Houla Massacre, Syria: What If?

[Caustic Logic]

So, we started just about a year ago with a "what if?", meaning what if the REBELS did the Houla massacre. That was quickly clarified to a question of the size of the if, correction generally accepted to prevent unfair early thread death with a consensus of "well, that would suck."

By now, I contend with good reason, it has been proven to be a frighteningly small if. If you do a Google search for "Houla massacre" now, you'll see return #3 is an article I had published at Global Research about two weeks ago. Sorry for the delay bringing it here. Syria : One Year After the Houla Massacre. New Report on Official vs. Real Truth

The report referred to can be skipped right to and assessed here. Anyone care to argue how it's not pretty much proven the rebels did that massacre of 108, including 50 little kids? And considering that, what about the others? (see report, pp. 72-74) Especially this recent allegation about the horrible Shabiha massacre of Sunnis in al-Bayda and Baniyas? (see here and here). Consider: among the reported 50+ civilians massacred in al-Bayda, a reported 36 belonged to the family of the main mosque's imam, Omar al-Biassi, a government-supporter who reportedly tried, that same morning, to persuade rebel fighters to release their 30+ "Shabiha" captives. (see report, p. 25 for Houla parallel there - only certain Sunnis get killed in these things - otherwise it's largely heretics)

 

[Caustic Logic]

No rebuttals? Hmmm... I'm sure that's not exactly aconcession by the general community, at least not on a conscious level.

We have a bit of news to add - an alleged rebel perp of the massacre, one I never heard of or included in the report, was just arrested in Lebanon, helping funnel weapons to his terrorist friends. Almost as an anniversary marker, June 1 it was reported. We hope he squeals all the details, and into a megaphone at that.

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Houla:Connecting_The_Dots#Mohiuddin_Mahmoud_Shehab

 

[Childlike Empress]

He's on the ANNA perpetrator list (see my add at the link above).

 

[Caustic Logic]

Indeed, caught. And along the way, I found/made the mother lode of a victims list, with all kinds of details here, opposition search engine (that's an area we never did cover really well - the details of just who, except in a few cases).

Some of the "victims" were Mr. Shehab's colleagues - only a very few listed, tending to be prominent. Iwould guess there were toer rebels who bit it. No set count on the number listed yet. These died from "shooting" or "shelling," instead of the standard "field execution." I just now learned that Haitham al-Hallaq/al-Hassan, reported with a butcher's kife in Taldou that day, focusing on the Aref-Oqba al-Sayed family, was a defected policeman, and also reportedly died in Taldou that day*(he was 36). Huh! And I hear that Nidal Bakour (died in February?), reported leading a massacre brigade, was a defected Major (army?), and the brother of Talal Bakour, who was listed as dying in the battle too.

Oqba al-Sayed, non-fighter, field executed victim and relative of the people's assembly secretary, was a retired officer. Most names given by Ali and the are absent (except Ali's "Adel" helped create child versions of the adult men? And Shaoqi appears, in all new name combinations - an adult Ali Adel is in there too). The whole Muawiya household is apparently missing.

Abdul Razaqs, plentiful, still sorting, some familiar names. 12 adult women. Some children give mother's names, etc. allowing some family re-assembly, time allowing.

The al-Kurdis were killed in Aqrab, field execution, alongside Zainab Arouq ("Zainab veins, scorpion," explained) except their two Kurdi members who lived down in Taldou, and were massacred there. Abbara family lost only two adult men, per this list, in "shelling." One other who died in shelling (few listed that way) Hussam Ali Arrabi, a lieutenant (with whom?). I was wondering if that was a laundered relation, but there's a video, and he looks about like a civilian dress rebel fighter.

Lots of married adult women with children listed by family names with no matching husbands. Maiden names, I guess. One is Fairouz Ali Al-Daher, 4 children. Other info says she’s named Izdihar Ali al-Daher, and was married to Aref Mohammed al-Sayed, had at least 3 kids seen dead (and maybe 4 including either Ali or his older brother, or someone else), was reportedly raped, might have eyes gouged out.

