Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?

[Toontown]

"What if" a rebellion against a tyrant cannot be supported by "the West" unless the moral, ethical, and ideological purity of all the rebels can be ascertained beyond question?


That would put a stop to all this rebel-support crap.

 

[A'isha]

On her husband's first name, an unusual one, Muawiya. Wikipedia says it might mean arm strength, and it's been used by some prominent Umayyad leaders, whatever exactly that means (I'm hazy). [WP]
The meaning that matters here is the first main one -Islamic dictionary helps (see here)

Mu'awyiah is one of the most (almost literally) demonized figures in Shi'a Islam, and is right at the heart of why there's a Sunni/Shi'a split in the first place.

Shi'a Muslims believe that the family of Muhammad, Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House [of the Prophet]) are the most important figures in Islam. Only the family of the Prophet has the right to rule over the ummah, and their beliefs and practices take precedence over the beliefs and practices of any of the other sahabah (Companions of the Prophet). This stands in contrast with the Ahl al-Sunnah, the People of Tradition [of the Prophet] and Consensus [of the ummah] - the followers of ahadith as transmitted by all the Companions (in other words, Sunni Muslims).

Among the Ahl al-Bayt, Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad (and the first male convert to Islam) is the most important. To the Shi'a, Ali is second only to the Prophet himself, and was the sole rightful successor (khalif) to the Prophet after his death, supposedly designated as such by Muhammad himself. Ali, however, despite his rightful claim to the position did not become khalif after Muhammad's death. Abu Bakr was the first khalif, followed by Umar, and 'Uthman. Through it all, there were a group of Muslims who supported Ali and his right to lead the ummah. They became known as the Shi'at Ali, the Party or Partisans of Ali. Hence, of course, the name Shi'a.

In 656, after the assassination of 'Uthman during a revolt, Ali finally became the fourth khalif. However, despite his exalted position as First Imam and the rightful named heir to Muhammad, not every member of the ummah supported him or recognized his right to rule - especially because those not of the Shi'at Ali just saw him as the fourth khalif, and were not happy with his apparent laxness in cracking down on those who revolted against and killed his predecessor. This rift grew into the First Fitnah, the civil war that split the ummah into the Shi'a/Sunni divide of today.

One relative of 'Uthman's, the governor of Syria (!), Mu'awiyah ibn Abu Sufayn (son of the same Abu Sufayn who was Muhammad's greatest persecutor in Mecca, though he later converted to Islam), refused to accept Ali's authority, and full-on war broke out. The war went badly for Ali, with his own supporters splintering and some turning against him in revolts of their own. In 661, Ali himself was assassinated like his predecessor 'Uthman had been, and Mu'awiyah became the first khalif of the Umayyad dynasty after essentially forcing the abdication and retirement of Ali's son and successor, Hasan.

Mu'awiyah, then, to Shi'a Muslims is a usurper, against not just Ali, but against Muhammad's authority, since the Prophet named Ali and his family as his true successors. They believe he's a traitorous kafir who will burn in hell for what he did, and his followers, supporters, and descendants as well for doing things like starting a tradition in the pulpit of Damascus, Syria (!!), of cursing Ali. Mu'awiyah is the one responsible for taking the rightful rulership of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt away from them, and for beginning a millennia and a half of brutal, bloody repression of Shi'a Muslims. He's Oliver Cromwell, Pontius Pilate, Martin Luther, Benedict Arnold, and Vladimir Lenin all rolled into one.

A forum I can't access, acc. to the search, has someone asked to discuss the name saying this back in 2010:

The Shi'a polemical website Answering Ansar says it means "barking bitch".

They really, really don't like Mu'awiyah.

Same motive according to Rasha Sayed Ali, apparently. She's got them shouting "We took revenge for you, Imam Ali"

But now that the subject is on the table, let's keep in mind that whoever did this, for whatever effect, perhaps this potent name was one factor.

