[cyberhog]

We know the SNC has falsely accused Assad of committing previous atrocities so shouldn't we be treating the oppositions latest accusations with a little more scepticism? Suppose Assad is right and terrorists do in fact bare most of the responsibililty for the civilian massacre, and it turns out that they killed those children in the hope it would trigger a NATO intervention then I think it would be unconscionable if the West continued to support the anti-government side because it would be virtually impossible to prevent that support from reaching those terrorists aswell.

[tricky D]

The truth went out the window very early on in the Arab Spring. So has decent analysis as a result. While there is no doubt that many atrocities have been carried out, the black and white notion that it's all Gaddafi's or Assad's fault and at their hand, is simply untrue. It's a lot more complicated than the version we are being sold in the media. As you allude to, there is a significant body of evidence of less than true allegations. (There was the one of Assad's forces killing babies in incubators which was quickly dropped due to it having so many holes in what was a very similar copy of the false baby killing allegations made when Iraq invaded Kuwait)

In the cases of both Libya and Syria you have many factions which were held down by secular dictators who are now out for blood. These are many and various factions including Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremists. There's also been a lot of instability created as a result with a revolution in Tunisia (which isn't such a bad thing) and a break up of Mali as a direct result of what happened in Libya (a bad thing). Stratfor predicted this one quite well.

It seems to me that it will get a lot worse before and if it gets better. What exactly the western interests are doing in promoting more instability is a bit puzzling after all they had just got Gaddafi 'onside', then pull the rug out leaving a lot of unpredictability and volatility in the void.

The one sure thing is that it's going to be a very dirty affair.

[Jonny7]

Dictatorship 101 - step down... or massacre your own people long enough so that those you claim caused it come into existence

[Einhard]

Originally Posted by cyberhog

I think it would be unconscionable if the West continued to support the anti-government side because it would be virtually impossible to prevent that support from reaching those terrorists aswell.

I think so too. But given as that is not the case, and that the only people claiming that it is the case is Assad and his regime, why even raise the issue?

[Jaafa]

The whole situation under which the massacre took place makes zero sense. Initially we were told that the people were killed under heavy shelling. A report released today by the UN monitors showed most the people were killed by what they described as executions. So now the rebels are claiming the army had come in and personally executed almost 100 people. Not unheard of as massacres go.

But note what I said above, UN monitors were let into the area to inspect the bodies.

Why in the name of all that makes sense would the army commit this massacre only to let in UN monitors into the area hours later to confirm it? Especially seeing as they had no problem doing so in early cases such as in Homs, amidst cries of massacres (which turned out to be false btw), the army prevented anyone from entering the area for days on the basis it was still unsafe to do so.

I've heard only one possible answer to this, and that is that the government wanted to send a message to the rebels, to scare them into submission. So lets analyse that idea.

The regime thought it would be a good idea to massacre a close to 100 people, with the hope that it would scare the battle hardened opposition, who have already witnessed thousands of deaths in the country, and all the while willing to accept the international backlash that has indeed now occurred, and also risk the only thing that can topple the regime; international military intervention. (which the SNC has called for today in a press conference)

Does that really make sense to anyone here?

And lets not forget this all took place just before Annan was due for talks with the government, perfect welcoming gift for him too.

I don't support the regime, the clock has struck for them, and it's time for Syria to transition to democracy, but there is no proof at all so far the regime carried this massacre out.

[Nodin]

The other notion is that as the village is Sunni in a Shia area, local elements took it upon themselves to attack them, either working towards the regime, or using that as cover for their own motives. 68 of the dead are apparently from the one extended family.

[tricky D]

There's indeed some truth in that Nodin. The rebels aren't one single force but many factions with many agendas and scores to settle.

[gurramok]

Originally Posted by Jaafa

Does that really make sense to anyone here?

Looks as if the killings were outsourced to the pro-government Shabiha militia rather than the actual army. Nice way of absolving responsibility by Assad.