Now, I feel we're pretty near to a good grasp on this aspect, and it only strengthens the same overall picture we've assembled.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry to go off there, that was original research as I went, and it seems I missed the whole second page of 45 names. So scratch the missing names complaints. Analysis ongoing, obviously.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So ... people haven't forgotten the Houla Massacre. Just a few weeks ago, the Turkish fake Syrian coalition thing put out this sobering video:
Assad Lied

Anyone find that convincing? If needed, see the missing parts of that fancy story explained briefly [http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki...lse_claims#UN_Monitors_Prove_.22Assad_Lied.22 here].

As rebels get accused of more and more of the massacres occurring in Syria, people persist in comparing these with other rebel massacres previously blamed on the 'regime' and Alawites, especially Houla (2nd place - al-Bayda, also covered FWIW.

And here we have the kind of quality revisionist argument you usually only get decades later, already within a year of the event, and still hardly anyone know about it. The comparison and demonization high ground has been taken. No critics yet have anything to say about that claim.

I'm thinking this needs to be promoted more and some people forced to address it on the record and see if they can debunk it, pretend to, or what. Before I take this to, say, Brown Moses, I figured I could let some of the minds here try. Okay, already did, but maybe somehow go from "let" to "get". Anyone up for pretending it's worth a crack? It's not moon landing hoax theories or anything important like that, just ... yeah.

I'll let this sit and shortly post again the link, explain the methodology, lay out the steps and areas where one might snoop for major blunders or the machanics of deception. There must be some, right? I mean, here we are claiming as fact that rebels must have carried out the Houla Massacre, not the "Shabiha," despite what everyone has said. You know it's crazy. Now go and illustrate how if you can. Early starters, the report link once again:
http://ciwclibya.org/images/Houla_Truth_Impunity_Final.pdf
And the article about it:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-...-new-report-on-official-vs-real-truth/5335562

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'll try attaching the map for visual reference right here. Never tried it before. This is a smaller size to meet the limits. A fuller version is here at ACLOS with links added by CE but without the exhibit letters.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay... as soon as someone has the report open, it's all fair game. But there's the one part I want to focus on, and will have limited patience for side-issues. Essay 7, page 52. As already covered here to some extent, the video evidence for a rebel offensive and takeover of Taldou immediately before people started getting massacred there.

The methodology, as explained, is this: we assess that a video is, is supposed to be, or might be from May 25, 2012, and show signs of who was in charge of vs. fighting for what. I'm not sure how many, actually, we studied like this - it's dozens. They released too many videos, the fools, because the incident was so famous. They kept coming out for weeks, every brigade, wanting to say I was there! And if we had more weapons, maybe we could have stopped the massacre!

For each worthy video, the location is set - quite exact when possible, which is usually. From there, with directions set, the angle of sunlight gives us a time of day, usually estimated to about +/- 10 min.

With time and place decided, the action comes to mean something. We compare it to our space and time information (what's off in the direction they're shooting? What does each set of witnesses say about this event?).

Again and again, we can see that we're seeing bits of the rebel attack they never admitted to, but let us see a decent chunk of anyway. There were five security posts, and it seems rebels overran four of them in their "premeditated attack" of that day. That's twice as many posts as the UN investigation decided the attack had netted them.

What you never see is any real sign of the alleged government attack rebels know all about and that so many people believe in. Not a single Shabih or soldier or tank or truck was filmed, not a single one from any distance. (Or, can anyone show that wrong?) All the shelling they show could be of the type their own rebel guys can be seen perpetrating in exhibits B, C, and D.

Or ... is that going to be challenged (in an evidence-based manner)?

Note: Anyone actually attempting this, and thanks ... the sources linked to in the endnotes, discussions with links and graphics, can be confusing and messy. Most aren't. But I'm here to help explain any points that might stump you.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No one yet?

A couple more notes then. It's not that daunting, and possibly interesting, to double check this stuff. I may have been wrong to say "dozens" of videos went into this. Until I really catalog them, I can say it's at least about 20. You could just pick one exhibit, which has from 1-5 or so video each.

