Skip to comments.Report: Rebels Responsible for Houla Massacre
Posted on 06/09/2012 4:33:04 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
It was, in the words of U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan, the tipping point in the Syria conflict: a savage massacre of over 90 people, predominantly women and children, for which the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed by virtually the entirety of the Western media. Within days of the first reports of the Houla massacre, the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany, and several other Western countries announced that they were expelling Syrias ambassadors in protest.
But according to a new report in Germanys leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the Houla massacre was in fact committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants, and the bulk of the victims were member of the Alawi and Shia minorities, which have been largely supportive of Assad. The reports information is attributed to opponents of Assad, though the sources declined to have their names appear in print out of fear of reprisals from armed opposition groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
UN is a cesspool of murderers and pedophiles passing judgement on other murderers and pedophiles.....funny
Notice that pathetic turd McCain wanting to commit US troops to this...
Watch the new movie U.N. Me, it is playing OnDemand or on Itunes. It will make your stomach turn!
He was not the ONLY RINO to support this.
The Magic Etch-a-Sketch RINO also supported this.
What's the difference? Radical Islamists doing it either way.
While true that Mittens has naively and cluelessly jumped on this bandwagon, IF and WHEN he begins to bow down to the Kings/Rulers/Diktators of Islamic Republics; travels to foreign lands to praise the "Religion of Peace" while denigrating the USA; claims the United States is NOT a "Christian Nation" while claiming that the US has a more Muslims than any other country and praises all their "supposed" accomplishments; appoints KNOWN supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood as advisers; appeases/defends/supports Islamic Jihadists worldwide, while selling out Israel; imposes Rules of Engagement which protects our enemies while endangering our Military Warriors engaged in combat; starts negotiating with our enemies (Tally-Ban); allows for the release of captured Terrorists in Afgan; orders the scrubbing of ANY reference to Jihad/Radical Islam/Terrorism for ALL training material; covers up for the Terrorist attack by Major Hassan at Ft Hood by naming it "Workplace violence," etc., etc., etc.,....
....come back and we'll talk.
Daniel Greenfield/Sultan Knish nails it on this from Friday a week ago.
THE DEAD BABY MEDIA
..Anyone who has spent time in the Middle East knows quite well that parading around dead bodies is part of the Muslim ceremony of rallying for the next attack. These aren’t funerals, these are corpse parades and the corpses are often of unknown provenance, accompanied by calls for vengeance.
Sometimes the bodies are actually of those killed in an attack. Just as often they died of natural causes or are freshly dug up. Go to any Muslim conflict and you’ll find both sides brandishing bodies and sometimes even pieces of them...
The question is why the political side, Obama and his minions (Clinton, Panetta, etc) are changing the true story to an anti-Assad one.
I believe it is because we are carrying the water for the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe ME is gaining control throughout North Africa because the WH is making it possible and acceptable.
Deceit, malice and murder in the Middle East! Hard to believe, isn’t it? My illusions are shattered over this, especially after all the good we accomplished in Libya.
Whatever you can say about Romney pales in comparison to that lying, two-faced, backstabbing POS McCain...
This would be about par for the course in the M.E.and for Moslems in general. And for Asia. There is an Asian kind of warfare that is part of the reason for the dictum about getting involved in a land war in Asia. Combine Asia with Moslem and the only rational Western treatment of the situation is either leave it alone or wipe it out.
The kenyan is Sunni and has taken sides in the ME Sunni-Shia contention. I half expect an assault on Iran this summer for that reason. Defeat of Syria would accomplish two things for him- a big boost in November if he times it right, and a huge step toward establishment of the Caliphate.
There are no “good guys” in this. Moving UN “peace-keepers” in won’t change that in the least.
The difference is Saudi supported insurgents are trying to overthrow a regime that at least does not harass the Christians living in the country. Try to establish a Christian church in Saudi Arabia.
Of course the Saudis want us to assume our usual position of butt boy and start military operations against Syria on their behalf to support another Arab spring. A British journalist recently reported that a car load of insurgents tried to lure them into a free fire zone.
The atrocities that have outraged the world are PR stunts perpetiated by the Saudi supported insurgents to neuter Assad’s forces and promote another Libyan excursion by our idiot president. Of course our media is helping promote the insurgents. Reacting to the atrocities will encourage more of them.
We need to stay the hell out of Syria. Let the Russians and Syrians deal with the Saudis in this case. If I had my druthers, the government would assist the Russians behind the scenes.
You're falling into the trap of not being able to see differences between your enemies. When of course a key factor in winning any war is being able to recognize and exploit such differences.
Mubarak, Saddam and Assad are (or were) not radical Islamists by any reasonable definition of the term. They are or were Muslims, but not radical or willing to build their society around enforcement of sharia. (Gadaffi was such a nut it's hard to figure out where he belongs in this spectrum).
As dictators they generally protected minority groups such as Christians and heretic Muslim sects. Not because they believed in human rights, but as a way to "divide and conquer" their people. Women generally fared better than under their Islamist successors, for the same reasons.
Don't get me wrong, these are bad dudes, but their oppression was not specifically Muslim in character. People were punished for perceived or potential opposition to the Leader, not for being bad Muslims. I may be wrong about this, but open sale of alcohol was or is allowed in all three countries. Any dictator that allows open alcohol use can't reasonably be called a radical Islamist.
In fact, Assad is a member of the Alawite sect, which most Muslims don't consider to be Muslim, not even heretical Muslims. Given some of their doctrines, that's not an unreasonable POV.
In all of this, they had a great deal more in common with the Shah than with the mullahs who overthrew him.
I think this needs to be expounded upon. Many do not understand that there are two opposing Muslim forces, the Sunni and the Shia. What can you tell us about Obama's preference and why do you understand it as being so? This whole can of worms needs to opened wide up if people are to understand what is going on and just who Obama is and why he makes the decisions he makes concerning the Muslim world. Not to mention his apparent desire to please Putin, also playing in heavily to his decision making processes, of course.