West’s Houla Syria Narrative Crumbles, Expels Syrian Diplomats Anyway
Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer, May 29 2012
The UN according to AP, has stated:
Most of the 108 victims of a massacre in [Houla] Syria last week were shot at close range, some of them women, children and entire families gunned down in their own homes.
The UN has also stated that militants, not Syrian soldiers, were responsible for the massacre. The report cites “witness accounts” claiming the militants were “pro-government thugs known as shabiha,” while the Syrian government has claimed the militants were foreign-backed armed terrorists. This stands in stark contrast to the original narrative the US, UK, France and other NATO members have used to accuse the Syrian government for the atrocities, and even as the basis to expel Syrian diplomats. As stated by UK Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt:
We are appalled at what appears to be credible reports that the Syrian regime has been responsible for the deaths of 92 civilians in Houla, including 32 children. The UN Head of Mission has been able to confirm the numbers and also that artillery tank shells have been used. If this is the case then it’s an act of pure, naked savagery and we condemn it in the most strongest possible terms.
UThe UN has now confirmed that artillery fired by government troops were not responsible for the massacre, and instead carried out by unidentified militants. Despite this, the UK has failed to retract earlier accusations and has instead expelled Syrian diplomats in an increasingly dangerous, irrational, aggressive posture. Clearly Burt was not reading credible reports, nor has he or his government made any credible attempts to retract their earlier accusations now confirmed to be fabrications. Instead, what the West has done, is distort each new piece of actual evidence that emerges, as the Syrian government and their Russian counterparts struggle to objectively ascertain what happened in Houla, Syria. An example of this comes from the Guardian, who contradicting its own earlier reports, began citing “witness” accounts admittedly provided by Syrian opposition leaders and seemingly custom-tailored to refute the latest evidence presented by Russia before the UNSC. At the moment, only Russia has observed that not enough evidence exists to blame either side, and insists that “the blame must be determined objectively.” Paradoxically, the West, who justifies its global interventions and institutions via “international rule of law,” seems intent on trying, convicting, and executing the Syrian government as quickly as possible, seemingly desperate to do so exactly before “blame can be determined objectively.”