We only used daylight videos (up to and maybe just past sunset) as that's mainly what there is of relevance and night video can't be timed by sunlight angles.

There are no dead kids or dead people, really, in these videos, in case anyone's worried about seeing that. When you follow the links, you'll see videos of dudes running up and down the streets and shooting. Did we identify the areas right? The times? The directions and actions? The matching of these facts with the witness accounts they actually match with?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Or maybe, here's another way at least to start - if all that reading seems like a chore, you could skip it and just test my claim to have the video evidence sorted out by looking up what's been previously used to prove there was an army and Shabiha attack.

You can find these, decide it sounds pretty hard to deny, and bring it here. I'll bet I, or CE if she catches it first and has the time, can say something already discovered about whatever one you select.

Search terms: Houla, Taldou, date May 25, 2012, whatever else you think helps.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Anything Houla Massacre is fair game here, though the video stuff remains central.

So far I can say the report was put up for review by a group of skeptics disinclined to believe it, and they identified not a single problem with it. I can't say how much they actually looked, but they were given a chance.

And the main point for yet one more point in this monologue portion of the thread ... there are some updates from even the time of the report that I haven't added here. One is al-Shumariyeh, the Alawite town we stumbled over for a long time. No, it's not in Houla at all, and those saying no Alawites were killed there seem to be correct. If any even lived there, it was few and dwindling. I was halfway to that point when writing the report.

Rather, it was in a town on the south shore of lake Homs, too far to be directly related, that rebels - from al-Qusayr mainly - reportedly killed 10 Alawite civilians from two families on that day. These aren't included in the rebel's Houla tally or records anywhere. For details, see: Shumariyeh Massacre

In Taldou, those most consistent wit the video evidence say, the main victims were about 65 Shi'ites who used to be Sunni, and two smaller families, apparently unrelated but both named al-Sayed, one with a lot of soldiers and police members, active and loyal, and the other related to the just-elected Secretary (not speaker) of the Syrian parliament.

Anyone could try arguing these points too, but it will be recognized as a bit of a dodge if it replaces a look at the video record.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I mentioned this once already, but a reminder might help. My article remains among the top things anyone Googling Houla Massacre will see. It's a #2 now (with or without quotes), ranking ahead of the BBC's lead article and behind Wikipedia's main article on it. It's been in the top 5 (#1 once) for almost 10 months now. Yes, that's as the "market" has shrunk even further, starting a year after the damn event. But to this day the event still ranks very high as an event people can name, point to, and sometimes read up on.

So, just in case anyone's of the mind that "if you ignore that troll and his silly theories they'll go away," no. Cut yourselves out of the loop if you want, but history's being written, revised, and all that, right now. I brought it here, I'm here. Feel free to step in and have a say.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Despite the lack of input, I'm noticing the view of this thread ticking up faster than I expected, I presume from non-members, largely. But silence like this can signal tacit acceptance. Anything more explicit of course gets you on the thought police radar. Be afraid of that.

Another issue, aside from getting any debunk attempts I can, is I'm really not sure what all to do next. The two year-mark seems a safe to gaol to decide and do. Here's what I decided on so far:

- Here. Was worth a try.

- Brown Moses: I have good enough rapport with him maybe I could squeeze an attempted debunk or some kind of support or something from him. As an accessible "gatekeeper" who specializes in videos, it would look bad if I didn't try and pass it by his gate. Anyone want to to save him some work and offer something now? You might get mentioned.

- Wikipedia - I was hoping someone would have at least mentioned my high-profile article and report, but no luck yet. I may have to join and battle to promote myself, maybe in a team effort. With almost a year in the top 5 on Google, and having a detailed explanation no one's refuted, it's in the record, might be relevant, and shouldn't be ignored, right?

