Last Friday’s massacre in Houla killed at least 108 civilians, and the initial rebel claims that the deaths were the result of military shelling have been disproven, as the vast majority of the deaths were execution-style gunfire from small arms. Witnesses are now saying that a group of hundreds of gunmen were responsible, mowing down civilians in the small Homs Province town.
But whose gunmen were they? The Syrian regime says that their investigation found that between 600 and 800 gunmen linked to an unknown terrorist organization were responsible for the killings, saying they started by attacking police and then began shooting civilians.
This is somewhat consistent with the early accounts of the massacre, which said that police in the city were engaged in a gun-battle with rebel forces and that the military was trapped on its base, coming under fire, while the fighting was going on.
The rebels for their part have penned a new version of the events, saying that there were gunmen, something never mentioned before, but that they were some government-affiliated militia. The US has endorsed the rebel version, whatever it happens to be at the time, but what really happened remains a mystery, likely to never be solved.
I think the question to ask here is "Who gains?" With regard to the adverse publicity it semms to me that the gainers are western imperialist forces and Israel who would like to wreck Syria so it can't intervene when they turn on Iran. Given the victims were shot at close quarter and knowing what world reaction would be when the bodies were found, this massacre would represent an incredibly foolish act by the Syrian government. Surely if it was them, they would have concealed the bodies or dispersed them etc? The whole episode stinks of a covert operation by anti-Syrian elements of one sort or another.
The Syrian regime clearly wants to avoid military intervention. So it seems rather ridiculous the Syrian army would massacre civilians and then retreat to let the rebels film it and post it, and this a day before Annans sheduled arrival. Furthermore, a majority of the population has taken part in the elections and accepted a new constitution. These developments clearly show a peaceful way out of the crisis, something the "friends of Syria" clearly don't want. That is why they' have been sending in armed terrorists and death squads right from the beginning. As Russia is keeping its stance, US now wants military intervention bypassing the UNSC. No need for a UN fig leaf to start the next war. And Iran is next in line. And in 10 years time, probably the "communists" in Latin America. War seems the remaining solution to keep the capitalist economy running.
"The rebels for their part have penned a new version of the events, saying that there were gunmen, something never mentioned before,"
Really? Jason Ditz is still claiming that the earlier reports never mentioned gunmen? He needs to watch something besides Russian TV… On his previous post like this (which he links to), I gave the links to reports from the BBC, Al-Jazeera and McClatchy, showing that the witnesses had been saying all along that there were gunmen who came into houses and killed the civilians (many of whom were women and children) who were in there. I'll list them again here:
26 May: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/26/150266/abou…
27 May: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/05/…
28 May: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18240…
29 May: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18233…
Antiwar.com is really losing its credibility…
The massacre stinks of false-flag from first to last.
It makes absolutely no sense for Assad's forces to do such a thing- they're winning, and these are the people they would expect to be governing when the dust settles. Why alienate your own population? Besides, Assad and his forces are already under a microscope for any evidence of wrongdoing- real or imagined- and he and his commanders know something like this would be found out immediately.
On the other hand…
It makes perfect sense for the terrorists- I mean 'rebels'- to do this. They're losing- and losing badly- and they need all the support they can get and given the unsavory characters in their ranks it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a bunch of dead civilians isn't going to be a big deal for them. They know the way the American public is propagandized and such a 'mini 9/11'- complete with photos of dead women and children and wrapped bodies (assuming they're reprinting old unrelated photos again)- is just the thing to sway public opinion in their favor courtesy of how the US media presents the event. We've even had the 11 year-old boy trotted out for the cameras with his survival story- it may indeed be true, but I'm not so sure a traumatized pre-teen is the best witness for identifying gunmen shooting everything in sight. I can just imagine his debriefing: "THIS is what you saw, WASN'T IT?" Or he may be following someone's script- at this point who really knows?
The sad fact is, though, we may never really know what happened there. Given the circumstances I tend to indict the 'rebels' for it, but for now only the shooters- whoever they may be- know for sure.
Incubator babies redux.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/massa…
I saw massacre of children, says defecting Syrian air force officer
As UN envoy warns of all-out war, a major has provided crucial evidence on the Houla killings
(Linked to at antiwar.com today. Maybe they're going to get Jason Ditz to broaden his reading a little…)
Please listen to Patrick Cockburn at antiwar radio.