The history to Shi'a Muslims of what Mu'awiyah did, as well as the heavy Syrian connection, make it about as likely for a Syrian convert to Shi'a Islam to be named "Mu'awiyah" as it would be for a convert to Judaism to be named "Torquemada Hitler McBloodlibel."

 

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting post, ANTPogo, thanks for sharing.

Although I don't know why grown-up Mr. McBloodlibel shouldn't be able to develop a sense of self-hatred and repent by converting to Judaism ... theoretically. Because the Al-Sayed family is agreed on by all parties to be Sunnis. The disagreement is about their stance towards the government. The SPIEGEL piece mixes this up in their debunk attempt with the other main victims family, Abdul Razak, who are said by some to be converts to Shi'ism.

We have more than obvious signs that the attackers wanted to be recognized as Shi'ites/Alawites. The chanting Maryam reports, other chants praising Ali, and even - literally - "written Shia slogans on their foreheads".

Also a knife was found with the inscription "We will sacrifice ourselves for you Hussein". CL and I, both relatively clueless about the fine print of Islam sects, wondered if this is realistically something an Alawite ("Shabiha" from the neighbour village as alleged perpetrators) would have in possession. What do you think?

 

[A'isha]

Also a knife was found with the inscription "We will sacrifice ourselves for you Hussein". CL and I, both relatively clueless about the fine print of Islam sects, wondered if this is realistically something an Alawite ("Shabiha" from the neighbour village as alleged perpetrators) would have in possession. What do you think?

Well, I confess I don't know a whole lot about the Alawites specifically, but it's certainly something a Shi'a Muslim would have in their possession.

The "Hussein" being referred to is Hussein ibn Ali, second son of Imam Ali and younger brother of the Hasan who abdicated in favor of Mu'awiyah. Hussein led a revolt against the second Umayyad khalif, Yazid (son of Mu'awiyah), to regain what he (and the Shi'a) saw as his rightful position and to overthrow the unjust, illegitimate, and un-Islamic rule of the Umayyads. He was defeated and beheaded, and is considered a martyr to the Shi'a cause. This is still commemorated as a day of mourning and memorial by Shi'a Muslims even today.

A dagger with an inscription like that connotes, to me, a Shi'a-specific message that the bearer is, like Hussein, rising up against an illegitimate and unjust ruler, and also like Hussein is willing to be a martyr in that cause.

 

[Childlike Empress]

A dagger with an inscription like that connotes, to me, a Shi'a-specific message that the bearer is, like Hussein, rising up against an illegitimate and unjust ruler, and also like Hussein is willing to be a martyr in that cause.

Which wouldn't fit here as the ruler - perceived unjust or not - is one of them. Figured who Hussein was and read up a bit on Alawism when that question came up. Learned that very many of the Turkish immigrants here in Germany - half a million - are Alawites. They focus on Ali but also accept the twelve Shia Imams including Hussein whose dead they also mourn. But they are quite detached from the mainstream Shi'ites and Sunnis in that they don't treat the stuff so literally, no praying five times a day, even no mosques (instead "Cems"), gender equality with no headscarfs, a strong emphasis on music and singing as part of the rituals and overall a mystical approach (an article even linked them to Pantheism), focusing on introspection instead of armed struggle. And they have always been very secretive as they were discriminated by the "orthodox" Muslims since their foundation in the 13th century.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Oops, I just realized that what I've written above is about the Alevites, not the Alawites, so forget what I said about them and Hussein, although there seem to be significant similarities. Geez is that complicated.

 

[funk de fino]

For future reference, what would be a better word for someone who's bitching about roughly nothing, apparently just to annoy people? ETA: I appreciate the niceness, but it only brings us almost level. Cheers.

Spades of irony. You are doing nothing but pulling apart mistakes and mispeaks and translations in witness statements. Your whole stick is about accuracy. Then you take me to task for pulling up your tag team partner for a blatant false claim? That is being bitchy?

