, even according to the rebel tallies, the "regime" hasn't killed 19,000 Syrian civilians in line with their "pattern of intentional massive civilian killings" you allege. You didn't say that, bit it was strongly implied for some reason.

Since the report overwhelmingly pointed toward government involvment in the Houla Massacre,

Not as overwhelmingly as usual, more cautious by a good margin, for reasons you show no curiosity over...

... and that's all I have time for. Today and forward unless your approach changes. Hint - pick one specific point that's already been raised and ignored, and quit falling back on vague generalities.

One simple suggestion: Do you agree that one set or another of the witnesses is most likely making it up? What evidence do you have, from the possibly made-up material, suggesting it was made-up?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Small point on the 19,000 dead. It's not a UN estimate. The link says

The Syria uprising has left 19,000 dead since it erupted in March 2011. The U.N. estimates that 1.5 million people have been forced to abandon their homes but remain in the country.

Read More http://timesleader.com/stories/UN-General-Assembly-to-denounce-Syrian-crackdown,185850#ixzz22ffWbtyl

The number is from SOHR or whoever. The UN stopped counting several months ago as things got too confusing to follow. Look it up. The UN has 1.5 mil displaced as the rebels take over cities with outside help and get chased out again.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Where did you hear that? My impression was they never even entered Syria for their investigation, for reasons I'm not sure they explained. Hard to get mobbed that far away.

That is to be considered. UNSMIS monitors did get to visit the site. I never heard of this claim of being blocked by pro-regime activists. That's what the video says, and allegedly shows. But if so, they eventually got inside.

I am fully aware of the past inaccuracies in Al-Jazeera reporting, and take all of their coverage with a very critical eye, but the video evidence they provided in this case is valid since it was videos of UN observers, and it is highly unlikely that Al-Jazeera brought their own fake UN observers to film.

Providing evidence of one area that the Assad regime worked to block the investigation.

Also, the same video that I posted shows UN reps at Houla, so obviously it was shown that some UN reps were allowed into Houla.

It says they conducted 383 interviewers! Wow! Wonder what kind of variety the accounts showed, how many under which heading? Were they mobbed by phone by alleged witnesses supporting the government version? Activist groups supporting the rebel version? How consistent were they? Will the UNHRC ever release these interviews?

As for the report, it does tend on balance to support the rebel version. It is not very clear, however, and that's odd. The UN at large and the Human Rights council have been about as bad as anyone at acting like each rebel report is true, if difficult to verify, condemning the gov., etc. but never announcing the opposite when a case falls apart, like it has a Tremseh, and should have for Houla.

Well this is the crux of it. With 383 interviews, you are putting an enormous amount of your opposition to the investigation findings that Government supporters carried out the killings in Houla on the account of Ali Al-Sayed.

If one witness account was wrong out of the 383, if Ali is lying, it does not invalidate the majority of accounts and data pointing towards government involvement in the Houla massacre.


It is more likely that out of 383 accounts, that there were a lot more inaccuracies than that, but it still does not change the majority of evidence that points towards government involvement.

But only the Syrian regime possesses heavy artillery. The rebels only have weapons like machine guns and RPGs and mortars, capable only of... well, maybe about what the CoI saw.

At this point in the conflict, the toll was around 10,000 to 12,000 dead. The Syrian regime had already committed many many Houla's already through operations in Homs, and mainly from killing civilians through artillery strikes. A common practice for the regime in this conflict has been to shell any civilian neighborhoods that are suspected of helping the rebels.

Killing civilians as a terror tactic has been a blatant common practice of the regime.
Unless you think all of those artillery strikes were all faked by Western media...

 

[HoverBoarder]

IF, to any meaningful extent, the government were shown to do this kind of thing - slaughtering whole families after attacking their own security posts, just ahead of Annan's crucial late-May visit, etc. - you'd have a strong point. What we see instead is a pattern of serious crimes like that being alleged.

Around half of the number people that were killed in Houla are killed everyday in Syria. I saw earlier that you were trying to downplay the number of people that have been killed as 4,000-6,000 people instead of the 20,000 plus from other estimates.

Even if it is 4,000-6,000 number you cite, that is a lot of people to have been unnecesarily killed. I am primarily concerned with reducing the number of people that are being killed everyday.