- Where else? Realistic please, not facetious. I suppose the UNHRC deserves to hear from me again, for one (never do they respond)

 

[catsmate]

Despite the lack of input, I'm noticing the view of this thread ticking up faster than I expected,

Well in my case it was a matter of "what's that thread about" followed rapidly by "this is just silly" and "oh not not him again", then "meh what's the point of responding with reason".
Followed now by "goodbye".

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well in my case it was a matter of "what's that thread about" followed rapidly by "this is just silly" and "oh not not him again", then "meh what's the point of responding with reason".
Followed now by "goodbye".

Ah, and I did it to myself. Lesson learned - shut the hell up and don't question what the media says. Do a ****load of work with direct video evidence to get the clearest view yet, and thus demonstrate that what the media and the upper levels at the UN in NY have decreed was a lie, and you will face ridicule and summary dismissal. Your work will be aggressively ignored, and everyone will cast suspicion on your motives.

"In this free society, we do not go down these or these roads. Down there, we hear, are Jewlords and laserlizards and oh hahaha. Video proof? Yeah, that you're a useful idiot for Assad and a predictable "anti-imperialist" stooge supporting terrorist dictators - see time-stamp, all of 'em haha high five fellow fee people we showed that weirdo"

But thanks for typing out a bit of that for some variety here. Because usually that message I get, at least here, sounds more like this:
Here, where there's simply nothing of the actual work to refute, because I (and we at ACLOS, and elsewhere) are CORRECT. And that info is still #2 in a Google search for Houla Massacre, however much confident scorn you opt to display. But Putin and the space Jews told me to say that, of course.

 

[catsmate]

Ah, and I did it to myself. Lesson learned - shut the hell up and don't question what the media says.

No. Just stop speculating wildly and without evidence and modify your "theories" when confronted by facts rather than attempting to explain them away or ignoring them.

Do a ****load of work with direct video evidence to get the clearest view yet, and thus demonstrate that what the media and the upper levels at the UN in NY have decreed was a lie, and you will face ridicule and summary dismissal. Your work will be aggressively ignored, and everyone will cast suspicion on your motives.

No. Just stop speculating wildly and without evidence and modify your "theories" when confronted by facts rather than attempting to explain them away or ignoring them.

"In this free society, we do not go down these or these roads. Down there, we hear, are Jewlords and laserlizards and oh hahaha.

Is there a meaning to this rant?

Video proof?

When have you supplied any? In my limited (and from now on even more limited) interactions with you all you've produced were wild speculations.

Yeah, that you're a useful idiot for Assad and a predictable "anti-imperialist" stooge supporting terrorist dictators - see time-stamp, all of 'em haha high five fellow fee people we showed that weirdo"

Again with the ranting.

But thanks for typing out a bit of that for some variety here. Because usually that message I get, at least here, sounds more like this:

Perhaps that's because people have noticed that you refuse to engage when your "theories" are refuted?

Here, where there's simply nothing of the actual work to refute, because I (and we at ACLOS, and elsewhere) are CORRECT.

Unsupported assertion.

And that info is still #2 in a Google search for Houla Massacre, however much confident scorn you opt to display.

So what?

But Putin and the space Jews told me to say that, of course.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No. Just stop speculating wildly and without evidence and modify your "theories" when confronted by facts rather than attempting to explain them away or ignoring them.

Hm. Stop ... can you point me to just one example of what I should try to "stop?" I mean, on this subject. Where does our Houla Massacre research "speculate wildly and without evidence?" You can't and won't point to an example because there isn't one. You speculated there were a bunch, without evidence, without looking in the slightest. Standard JREF "skeptic"

Then you say the same ... then you suggest there's no video evidence involved in this ... when that's the main thing I've repeatedly (above) asked people to look at, and point to where it is (report, essay 7, "digital witnesses") then you keep displaying total drive-by ignorance and man, I was hoping for a bit more than this.

Perhaps that's because people have noticed that you refuse to engage when your "theories" are refuted?

Occasionally I don't respond to a point for lack of time, or because I didn't even see it, but I try to respond to all and account for the points they make and mostly fail to make. Especially in this important case. Look how much time I'm wasting on someone who hasn't even looked at a single bit of the work they're ridiculing, in embarrassing ignorance I might add

CORRECT info assertion, supported by the correct info. You don't want to check on that, rather presume it's wrong. Cool.

