What if Assad is telling the truth?

Eye-witness account about Houla.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/massacre-children-syrian-officer

And before anyone starts, the Guardian is noted for its left-wing and liberal ideology, and cannot be accused of being a pro western propagandist.

The witness in the article says Assad started shelling Houla a couple of days after the massacre to try to destroy the evidence.

Very few people on the ground in Syria (as opposed to those force-fed SANA lies every day) doubt it was pro Assad militia who carried this out.

And tbh these pages and pages of arguing are meaningless because tricky D and Suff hit the nail on the head in the first page.

gurramok wrote: »

He didn't agree to that on the massacre, nice jumping to conclusions. He agreed that a 3rd force is at work(homegrown suicide bombers from Iraq) attacking the security forces, different thing altogether.

That's one persons views(assuming he is really Syrian). Perhaps we can ask a person from Homs to contribute?

I'm still reading the Officers carefully chosen words and still not managing the 100% so readily achieved by some....

Foreign interests fuelling Syria conflict - UN observer head

Head of the UN Observer Mission in Syria Major General Robert Mood has said he believes foreign interests are fuelling the conflict in Syria by providing money and weapons.

However, he would not say whether Western countries were involved.

Maj Gen Mood said: ''We are pretty sure, through our dialogues, that there are supplies of both money and weapons and also presence of other parties on [the] ground.''

''They have not come from the villages in Syria. We believe we have seen parties from outside Syria contribute to the spiral of violence in a very non-constructive way.''

It's worth noting that Maj Gen Mood made no reference to Iraqi suicide bombers, or a "3rd Force" as in a single entity,but rather to "Other Parties" as well as,importantly, money and weapons.

The Maj General did not offer an opinion on the presence or otherwise of "Western Countries" in this scenario,but that would be unsurprising in itself.

I suppose it would have been somewhat easier and more welcome,given his access to on-the-ground sitreps,had Maj Gen Mood managed to apportion 100% of the blame onto Al Assad,but he did,nt.

As for the nationality of Suff,it's not really an issue as I've already stated that I'm taking that posters statements at face value.

I've been surprised at just how much the Western media have bought into simplistic notion of Assad bad, rebels good. Assad isn't really in control of the Ba'ath Party the way he's portrayed by the press. While I still think if he had a conscious he'd either resign or renounce the violence it would merely be a symbolic step, albeit a powerful one. He came to power because he was his father's son. The people really pulling the strings as far as the regime's concerned are his father's old friends and advisers still knocking about Damascus.

Even then it's hard to tell what's really going on. There's a serious lack of any real intelligence and the fact that nobody can definitively state who carried out the Houla massacre is evidence of that. It could well have been the Shabiha but if so were they acting on orders from the regime or on their own accord? Was it the Syrian army itself? Surely they can't have been that stupid or brazen with the world watching? Was it a rival family or ethnic group settling a score? A terrorist group or foreign players trying to further a sectarian divided? The amount of questions marks I've just used is not indicative of a clear conception of what's happening.

What we do know is that the regime is using force to some extent by virtue of the fact that only the army has heavy artillery to shell areas. We also know that the opposition is highly fractured. The Syrian National Council is at odds with the National Coordination Committee and both of them seem to be at odds with the Free Syrian Army, itself less a coordinated army than a bunch of loosely connected, autonomous armed groups. Throw into the mix any number of people or groups with their own agendas or scores to settle and the scene becomes just too chaotic to decipher.

cyberhog wrote: »

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

This wouldn't surprise me. Al Qaeda were very slow to get involved, or show any influence, in the Arab Spring and they've been looking to make up for it. The unrest in Syria has gone on long enough that they've had enough time to implant and direct fighters. The chaos resulting from the regime's clashes with the opposition has probably given them enough cover to move in and operate unnoticed. I'm not saying that AQ are definitely involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were there.

gurramok wrote: »

That's one persons views(assuming he is really Syrian). Perhaps we can ask a person from Homs to contribute?

If you have read my post you'd know that I haven't stated or declared myself as a spokesman for all Syrians. I have lived the events since they've started in Damascus, and my post is my opinion. There are enough people trying to shut us (Syrians) up without you joining them.

As for my Syrian authenticity; would a photocopy of my passport and a 900 years' old family tree do for a proof?

Edit:*
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the Houla massacre, its not the first nor it'll be the last. Some seem to indicate that Assad had ordered it.

Let's ask the following questions:

1- What would the regime possibly achieve from such a massacre?
2- Were Assad directly in contact with the troops? did he give the order to murder these children?
3- Who would benefit from this massacre?
4- What can we do about it?