You know the rules. You can say my comments are bitchy but not good show to be calling me a bitch(er)

 

[funk de fino]

Hoho, I'm not the only one you'll keep harping on over one minor victory moths or years ago.

Hoho. It was not a minor victory. It was a complete embarrassment. So much there was some seriously frealky stuff about sexual tension stuff cast up and then on to ignore I went. You would have torn apart the 7/7 nonsense JJ posted.

I called it a suburb and you agreed, even though Yalda is actually attached, making it more a district of the city. Isn't that a boo-boo? ("Its a burb alright. ") Except the southern half, which is farmland, and is outside city limits. That fits with CE's point about it being listed as "countryside."

It's another boo-boo to keep making a big deal of this when you're only sort of right to begin with. How big a boo-boo?Up to you.

Be serious. The initial claim was false. It was not all countryside. All it took was someone to admit it was bobbins and this wouldnt be dragging on but as I have shown some people cannot admit anything. Thats the MO I wanted to highlight.

I wouldnt even point someone to a dictionary definition of suburb as that would be a bit childish eh?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Spades of irony. You are doing nothing but pulling apart mistakes and mispeaks and translations in witness statements. Your whole stick is about accuracy. Then you take me to task for pulling up your tag team partner for a blatant false claim? That is being bitchy?

You know the rules. You can say my comments are bitchy but not good show to be calling me a bitch(er)

True, thanks for not reporting it. That'd be two warnings in short order. No name for it, just you're on about nothing. It's said the killings took place in countryside, even though not ALL of Yalda is.

Ant Pogo, a valuable contribution, thanks. The Syria connection in there, interesting.

On the Shia/Alawi signs: The knife I believe was put there, maybe not by the same people the gov. sent and then denied. As for the things the witnesses say (chanting, etc.), not as credible. Personally I doubt any of these people are who they say or were present for the killings, so it's made up. I doubt the real killers bothered, since only the "witnesses," and not the victims, need to "survive" and say the right things.

My impression 'til now was Alawi and Alevi are the same, just different pronunciations, but both derived from Ali, Shia, Sufi, mellow, mystical, less prayers and Hajjes, popular in Turkey and Syria, hated in Saudi Arabia. If that's wrong, maybe I can learn it now. Comparing the Wiki pages quickly, it's not clear they're separate.
ETA: The one says "Even though the term Alevi is simply the Turkish derived form of Arabic ‘Alawī, the Arab form of the term today refers to the distinct group of the Arabic-speaking ‘Alawī of Syria." Same name origin, different countries. Best quick guess: they're pretty much the same except for the country they live in. Best to cite the right page, of course, but what you write sounds like what I have read about the Syrian Alawites. They don't bother with the five set prayers a day, nor with traveling to Mecca - they say Hajj is a tool of Arab supremacism and not mandated in the Koran, IIRC.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, I confess I don't know a whole lot about the Alawites specifically, but it's certainly something a Shi'a Muslim would have in their possession.

Alawi is a type of Shia, more or less. The interesting thing is the killed family where that sword was found was Shia (why "ite" for Alawi and Shia but no Sunnite?). So Apparently, Shi'ites killed them for refusing, actually, to convert, and being Sunni hardcore just like Muawiya and his people. Mass conversion, engineered by Iranians, is a boogeyman of the Sunni rebellion, engineered by Saudi Arabia (partly), and gonna cause some problems. If it hasn't already.

A dagger with an inscription like that connotes, to me, a Shi'a-specific message that the bearer is, like Hussein, rising up against an illegitimate and unjust ruler, and also like Hussein is willing to be a martyr in that cause.

Interesting parallel. Do you have an opinion really on the revolt against the Umayyads to make this poetically valid?

The funny thing about the offers to sacrifice themselves, is if the knife was planted by the Sunni activists, they're the ones setting up the future martyrdom in the surrounding Shia and Alawi villages.