[cyberhog]

A former MI6 officer believes the methods used in the slaughter in Houla implicate "Al-Qaeda like groups"

“This type of killing, beheadings, slitting of throats (of children too), and of this mutilation of bodies, has been a characteristic not of Levantine Islam, not of Syria, not of Lebanon, but what happened in the Anbar province of Iraq. And so it seems to point very much in the direction of groups that have been associated with the war in Iraq against the United States who have perhaps returned to Syria, or perhaps Iraqis who have come up from Anbar to take part in it,” he says.

“I think the attack is more close to Musab al-Zarqawi [who declared an all out war on Shia in Iraq], than Al-Qaeda as we know it, in the sense that Zarqawi and Iraq gave birth to this very strong, bigoted, anti-Shia, anti-Iranian rhetoric. Much of that came into Syria when fighters from Anbar returned to their homes around Homs and Hama.

“So yes, we’re talking about Al-Qaeda like groups that are at the very end of the spectrum of the opposition. They may be a minority in terms of the numbers of the overall opposition, but they are defining the war,”

http://www.rt.com/news/houla-massacr...d-militia-480/

[JustinDee]

Russian government owned and run media outlet bends over backwards to absolve the Syrian regime that the Russian government still continues to prop up.
Wow. So surprising . . .

[Jaafa]

Originally Posted by gurramok

Looks as if the killings were outsourced to the pro-government Shabiha militia rather than the actual army. Nice way of absolving responsibility by Assad.

According to who?

And even if that was the case my point still stands. Your saying the killing was outsourced to these militias who have a known connection to the regime, why would the regime order them to kill these people, then invite UN monitors in to inspect the damage? Knowing such claims would be made against them?

[cyberhog]

Originally Posted by Jaafa

According to who?

I believe that accusation came from the U.N. peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous.

He said that the army and "shabbiha" militia supporting Assad were "probably" responsible for massacring 108 people with artillery, tanks, small arms and knives.

Despite his "strong suspicions", he said the evidence was less clear about the shabbiha militia's involvement in the close-range killings with knives and small arms. By saying that, he did not definitively clear the rebels of blame.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84S1AT20120530

So, while it is possible shabbiha are involved ,at this point, it is nothing more than conjecture.

[Suff]

Again, this is not a matter of black or white.

I am Syrian, and I do support a regime change in Syria, it is long over due but it has to be done correctly and not by armed interventions. You cannot clean blood with blood.

There are different groups running havoc in Syria, committing all sorts of atrocities in order to flare up the already blazed emotions of Syrians. Yes, we have issues with the Ba'ath regime and have suffered 40 years of it. But we don't want to see the country fall into a state of civil war due to schemes plotted by foreign players, which are using this notion to achieve their goals in the region.

Remember back in 2006, when the world watched Israel destroy Gaza and southern Lebanon, did we see Israeli officials and diplomats being given 72 hours to exit Western countries?? ...we know why, but when it comes to Syria, it is a different subject apparently.


As for what happened in Houla; we may never know the truth.

[Jonny7]

Originally Posted by Suff

As for what happened in Houla; we may never know the truth.

Most countries would stop asking that question after their leadership repeatedly shelled population centers with live artillery..

Maybe the Russians will sell him some fuel-air bombs a la Grozny because the situation is "complex" and "because terrorists".

[BlaasForRafa]

Originally Posted by Jaafa

According to who?

And even if that was the case my point still stands. Your saying the killing was outsourced to these militias who have a known connection to the regime, why would the regime order them to kill these people, then invite UN monitors in to inspect the damage? Knowing such claims would be made against them?

There are a couple of possibilities.

1. The regime may not have ordered the killings, it may have been a purely sectarian act.

2. The regime may have ordered/requested the militia to attack but did not tell the militia exactly what to do.

What the op and others seem to be trying to imply, that some anti-assad faction carried out the massacre in order to implicate the regime is a bit too conspiracy-theory for me, not that I'd completely rule it out but it seems like a pretty unlikely possibility. Until more evidence comes out the most likely possibility is that the militia did it.