In fact, the one regime killing of a little kid in Homs with a sniper that I've studied in detail is quite clearly a fobbed-off rebel crime. They shot 9-year-old Christian kid Sari Saoud late last year, after the army had withdrawn and killings escalated, and passed it off as the kind of proof you're looking for here of deliberate regime killing of kids. The link again, as you're either not looking, or it's not sinking in. Admittedly, one case doesn't establish much of a pattern, but how many specific cases have you brought to the table?

What exactly are we supposed to get from the Sari case? That we should support an increase in weapons to Syria from Russia as you do, or that we should give a free reign.

I personally see single person cases like the ones you bring up to be important, but not as much as the 20,000 + people that have died.

I find the executions of "suspected" Shabiha members, the mass killing of civilians everyday by heavy weapons from government forces, the killings of border guards, the killings of police officers, and many more cases to be abhorrent.

Single cases of murder are important, but I think that it is much worse to focus so much on single cases that you ignore the vast majority of the 20,000 + people killed.

As if I need to add to the backlog of points and questions you've ignored as I get and remain specific and you look for broad-sweep generalizations presented in simplified essays, aiming for a slam dunk, but without even leaving the ground.

It is fair to address all of the points that you have made, but I see it as disingenuous to focus so much on Ali while ignoring the majority of findings in the Houla incident, or to focus so much on Sari that you ignore the vast majority of killings that occur in the rest of Syria.

Did you notice the major ones being covered too? Some say the attackers were rebel fighters, locals from Rastan they recognized, with foreign helpers. That's not a "minor detail."


Just to do that? Is that why I've been analyzing witness accounts about the Houla massacre critically? To avoid conceding a vague impression of lots of other killings in other places?

Why does Ali Al-Sayed at least fail to even remain consistent with himself? You believe these witnesses, with little study, so... is he right when he said the Shabiha stole a vacuum cleaner alongside the TVs and computer, or when he said it was a washing machine? Is his father named Aref, Ali, or Shaoqi? Were the men killed first, or only at the end? Did he smear himself with blood to look dead, or simply lay his hand across his face? (Do you need the link again to ignore again?)

No answers expected, as usual. Main thing is, he must be right on the attack being a regime crime, because the corporte media has trusted him, and because the alternative story is just too hard to consider ...

Well, you would be wrong in thinking that investigators thought that the alternative (that the government was not directly involved in Houla), too hard to consider. You even cited that they considered that as a possibility before they conducted their investigation.

Again, the validity of the Ali account does not change the majority of accounts that point towards government involvement in Houla.

You seem extra hung up on repeating that one "unlikely" that came out a schizophrenic report. The UN is not an impartial observer - it's no big victory that they came out supporting the rebel version on balance and called the government's account "unlikely" in at least one easy-to-quote spot. They also disagree with huge important details of the rebel story and support crucial parts of the government's one. What they report doesn't really make sense, but they were trying to believe all the nearly 400 witnesses, when one set must be lying. We don't know how big the sets they heard from were and which one collectively made more sense, but the CoI, again, remained cautious and presented both narratives as possible, and both supported by at least some of the confused evidence they had. The media, and you, in presenting it, have been less cautious.

I am hung up on the conclusion of the most major investigation into the Houla incident because of their access to information that we are not. We are never going to go and interview the witnesses, review all of the evidence, and write a 30 pg. report.

I can point to how the accounts of "Zero Hour," seem to be very suspicious, but ultimately, my opinion would not hold sway as much as an official investigation.

 

[funk de fino]

I'm looking now. Bordeline. Outer suburb on the southern fringe, streets and (presumably low) buildings dominating the north properly urban half, fields dominating the southern half.

Its a burb alright.

CE said

Okay, not totally wrong, but wrong enough you're right to challenge it. But it depends which part of Yalda was referred to.

Yes, totally wrong. The word all is the kicker. You wouldnt let me off with that.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I am fully aware of the past inaccuracies in Al-Jazeera reporting, and take all of their coverage with a very critical eye, but the video evidence they provided in this case is valid since it was videos of UN observers, and it is highly unlikely that Al-Jazeera brought their own fake UN observers to film.

Providing evidence of one area that the Assad regime worked to block the investigation.

Also, the same video that I posted shows UN reps at Houla, so obviously it was shown that some UN reps were allowed into Houla.

Yep. You said the CoI investigators were blocked by mobs.

You also said you had a link proving the regime has coerced falsified witness statements. The one you provided didn't say that. Did you find the right link yet?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Its a burb alright.



Yes, totally wrong. The word all is the kicker. You wouldnt let me off with that.