 

[Caustic Logic]

But here someone's saying the Shabiha heretics were so offended by his name alone they decided to kill him and his whole family, even though they allegedly didn't support the government and were actually in the rebellion, just not prominently. This underlines what Maryam said - not to Spiegel - about this being a sectarian killing, that their very uncontested Sunnism, or a name suggesting it, is what got them whacked. But it all sounds pretty wack.

Correcting myself above, I was thinking two directions at once here and it made no sense. Allegedly the name plus the supposed low-profile opposition membership and non government support got them killed. Mostly the name, presumably, since they were only barely a Sunni rebel family.

And this despite that the father was a government cop and retired soldier, whose son was an active soldier fighting the rebels, and others describe them as firmly loyal. That's allout the window as clues because the Spiegel "witnesses" who forget to wake up "the daughter" have said otherwise.

 

[Childlike Empress]

My impression 'til now was Alawi and Alevi are the same, just different pronunciations, but both derived from Ali, Shia, Sufi, mellow, mystical, less prayers and Hajjes, popular in Turkey and Syria, hated in Saudi Arabia. If that's wrong, maybe I can learn it now. Comparing the Wiki pages quickly, it's not clear they're separate.
ETA: The one says "Even though the term Alevi is simply the Turkish derived form of Arabic ‘Alawī, the Arab form of the term today refers to the distinct group of the Arabic-speaking ‘Alawī of Syria." Same name origin, different countries. Best quick guess: they're pretty much the same except for the country they live in. Best to cite the right page, of course, but what you write sounds like what I have read about the Syrian Alawites. They don't bother with the five set prayers a day, nor with traveling to Mecca - they say Hajj is a tool of Arab supremacism and not mandated in the Koran, IIRC.

Very similar indeed, but not the same, even beyond the language barrier. The Syrian dominated are said to origin in the 9th century, the Turkish dominated in the 13th century, according to the wikipedia articles. And the information on the beliefs of the Syrian ones seem to be more spare than on the Turkish ones. And you have some of the Syrian ones in Turkey. Anyway, similar enough to end up with the wrong wikipedia article in the notes I took.

 

[HoverBoarder]

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.

I have seen plenty of revised reports for Tremesh as new information about the incident came in. As for Houla, there are still no hard facts or data not based on assumptions/presumptions that contradicts the publically accepted story of government involvement as of yet.

Luckily, we have the journalistic 'integrity' of RT to tell the real truthy truthiness of what is happening in Syria:

Mossad vs Assad? 'CIA death squads behind Syria bloodbath'

Apparantly there is no civil war in Syria, and all deaths from the conflict are from Mossad/CIA death squads. It sure is nice to know that all of those 1000's of civilians that were killed by artillery shells are all from the ev'ial joos.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Sounds crazy, but it's true. This passage causes the most trouble for me. The gov./Shabiha had no reason to kill these people, except maybe their name... (an interesting new issue). In fact, they seem so innocuous to, or even supportive of the government, the opposite concern (that rebels might want to kill them) almost makes more sense. No, it does make more sense.

A fair point. One that is still based on your personal opinion on the subject, but it is definitely an important aspect to bring up about the case.

However, I wonder how the reported fact that members of the opposition cared for the victims and attended the funerals would affect your postulation.

If members of the FSA killed large numbers of the Sayed family, and than helped to care for the wounded and attended the funerals. It seems that it would be for three main reasons:

1. The FSA did not commit the murders widely believed to have been the work of Shabiha militia members
2. The FSA attended the funerals and helped the wounded to keep a closer eye on the survivors to make sure that they followed the script.
3. Members of the local FSA attended funerals and helped with the wounded because their family ties were more important that affiliation.

 

[Caustic Logic]

"What if" a rebellion against a tyrant cannot be supported by "the West" unless the moral, ethical, and ideological purity of all the rebels can be ascertained beyond question?


That would put a stop to all this rebel-support crap.

Is that the only alternative to what we're doing?