Here are my 'personal' views on the above:

1- IMO; nothing! what it did is add oil to the fire (Syrian proverb) and as a result, it initiated the civil strike in Damascus and Aleppo, and a massive international condemnation which ended up with recalling of diplomats and ambassadors on both sides.
2- It may have been the work of the Shabeha (Assad loyalists), they are after all an armed sectarian militia, it could have been done in a desperate attempt to frighten the Syrian public. For me, to state Assad's direct involvement is completely silly, micromanagement at it worst. But, he's the authority figure at the moment therefore he is held responsible.
3- The beneficiaries are by the bucket load. It could be that the massacre was conducted by another side, as it could be easily blamed on the regime.
4- Adding more sanctions won't help, these effect Syrians and not the government. There are no flights to Damascus from the EU, now many Syrians are forced to travel to Beirut, then make their own way home by the dangerous roads (on a personal note: I have no idea how I could get home to Damascus). Military intervention is out of the question. This would result in a third world war; hence, no one is seriously considering it as a solution, and might be the reason why Russia and China are against it.
Syrians are still going out on protests and getting killed, shot and kidnapped, will this change? Yes, I believe it will and it'll be done by the Syrians themselves. The end is near for regime, its a matter of time, and this is something the regime doesn't have.


Houla is not the issue here, nor is Assad, he'll bugger of to Russia sooner or later leaving us to deal with the chaos.

The main issue is how to avoid civil war.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Here's an article about how the BBC passed off a disturbing photo from Iraq as one taken in Houla- http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/05/29/the-bbcs-photo-fib-of-a-syrian-massacre/

And: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/06/03/the-houla-hoaxsters/



(Note that there were links in the passage. I had to cut them out because some led to nasty images/videos)

Given that there are many eye witness accounts including those directly affected by the massacre who narrowly escaped, who actually saw the people who carried it out, can you find us one eye witness account (not from Troll stations like RT and SANA) who accusses the FSA of doing it?

As has been said I think i will trust the word of someone actually living in Syria and living in the town where it happened instead of some armchair commentators.

1. Assad has zero legitimacy. People demanded democracy and he bombed them with tanks and shells.

Then why has the army not seen any mass defections and the population still come out in mass rallies in his support?

2. The FSA was not formed until 6 months after Assad started mass murdering his people, and by which stage already 5000 had been murdered by Assad.

Soldiers were being killed as early as April 10, 2011. Weapons were flooding in from Lebanon from the very start, I spoke about this back then and still stand by that claim.

3. There are hundreds of thousands of Syrians being held in government prisons in Syria without trial all for peacefully protesting

Hundreds of thousands? Any sources please?

4. The FSA have destroyed hundreds of Assad tanks, tanks that were being used to soften up towns before the Shabita went in to finish off the locals. It is without question the FSA have saved countless lives.

Sources?

5. The Houla massacre is one among hundreds committed by Assad thugs. There was two massacres of factory workers in the week since Houla that have gone almost unreported in Western media.

The killers have as of yet not been identified. As sure as you are it was pro Assad militias (and it may well be that) I'd rather wait to make that call. As for the supposed massacres of factory workers I can assure you that if there were even some tiny evidence for it, western media would have been all over it.

6. There is no massacre on record which the FSA commited against familes or innocent civilians (other than those massacres that the Troll media outlets RT and SANA tried to pin on them which were carried out by Assad forces). The only people the FSA have murdered were shabita thugs and army thugs who were threathening civilians.

Human rights watch would disagree with you. 'Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians.'

7. For the most part the FSA is so fractured, disorganised, lacking in communications equipment and leadership on the ground, that it wouldn't be even able to organise such an operation involving hundreds of men to attack these civilians, and the FSA would certainly not be stupid enough to enter a town that was in the sights of heavy armour and was shelled up to an hour or two before.

So they can destroy hundreds of army tanks, kill thousands of army soldiers but are too disorganized to kill a hundred civilians?

I think you are the one living in a separate reality here.

Oh and before anyone starts with the usual baseless attacks, no I don't support Assad staying in power, yes I do think the army kills civilians, yes I do think RT SANA etc are mainly propaganda. The difference between me and you is however is that I haven't chosen sides and am willing to accept the opposition are just as bad. I'm merely try find the the reality of the situation in Syria.

plasmaguy wrote: »

When you say the opposition are just as bad as Assad, you lose credibility very very quickly and after that point its pointless replying to you. But I will give one example...Assad flattened Homs, killing 700 civilians indiscriminately, without bothering to check first which side they were on. There are many sources to back this up, go look for them yourself.

When you can't back up your own statements or refute any of mine you lose credibility very very quickly.

Which statements are you referring to?

How you start with the above ones where I explicitly asked you for sources. Or did you even read my post?

Are you prepared to accept human rights watch as a source? a yes or no answer will do.

I won't be held to a yes or no answer. I will of course take a HRW report for what it is, a report from a reputable source, but I will point out any flaws in the source if I see them. As you are more than welcome to do with the report I posted from HRW.