Yes, all makes it incorrect, but maybe she saw a different map without the handy outline to clarify it's both suburb and rural. I'd let you get away with that/let it slide. It's a minor point anyway.

ETA: Check the Yalda border vs. Damascus border - the rural half is outside city limits, FWIW.

ETA: Another adjascent neighborhood attacked - the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee "camp" (on map, a Yarmouk camp and a Palestine camp side-by-side next to Al-Tadamon.), 21 killed in mortar attacks. Rebels also have mortars.

Rebels say Assad's forces did this, too. Or rather "We don't know where the mortars came from, whether they were from the Syrian regime or not the Syrian regime,"

Others disagree.

The second link says the Palestinians are generally pro-Assad. The first link says there was an anti-regime protest by the Palestinians that day. Is that why they were attacked, or was the planned attack the reason a demo was staged prior?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yes, all makes it incorrect, but maybe she saw a different map without the handy outline to clarify it's both suburb and rural. I'd let you get away with that/let it slide. It's a minor point anyway.

It's bitching, plain and simple. If documents.sy lists the place where it happened under countryside, that's good enough for me. If it's more halfway suburb/halfway countryside according to the map is completely irrelevant to your original question. No problem with letting funk have "the point" here as well, that's what he has to strive for.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Around half of the number people that were killed in Houla are killed everyday in Syria.

All by the government, just like in Houla, right?

I saw earlier that you were trying to downplay the number of people that have been killed as 4,000-6,000 people instead of the 20,000 plus from other estimates.

Hmm... was Al-Akhbar English wrong in characterizing the size of the list at the time the article I cited was published? (Feb. 28) That article is my source for the varied deaths, including Israeli-caused, that fleshed out even that small list that has since mushroomed to as high as 20,000, you say. I'm pretty sure it's the same list, and the same oft-misunderstood all-inclusiveness still characterizes it.

Even if it is 4,000-6,000 number you cite, that is a lot of people to have been unnecesarily killed. I am primarily concerned with reducing the number of people that are being killed everyday.

I think by now 4-6,000 soldiers alone have been killed, easy. At least as many opposition fighters, domestic and not, and a similar number of people killed in incidents like the one under study here.

What exactly are we supposed to get from the Sari case? That we should support an increase in weapons to Syria from Russia as you do, or that we should give a free reign.

I personally see single person cases like the ones you bring up to be important, but not as much as the 20,000 + people that have died.

I forgot to mention the same shooting that killed Sari also took the lives of 19 others. That's 20of your 20,000. Most of the rest are single and small cases like this, done over and over. Best way to solve these things is one case at a time. Countering my first finding with your un-investigated remainder isn't a strong position at all.

Single cases of murder are important, but I think that it is much worse to focus so much on single cases that you ignore the vast majority of the 20,000 + people killed.

And you're doing that a lot.

It is fair to address all of the points that you have made, but I see it as disingenuous to focus so much on Ali while ignoring the majority of findings in the Houla incident, or to focus so much on Sari that you ignore the vast majority of killings that occur in the rest of Syria.

He's the star witness, man. The most cited, the cute kid, who's clearly not even the age they say he is. Beyond that, you're right, but no one's yet proven he's the only one who seems possibly fake. I have notes on Maryam and Hana Harmut Sayyid up-coming. I didn't find "Fatima's" husband-implicating tale very confidence inspiring either. And the lady who ran away when one Shabih shot another by mistake and they got distracted trying to get medical help.

Well, you would be wrong in thinking that investigators thought that the alternative (that the government was not directly involved in Houla), too hard to consider. You even cited that they considered that as a possibility before they conducted their investigation.

Was referring to you. They seem to have considered and found it too awful (and inconvenient) to allege outright, and too (something) to ignore or rule out too easily.

Again, the validity of the Ali account does not change the majority of accounts that point towards government involvement in Houla.

It sure as hell sinks itself though, doesn't it?

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's bitching, plain and simple. If documents.sy lists the place where it happened under countryside, that's good enough for me. If it's more halfway suburb/halfway countryside according to the map is completely irrelevant to your original question. No problem with letting funk have "the point" here as well, that's what he has to strive for.

Yes, I'm better at diplomacy these days, but you're right. Sorry, forgot you had the descriptor as countryside. That should mean, if true, the southern half, outside city limits, barely. Technically rural, in a mixed "neighborhood," as delineated on Google maps. As if they're God anyway.

Md. De Fino, 'tis beast to let it go.