On Friday, Syrian military rocket strikes against the Damascus suburb of Douma, in the East Ghoula district, hit a marketplace, killing at least 89 people, including a number of civilians. This fueled concerns about the large civilian tolls in the regular bombardment of this rebel-held district.
Adding some intrigue to that story, however, video footage emerged from East Ghoula district showing rebels transporting several cages full of “human shields,” identified as the families of government soldiers, and which according to reports are being taken from place to place to try to dissuade strikes.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says that the human shields program is run by Jaish al-Islam, and includes both the families of soldiers and random Alawite civilians. The cages are often placed in areas from which the rebels are firing rockets to try to discourage retaliation.
It’s unclear if any of these human shields were among the casualties of the Douma strike, though those interviewed during the Shaam Network report on the program suggested that the site of such cages is not an unusual one across public squares.
"Reuters was unable to verify the video footage." Why would Reuters write that when it earlier states, "A video posted online by the Shaam News Network, an opposition media outlet, showed men and women in iron cages…."
Seems like about the same reason that as a nobody I'd say I can't confirm it when anybody posts most anything (…or maybe I should stop omitting that…). In Reuters' case though, they may have tried / are trying to authenticate the video. Or if you mean it's a slight on Shaam News … not sure what you're thinking?
What I'm saying is that testimony from a source that damages its own interests through the testimony is considered prima facie credible because they have no motive to give that testimony but would in fact have a motive to say the opposite. Presumably, they are motivated by a moral principle to tell the truth.
Reuters admits that Shaam News Network (the entity that posted the video) is an opposition media outlet, so they would have no motive to fabricate the video. Therefore, there's no need to "verify" it.
In fact, I'll go further and say that the release of the video is itself part of this terrorism. They want the Assad government to know that people loyal to the government are being used as human shields. Human shields are not useful unless the enemies you are trying to discourage know of their existence.
Also off-chance of a bluff. Seeming contradiction(?): 'motivated by a moral principle to tell the truth,' but 'video itself is part of this terrorism.' There it could be that I've half-missed that we're still talking two distinct entities… Then as I read you I'm seeing it's also not advantageous for e.g. USrael to admit is happening against Assad (all the war crimes occur against one's own side, to parse idiot-logic (and often that of sports spectators)). So this could be a hint of open bias in such a 'western' outfit: we're supposed to see ambiguity in a war crime admission even as matter-of-fact.
Seem to remember hearing US press speaking of a confession by an Iranian criminal—that it had to be presumed under duress. What an odd thing to say about another country after e.g. one's own gov't sold a war partly on sado-fiction extracted from Abu Zubayda… …an 'open bias' –or a mostly transparent one– I thought.
Right. Our hat is white, theirs black. Therefore, even if someone we support openly admits to a criminal act, it must be verified, but we assume our enemies commit crimes without the necessity of even a shred of proof.
Aren't these guys worth spending US taxpayer money on…
"…according to reports [the cages] are being taken from place to place to try to dissuade strikes."
It's been proven the US has no compunction about blatantly killing the innocent so the "rebels" are wasting their time – unless they are using it as a recruiting tool which is also a waste of time since the US seems to be very good and cheap at recruiting for them…and ISIS.
They aren't trying to discourage the US. The hostages are Syrians loyal to the government. They are trying to discourage the Syrian Army from attacking them. They know they are safe from the US.
Sorry, you're correct…whenever anyone talks about indiscriminately killing civilians I naturally thought "US."
LOL. I know how you feel.
"Human zoos now coming to a war zone near you. Stay tuned for more details at eleven."
Incidentally, the report linked to quotes MSF as saying that government planes attacked a hospital.
Acatually, there is no direct quote of MSF, and no identification of the individual person reporting that to Reuters or explanation of how MSF knows that. However, as this would be an atrocity for which the Syrian government would be responsible, no need to "verify" that as there is for an allegation of rebels using human shields.