What we're doing:
That is, tuning out the target government entirely while acting as if we believe every "activists say" rebel report, painting the targeted government just as black as they do, and then arm and support the "good guys" in two countries in quick succession - when these are (or should be) known to use terror tactics against military and loyalist civilians, to commit massacres and simply blame the regime they're fighting, to violate human rights and world norms chronically and extremely, engage in genocide, widespread torture, rape, and more?

Then, your extremist proposal, and ... nothing in between?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Very similar indeed, but not the same, even beyond the language barrier. The Syrian dominated are said to origin in the 9th century, the Turkish dominated in the 13th century, according to the wikipedia articles. And the information on the beliefs of the Syrian ones seem to be more spare than on the Turkish ones. And you have some of the Syrian ones in Turkey. Anyway, similar enough to end up with the wrong wikipedia article in the notes I took.

Then I'll modify my guess. It started in Syria, 9th century, and spread into Turkey about 400 years later. Then whatever local differences set in, and maybe they don't stay linked like they should. A lot of Alawites are in danger now, and it's not clear the Turkish Alevi community is ready to stand up for them... especially after all the reported massacres by Alawite militias that do little but provoke the Sunni majority in a very acute way...

 

[Caustic Logic]

I have seen plenty of revised reports for Tremesh as new information about the incident came in. As for Houla, there are still no hard facts or data not based on assumptions/presumptions that contradicts the publically accepted story of government involvement as of yet.

Luckily, we have the journalistic 'integrity' of RT to tell the real truthy truthiness of what is happening in Syria:

Mossad vs Assad? 'CIA death squads behind Syria bloodbath'

Apparantly there is no civil war in Syria, and all deaths from the conflict are from Mossad/CIA death squads. It sure is nice to know that all of those 1000's of civilians that were killed by artillery shells are all from the ev'ial joos.

As you present it, sounds pretty loony. Even after looking closer, I might be unimpressed. Plenty fake intellectuals, or people with okay guesses that don't wind up right, etc...

However, of course, I fully endorse the idea that someone else is behind these massacres pinned on the government. Not as a certain truth, but as something that's entirely possible and well worth considering. I do not endorse supporting it with faulty info. That makes it less credible and makes it too easy to laugh the whole issue away.

Then again, RT, if serving Russian interests, would do well to host good arguments and not undermine this important point where Lavrov says they're on the "right side of history." So I should have a look, but later.

A fair point. One that is still based on your personal opinion on the subject, but it is definitely an important aspect to bring up about the case.

However, I wonder how the reported fact that members of the opposition cared for the victims and attended the funerals would affect your postulation.

If members of the FSA killed large numbers of the Sayed family, and than helped to care for the wounded and attended the funerals. It seems that it would be for three main reasons:

1. The FSA did not commit the murders widely believed to have been the work of Shabiha militia members
2. The FSA attended the funerals and helped the wounded to keep a closer eye on the survivors to make sure that they followed the script.
3. Members of the local FSA attended funerals and helped with the wounded because their family ties were more important that affiliation.

Thanks for recognizing a point. I wish I could hand out online biscuits to reward that. Here, a smiley:

The rest ... starting on the wrong foot. I'll explain in a roundabout way.

The funerals: the (potentially) fake Maryam and fake Ali and the rest would be there, so in my hypothetical version... I'd guess these were rebel funerals held quickly in their turf, real family not invited. That's why they attended, so there wouldn't be no one. I don't think there were as many survivors from the houses as claimed, perhaps zero. None we've heard from.

Caring for the victims: I'll again cite the alleged witness ("a knowledgeable woman" as listed here) that the people posing as survivors were the family of the rebel fighters. That explains why the rebels are taking care of them.

Important logic consideration - this makes a spooky amount of sense again, but then there are complications and new questions... I'm ready to discuss them if you like. Have some thoughts, could stand testing and working out.

