Why It Is Highly Unlikely the Syrian Regime Was Behind the Houla Massacre

I am not saying any group is immune from committing war crimes or terrorism in times of war, and I am fully aware of the Syrian regime’s repressive tactics, but even the most horrific acts of violence are driven by a certain “logic” which strives to achieve concrete objectives. There has to be a motive and set of interests that are served by the heinous act in question, especially when it is conducted in such an orderly and methodical fashion.

Forget the fact that the massacres occurred in an area which , according to Ban Ki Moon’s letter to the UNSC president, was “outside of the government control”, and that some of the victims had died of “shotgun wounds” indicating they were shot a point blank range, and “severe physical abuse” [apparently a euphemism for beheading] neither of which are the exclusive preserve of a conventional armed force. Forget also that artillery fire—another cause of the deaths— is also available to the opposition.

Forget the BBC’s fabrication of evidence about this massacre and all the implications for mainstream reporting on Syria that carries.

Forget that Israel, who is notorious for cold-blooded massacres of children, immediately laid the blame for the killings on Hizbullah and Iran, prompting the usually reticent Netanyahu (to date he has said very little on Syria to avoid harming the opposition) to advance such an accusation.

Forget that the same UN body that is now accusing the Syrian regime of this crime, accuses Hizbullah of killing Hariri, based on non-existent evidence.

Forget that the same UN body that is now accusing the Syrian regime of this crime, will soon have Jeffrey Feltman—one of the most exposed US diplomats according to numerous Wikileaks documents, and one of Washington’s most outspoken enemies of Assad-Hizbullah-Iran—as its Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs.

Forget that this sectarian massacre comes right at the heels of the FSA’s clearly sectarian- motivated abduction of Lebanese Shi’te pilgrims, whose whereabouts are still unknown.

Forget all that.

What on earth could the Syrian regime have stood to benefit from this macabre massacre of Sunnis? What could its “logic” or motives possibly have been? How could the regime have ensured or at least contributed to its longevity by this act? What interests could this heinous act have served other than militarizing the existing UN presence; inviting foreign military intervention into Syria; increasing calls among NATO countries for establishing “humanitarian corridors”; turning Sunnis (given the identity of those massacred) against Alawites; and further tarnishing the regime’s already badly beaten public image?

Source:  ASG’s Counter-Hegemony Unit

Leave a Reply