MONDAY,
AUGUST 20, 2012
On 16 august the UN published a Report on Syria.
It was considered the final word about the Houla massacre, but the report had only 7 pages out of 102 pages , on Houla.
Out of these 7 pages, only 2 pages were new. The other 5 were a repetition of these first 2.
From these 2 pages, only a few paragraphs were relevant.:
43. We made 8 interviews, of which 2 with survivors. We saw video's and satellite images and reviewed analyses from other sources.
44. In total 47 interviews were considered. These were consistent in their depiction of the events and all described government forces as perpetrators ( and Shabiba) .
Except from 2 witnesses who spoke in a government report, this Government Report was not confirmed by any witnesses.
We judged the 2 witnesses in the Govt. report unreliable: inconsistencies.
'Our 'witnesses were consistent, even if they were taken over a longer period of time.
We have no idea whom they interviewed, as they don't give us any clue.
But they have interviewed two survivors.
There was only one survivor, as we heard in the first weeks after the massacre, an 11 year old boy.
This boy gave at least two interviews immediately after the massacre: to the Guardian and to the rebels.
IF the boy was present at the murders, and IF he is a reliable witness, the minimum we may expect of him is that he is consistent in his account of the number of deaths he saw during and immediately after the massacre.
This is not the case.
The boy has counted the number of shots through the door, the number of shots that killed his mother and he counted how many killers entered the house. But his account of the number of deaths and the names of the deaths vary between the two interviews he gave in the first days after the massacre.
He tells the rebels his father is called Ali, but he tells the Guardian that his father is called Aref.
He tells the Guardian that he saw three men killed outside the house: his father, eldest brother and an uncle. He does not mention the killing of these 3 close relatives to the rebels. How can you forget to mention the killing of your father and brother, which happened that same day ?
See my blog: http://xevolutie.blogspot.nl/2012/08/232.html
On the video he describres how his brother Shawki and his uncles Ogba and Aref were all arrested in his fathers house, and that he saw their dead bodies on tv the next day. He does not mention anything about this to The Guardian.
How reliable is this witness?
Again:
How reliable is this witness??
It is this boy who tells us that he saw government troops, not rebels.
Here too he is inconsistent; one time the tanks were shooting, then it was the men and their guns.
But let's look at it from another angle.
Why would government troops enter this city , pick oput some special families, and kill only members of these families? We know for sure that some of these people had ties to Assad: one man was a police officer. The other family had a member of parliament among the members.
If these government soldiers and Shabbiha were angry at the Sunni's, why would they pick exactly those families? There are hundreds of other families with no ties to Assad. Better pick them!
Now suppose it was the rebels who did the killings.
Could they have a motive?
Yes: make Assad look cruel.
( Atrocities is the name of the game. Or better: assumed atrocities, or more precise even: expected atrocities: soon to happen atrocities like: Weapons of mass destruction, bombs on London ( Iraq) .
Or: the coming genocide on the Benghazi people by Ghadaqffi.
Or: the coming use of gas by Assad.
Or: the future atom bomb of Iran.
All these rimes that may perhaps pone day happen, are enough reason for the barbarians to destroy complete countries. The barbarians want it all for themselves, and the stupid readers believe every lie, as they did for many decennia.
Again: Now suppose it was the rebels who did the killings.
Would they dress like rebels?
Of course not.
Would they dress like soldiers?
Of course.
Would they posess a tank ?
I heard that rebels have taken over tanks from the army. So why not?
If this whole massacre was intended to give Assad a bad name, the rebels would have killed some ennemies (Sunni families who have ties to Assad) and they would have looked like Assad's soldiers. Not so difficult, as there are a lot of soldiers who went to the rebels and took their weapons and clothes with them.
I am afraid that the witnesses are not convincing .
It was considered the final word about the Houla massacre, but the report had only 7 pages out of 102 pages , on Houla.
Out of these 7 pages, only 2 pages were new. The other 5 were a repetition of these first 2.
From these 2 pages, only a few paragraphs were relevant.:
43. We made 8 interviews, of which 2 with survivors. We saw video's and satellite images and reviewed analyses from other sources.
44. In total 47 interviews were considered. These were consistent in their depiction of the events and all described government forces as perpetrators ( and Shabiba) .
Except from 2 witnesses who spoke in a government report, this Government Report was not confirmed by any witnesses.
We judged the 2 witnesses in the Govt. report unreliable: inconsistencies.
'Our 'witnesses were consistent, even if they were taken over a longer period of time.
We have no idea whom they interviewed, as they don't give us any clue.
But they have interviewed two survivors.
There was only one survivor, as we heard in the first weeks after the massacre, an 11 year old boy.
This boy gave at least two interviews immediately after the massacre: to the Guardian and to the rebels.
IF the boy was present at the murders, and IF he is a reliable witness, the minimum we may expect of him is that he is consistent in his account of the number of deaths he saw during and immediately after the massacre.
This is not the case.
The boy has counted the number of shots through the door, the number of shots that killed his mother and he counted how many killers entered the house. But his account of the number of deaths and the names of the deaths vary between the two interviews he gave in the first days after the massacre.
He tells the rebels his father is called Ali, but he tells the Guardian that his father is called Aref.
He tells the Guardian that he saw three men killed outside the house: his father, eldest brother and an uncle. He does not mention the killing of these 3 close relatives to the rebels. How can you forget to mention the killing of your father and brother, which happened that same day ?
See my blog: http://xevolutie.blogspot.nl/2012/08/232.html
On the video he describres how his brother Shawki and his uncles Ogba and Aref were all arrested in his fathers house, and that he saw their dead bodies on tv the next day. He does not mention anything about this to The Guardian.
How reliable is this witness?
Again:
How reliable is this witness??
It is this boy who tells us that he saw government troops, not rebels.
Here too he is inconsistent; one time the tanks were shooting, then it was the men and their guns.
But let's look at it from another angle.
Why would government troops enter this city , pick oput some special families, and kill only members of these families? We know for sure that some of these people had ties to Assad: one man was a police officer. The other family had a member of parliament among the members.
If these government soldiers and Shabbiha were angry at the Sunni's, why would they pick exactly those families? There are hundreds of other families with no ties to Assad. Better pick them!
Now suppose it was the rebels who did the killings.
Could they have a motive?
Yes: make Assad look cruel.
( Atrocities is the name of the game. Or better: assumed atrocities, or more precise even: expected atrocities: soon to happen atrocities like: Weapons of mass destruction, bombs on London ( Iraq) .
Or: the coming genocide on the Benghazi people by Ghadaqffi.
Or: the coming use of gas by Assad.
Or: the future atom bomb of Iran.
All these rimes that may perhaps pone day happen, are enough reason for the barbarians to destroy complete countries. The barbarians want it all for themselves, and the stupid readers believe every lie, as they did for many decennia.
Again: Now suppose it was the rebels who did the killings.
Would they dress like rebels?
Of course not.
Would they dress like soldiers?
Of course.
Would they posess a tank ?
I heard that rebels have taken over tanks from the army. So why not?
If this whole massacre was intended to give Assad a bad name, the rebels would have killed some ennemies (Sunni families who have ties to Assad) and they would have looked like Assad's soldiers. Not so difficult, as there are a lot of soldiers who went to the rebels and took their weapons and clothes with them.
I am afraid that the witnesses are not convincing .
No comments:
Post a Comment