After that maybe you can provide some credible sources (not RT or SANA) for your claims that the FSA are massacring civilians in Syria since you are so big into sources.

I already did, again did you not read my post?

Jaafa wrote: »

How you start with the above ones where I explicitly asked you for sources. Or did you even read my post?



I won't be held to a yes or no answer. I will of course take a HRW report for what it is, a report from a reputable source, but I will point out any flaws in the source if I see them. As you are more than welcome to do with the report I posted from HRW.



I already did, again did you not read my post?

Here's one source among thousands about this conflict.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/02/syria-new-satellite-images-show-homs-shelling

I hope you do accept that Homs was flattened by the Syrian Regular Army and many innocent civilians lost their lives.

There are hundreds more similar verifiable episodes about regime snipers, tanks, shelling, helicoptor attacks and so on. You know as well as me there are plenty of sources out there for everyone to find and I am not going to play games over sources, this is too serious a matter, I think you will agree, to be playing games on forums like this.

Jaafa wrote: »

Then why has the army not seen any mass defections and the population still come out in mass rallies in his support?

Ah, very familiar, in fact identical to claims about Libya (which turned out to be either weak or false in hindsight)

There were mass defections, there were also mass reprisals against troops. Up to 120 were killed in one incident (which were blamed on rebels) early on in the conflict. Defectors up to officer rank and above have been going in all directions, there are dozens of interviews online with them, many joining different factions, generally giving the same account within the Syrian armed forces.

Mass rallies are virtually irrelevant in any strong-armed government or dictatorship, North Korea for example.

Soldiers were being killed as early as April 10, 2011. Weapons were flooding in from Lebanon from the very start, I spoke about this back then and still stand by that claim.

It was a long time before the oppositions organised itself into a fighting force such as the rebels we see today. It was mainly just protesters being shot by security forces. This is reflected in the threads at the time.

The killers have as of yet not been identified. As sure as you are it was pro Assad militias (and it may well be that) I'd rather wait to make that call. As for the supposed massacres of factory workers I can assure you that if there were even some tiny evidence for it, western media would have been all over it.

It has been reported by the "Western media".

Ah, very familiar, in fact identical to claims about Libya (which turned out to be either weak or false in hindsight)

There were mass defections, there were also mass reprisals against troops. Up to 120 were killed in one incident (which were blamed on rebels) early on in the conflict. Defectors up to officer rank and above have been going in all directions, there are dozens of interviews online with them, many joining different factions, generally giving the same account within the Syrian armed forces.

The oppositions claims of defections are highly exaggerated, all in all, its likely only about 10000 defections occurred, some of them yes high ranking officers. But from an active force of around 300,000 that is a very small figure.

Mass rallies are virtually irrelevant in any strong-armed government or dictatorship, North Korea for example.

I'm sorry but a comparison to north korea is not possible. North Korea is by far a special case, no other country in the world comes even close to the level of blatant indoctrination and iron fisted rule there.

It was a long time before the oppositions organised itself into a fighting force such as the rebels we see today. It was mainly just protesters being shot by security forces. This is reflected in the threads at the time.

Regardless of how long it took the rebels to become organised and good at killing soldiers the point is they were doing it almost from the start. This in direct contrast to the usual narrative that it was august before any sort of insurgency occurred against the army, army deaths were never reported up until then, and if they were it was always to say they were soldiers killed for defecting. It is naive to think all these weapons were flooding into the country and not being used till much much later. An armed response by the regime was to be expected, especially if these early rebels were bringing arms to protests with the aim of 'protecting civilians'.

It has been reported by the "Western media"

Which is in contradiction to what plasmaguy was saying.

I think this thread is being deliberately polarised by some people into two extremely simplistic views:

1. Assad is the bad guy who assumes complete responsibility.
2. Assad has no responsibility whatsoever for the violence.

I think most of us realise that the reality is a quagmire that lies somewhere in between but it's very hard for us, living in Ireland and most without any direct knowledge of Syria, to make definitive judgements based on what we know now. Yes I believe Assad, if he has a conscience, should step down. It would be a hugely powerful symbol if the President who is perceived to be responsible for most of the killing and has the most power to stop it would renounce the violence on both sides. It may just be enough to rescue the situation. Then again the thread title is "What if Assad's telling the truth' and the truth, Assad's truth, is that he may genuinely believe that he's doing right by his people, that he is protecting them from a bloody sectarian civil war. Regardless of what we think that may well be his POV.

Nonetheless I think the longer this goes on the less direct control Assad can exercise and the more he becomes a symbol. The country is becoming so chaotic and fractured that individual army and militia commanders are taking their own initiative and acting without concise instructions from higher up, particularly in the case of the latter. Do you think the old heads of inner government want to relinquish power after decades? Do you think the army et al. want to come out on the losing side given what some of them have done, knowing that either the ICC or their own countrymen will be waiting to administer justice?