But CE and I have been suggesting this all along. That's probably why Ali can't remember his family members' names or the order of the attack, whether the soldiers swiped a vacuum or the washing machine, etc. They weren't his family, and he wasn't there. That's probably not his real name, and we don't know who he is, and it would be very hard to ever find out. Armed people probably surround these alleged witnesses.

If in the hypothetical scenario (the Syrian gov. version is fair enough short-hand, but for the unfair implication it gives) the fakeness of the so-called survivors is also why "the witnesses" all say Shabiha did it, not Haytham Hallak and co. They're reading a politically-motivated script, not real memories.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Armed people probably surround these alleged witnesses.

It's worth mentioning that before the events, Taldou was dominated by "rebels" by all accounts but the Army had checkpoints guarding the main road and important spots. After the events and the initial visits by the UN observers, Alex Thomson and the ANNA team, nobody made it there anymore because it's completely in rebel hand. Or at least not to my knowledge.

A German reporter Alfred Hackensberger tried in mid-June but failed because his driver refused to go all the way after the people at the last checkpoint told them how dangerous it was. He then visited the monastery in Qara where he interviewed alleged refugees from Taldou who tell the "rebels did it" story. He's one of two sources, the other one a dutch journalist, for those witnesses who are included in our list, while only one of them has a "name" (pseudonym) and direct quotes.

Christoph Reuter, the german journalist who did the interviews in the SPIEGEL piece, seems to be the first who got there again, in mid-July. He has been "embedded" with the "rebels" for several months reporting, or better relaying their messages, for the paper.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Two more things:

1) The picture of Hana Harmut Sayyid above is to show her looking at someone off-camera causing her to smile briefly. The quickness of her serious face's return is actually at least as much a clue as this - the closeness to the surface of a smile while recalling such a grave event in her alleged life as Hana Harmut, when "the daughter" and the others were shot dead.

2) Another way of looking at the care shown to the victims' bodies and the alleged survivors, which the rebels came into possession of. These people were either evidence or alleged evidence of a grave crime, and one party wound up in possession of that evidence, and so managed to put their own spin on it. The real murderer is of course the one who has an uncanny ability to get his hands on the victims of said murder. Pictures, paperwork, things to flesh out realistic impersonations. (look out for people citing private love letters found in a shoe box to add "realistic detail" on a lost husband...)

And conversely, the alleged Shabiha killers didn't bother trucking the victims back for the state-sponsored funerals so they could show their own "care" for the victims. They just left everything, even the tell-tale Shia-inscribed blade, laying right there for the controlling rebels to do with as they pleased. Another little clue...

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's worth mentioning that before the events, Taldou was dominated by "rebels" by all accounts but the Army had checkpoints guarding the main road and important spots. After the events and the initial visits by the UN observers, Alex Thomson and the ANNA team, nobody made it there anymore because it's completely in rebel hand. Or at least not to my knowledge.

A German reporter Alfred Hackensberger tried in mid-June but failed because his driver refused to go all the way after the people at the last checkpoint told them how dangerous it was. He then visited the monastery in Qara where he interviewed alleged refugees from Taldou who tell the "rebels did it" story. He's one of two sources, the other one a dutch journalist, for those witnesses who are included in our list, while only one of them has a "name" (pseudonym) and direct quotes.

Christoph Reuter, the german journalist who did the interviews in the SPIEGEL piece, seems to be the first who got there again, in mid-July. He has been "embedded" with the "rebels" for several months reporting, or better relaying their messages, for the paper.

Ah... well, at least he's not a regime-controlled source. Must be trustworthy, right?

I hadn't thought of it that comprehensively, but I think you're right about the extremely limited access. That's worth explaining out somewhere as an important point to consider. Rebel closure and secrecy and mysterious sniper danger that exists in their turf + standing mystery and no more clues coming out but through the most controlled channels (Mr. Reuter, the killers' own wives and kids and a few FSA "defectors") = bad sign for truth and the future of Syria.