#2 on Google = it's relevant to the minds of English--speaking humans, and growing. Relevant + correct = the truth is getting out there. People who see it and read it know. You don't. Enjoy your ignorance and ridicule parade. Good day.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Just so you know, catsmate1, you really stepped into it here presuming things you shouldn't have. Yes, there is video analysis. Damn straight there is. Ignore it or not, your choice.

You suggest I've got some bad track record justifying your willful avoidance. By way of a correction then, work I've done, using my (partial) training as a historian, and when possible using primary, and visual, sources, winging it, and hitting a solid perch each time. I've been doing some good work mapping out the scene and details of the events of February 20 in Kiev, and I've known what the hell I was talking about before.

9/11 Pentagon attack - Flight 77's shadow (thread here) - NTSB animation error explained (same) It helps I was going against a "CT" grain there, but nothing but praise for analyses most wouldn't even think possible.

Otherwise, I'm usually at odds here, usually with friends though.

Libya: Took the right side of history via-a-vis the PA103/Lockerbie bombing, helping Morag G. Kerr get her research and activism going - look up her new book to see how it turned out. Discussions here at the forum, best around, aside from comments at Prof. Black's blog.

Libya 2011, video and image analysis, examples: snipers shooting babies (JREF thread) - shooting protesters, not seen, except... ooh.

Libya massacre reports, two in number, follow-up discussion threads here 1 and 2. Findings un-challenged. Sure, rebels did those and lied about it. Who cares? I was criticized for splitting hairs and wasting time. These same crimes among many others, were denounced here by the same people as shocking and monstrous, when first reported as Ghaddafi massacres.

Libya, Exposing "See Through Salem" and related fakers: May 13 video culmination followed by the soldier kid exposed too. Ridiculous fakery. I was wondering, but never said publicly, if this was a running prank by secret Gaddafi loyalists, trying to discredit the rebels' ridiculous claims. May 17, Dr. al-Farjani was arrested, beaten and dragged away from Tripoli Medical Center in broad daylight by a quasi-gov. militia, beaten, threatened, escaped, vanished. It's said he was a secret Gaddafi loyalist... another faker friend of his was later seen with a broken arm...

Syria, many instances of similar work, with this the one I chose to highlight for a number of reasons. That and a number of related or especially good points are already covered plenty in this thread.

But maybe, just skipping all of that, one could just presume that for once I'm just making things up just to be weird. Sure, that sounds lazy enough.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Catsmate said, twice:

Just stop speculating wildly and without evidence and modify your "theories" when confronted by facts rather than attempting to explain them away or ignoring them.

There's no point I've seen or had pointed out, by anyone, where I did the former here, and as for the latter, no facts have been presented (in the last year+) to even modify my (by now) well-founded theory to accommodate (earlier in the thread, maybe...). So, that's your hollow pretense for disengagement exposed. I'm left to conclude you're a bit afraid of looking at this info and that's the real reason.

As far as how my past investigations ("wild speculation without evidence") have gone, I forgot one point in my partial CV above, in Syria and the closest to al-Houla. I've mentioned the forgotten "Aqrab Massacre" just in December, 2012 - Many Alawite civilians were reported killed, by the regime and Shabiha, but that was swiftly disproved (see below). Based on all available info, correlating videos and accounts, etc. I put together some chilling clues about the hostage house and smoke clues, tying in a 6-year-old girl who had her skull sliced open by "heavy artillery shelling" (which was partly blamed for the massacre rebels first reported, but which since became "murky" and non-existent, with about 200 civilian people just vanished)

Anyway, I sent that link to the only Western journalist who went to Aqrab, as well as to Houla months earlier - Alex Thomson, chief reporter for UK Channel 4. (both times proving the line that journalists can't go to Syria and verify stuff is a widely-peddled LIE - he clarifies that here, in softer terms, and I thought a bit sharper somewhere else...)

Anyway, I showed my work to him, the only one to go there, verify/refute the rebel claims (he was clearly none too impressed) and speak to locals, film the town, etc.

He responded. see here

alex thomson @alextomo*
@CL4Syr seems to bear out what I reported from Aqrab at the time
11:22 AM (PDT) 1 Jul 13

But on the massacre I know even more about, a few kilometers south and six months earlier ... clever forum members are sure I'm so many miles from any facts that it's not worth their precious time to even take a little look and say anything remotely informed.

So that's reason #517 why the disdain of the "skeptics" here fails to move me, like some uninformed folks think it should.

 

[Caustic Logic]

For the record here, since Catsmate1 (hereafter C1) came and smeared something brown across it, I figured out what he/she meant and it was a simple misunderstanding. I thought maybe he/she had me mixed up with someone else, but it was a different type.

C1 *caught me at it again* when I could see it happening and see what it was. While ignoring all the details of the recent sniper massacre in Ukraine, C1 paused to tear apart one of my posts (rebutted below), with lots of rolling eyes, meaningless one-liners, and frequent, random use of the phrase "baseless assertion." At the end:

"SO you're back to ignoring any possibility that doesn't support your opinions.

If not the same, that's similar to complaints here:
Initial reaction: ""oh not not him again", then "meh what's the point of responding with reason"." Basis: "(I) refuse to engage when (my) "theories" are refuted" Advice offered: "(I should stop) speculating wildly and without evidence and modify (my) "theories" when confronted by facts rather than attempting to explain them away or ignoring them."

I responded there

...you say I'm doing it again, and I'm pretty sure I'm not. Can I just pin you down then to explain and back up this accusation, now that I'm paying attention and ready to learn? Put the E in JREF, eh?

I have an opinion, you say, and I'm "ignoring any possibility that doesn't support" that. This was explicitly in response to <snip details - three broad possibilities encompassing all reasonably likely eventualities> What possibilities did I ignore there? ... from an unspecified list of unstated possibilities, larger than the three main options I myself outlined...

C1 ignored the un-winnable challenge, instead running ahead to link to a new BBC article, with no comment, aside from this: "The initial findings of the government enquiry are out; expect them to be ignored by the usual suspects," meaning me, partly if not primarily. Problem was, I linked to the same article 90 minutes earlier, actually adding content-related comments. So C1 urges people to expect something that's already been proven untrue, proving the nil-or-worse predictive power of C1's diagnosis of my made-up behaviors.

There could be no defending, and there was no admission or retraction of, any of this embarrassingly heedless ridicule, just a total silence thereafter. It's as if I ceased to exist in his/her world, just as I called his/her bluff, with some self-destructive help. Convenient, that.

I apologize for this tedium, but the issue matters enough I couldn't let this fictitious smear sit here. I can now say when these accusations of intellectual dishonesty can be checked, they fall apart badly. The rest of the time, well I'll presume the same. If C1 is being consistent, these insults here presumably mean the same thing they did there, and as I already noted there is no ignored refutation of any value he/she did or could or point to. That this is the only rebuttal the forum's corporate-media pseudo-skeptics can offer in the last year, even with prodding, I will take as confirmation that all challenges regarding this case are un-winnable. Or, as C1 put it, this is "not a thread as much as a monologue by you." When all I'm asking for is a relevant, evidence-based challenge, a "monlogue" means I'm winning.

I know it's hard to accept, but it's also impossible to really challenge. I and the other researchers willing to pay attention and stick it out, accept and address all challenges, and piece it together as best as possible from what's available, have effectively proven that the corporate media (and other entities mainly based in New York City) lied to you about this horrific incident by pretending the rebel story must be true. To some extent, your tax dollars have been used to punish the victims and reward the perpetrators of this hideous crime, the slaughter of entire families including 49 children, over political and sectarian differences.

And further, this was just one episode in the "Syrian people's" overall campaign of terror against the actual Syrian people, now in its fourth year of ill-informed mass acceptance.

FWIW.