The Khamis Brigade Shed Massacre

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I don't understand the connection. Are you saying the people who perpetrated the massacre in Libya are (as in, positively) now going to Syria to perpetrate another massacre?

No, it's more than likely Misrata people that did the shed massacre, and mostly the Tripoli Brigade (from the Nafusah mountains) going to Syria, as far as we know. But that wasn't the point. That was to show some connections and parallels that are icing on the cake to the main point which is :

The same tricks are quite likely being pulled in Syria as were pulled in Libya. You examine "witnesses" to a "regime massacre" at the Yarmouk base and you'll find they seem pretty darn fake (which no one her has bothered contesting, BTW). We could learn from the past precedent and turn a critical eye to similar "witnesses" in Syria and, lo and behold, they too raise red flags left and right.

So it's one of those learning from history vs. repeating it things. If we don't we run the risk of more post-victory extremely boring revelations that we backed demons against the people of a foreign country. Again.

But hey, what can you do? Learn?

Quote:

I must say, your posts are kind of hard to understand. I get the feeling you are having trouble actually spelling out what you mean. Perhaps I'd have an easier time understand the connections you point out if you drop this whole passive aggressive thing you've got going.

I mean many different things. It's a complex set of information that seems to be extremely difficult to communicate to most people, due to the constant string of roadblocks someone has erected in their minds.

Passive aggressive, really? Is that attacking the argument or the arguer? Borderline, IMO. Can you cite an example?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

No, it's more than likely Misrata people that did the shed massacre, and mostly the Tripoli Brigade (from the Nafusah mountains) going to Syria, as far as we know. But that wasn't the point. That was to show some connections and parallels that are icing on the cake to the main point which is :

The same tricks are quite likely being pulled in Syria as were pulled in Libya. You examine "witnesses" to a "regime massacre" at the Yarmouk base and you'll find they seem pretty darn fake (which no one her has bothered contesting, BTW). We could learn from the past precedent and turn a critical eye to similar "witnesses" in Syria and, lo and behold, they too raise red flags left and right.

So it's one of those learning from history vs. repeating it things. If we don't we run the risk of more post-victory extremely boring revelations that we backed demons against the people of a foreign country. Again.

But hey, what can you do? Learn?

I just don't get the point. I think the reason nobody here is challenging your claims is that nobody sees the point of it all. You may be right that it wasn't Ghaddaffi's forces that perpetrated the massacre you write about, but that doesn't make Ghaddaffi's regime any less despicable. There may be (are) bad stuff happening in Syria where the rebels are responsible, but that doesn't make Assad any more of a cuddly bear.

I don't think your report will do anything to influence the situation in Syria, primarily because it's not going to convince either side to lay down their arms. I don't think it's going to persuade the West to do nothing, primarily because the West can't do anything anyway because Russia and China are blocking any action. What is left is the historical record, and, provided your writings get through peer review, you may be part of writing the correct history of the uprisings following the Arabian Spring, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to our discussions about conspiracy theories.

In short, I don't get what you want to achieve with regards to the situation in Syria, and I don't get what you want to achieve with posting about this here.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

I mean many different things. It's a complex set of information that seems to be extremely difficult to communicate to most people, due to the constant string of roadblocks someone has erected in their minds.

The most persistent roadblock is probably not understanding what you hope to achieve in conjunction with not giving a crap.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Passive aggressive, really? Is that attacking the argument or the arguer? Borderline, IMO. Can you cite an example?

I'm attacking neither. It's just a feeling I'm getting.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I just don't get the point. I think the reason nobody here is challenging your claims is that nobody sees the point of it all.

Not everyone's that dense. ETA: Not saying you are dense, just confused by me, and hopefully not so much by the end of this post. Injustice matters. It's not pointless to rage against it. Or rather, it shouldn't be pointless.

Quote:

You may be right that it wasn't Ghaddaffi's forces that perpetrated the massacre you write about, but that doesn't make Ghaddaffi's regime any less despicable.

Not even one massacre less despicable? And it's not the only such event, just the biggest and the most potent to prove false in such a solid way.From the first massacred soldiers and stolen bases of February and forward, the government was blamed by us for virtually every death and horrible thing reported. On closer inspection, a good majority of these crimes are either totally fake, or carried out by the rebels.

But I imagine even realizing that wouldn't change your mind on how wicked "the Gaddafi regime" was - now that we've dished out the punishment only fitting the most bestial of powers, it better be true, right?

Quote:

There may be (are) bad stuff happening in Syria where the rebels are responsible, but that doesn't make Assad any more of a cuddly bear.

Every atrocity blamed on Assad, used to build the hate against him, that was actually done by the other side and deceptively fobbed off, SHOULD be taken as one less hate-worthy offense of the government. Why it gets to count double now against both sides makes no moral sense. It is useful geopolitically, keeping the masses focused on the next hated dictator who deserves whatever's coming to him and to his millions of supporters and all those non-Sunni heretics.

Quote:

I don't think your report will do anything to influence the situation in Syria, primarily because it's not going to convince either side to lay down their arms.

Well, yeah, it's just an obscure report that's about another country anyway. I didn't mean to overplay its importance or indicate that I'm delusional enough to think my PDF will stop a war in another country.

Rather, in exposing lies like this in Libya and Syria I hope (against the evidence) that people can learn, and stop falling for these tricks, in general, wherever they're used. If I make a solid argument re: Syria that people pick up on in mass numbers, more likely its only role will be to help people feel better about how the rebels lost and Assad/the Baath government thing is still in place (if that's the outcome), or if they win, to make them feel bad about what grade of deceptive monsters we supported. Not just to make people feel bad, but hopefully (against the evidence) to inspire learning.

Quote:

I don't think it's going to persuade the West to do nothing, primarily because the West can't do anything anyway because Russia and China are blocking any action.

They can't stop helping, because they've already been stopped? Where are the rebels getting all these weapons from? Who's paying their salary to keep fighting? Who's pushing and enacting punitive sanctions on the government? Who's declaring the only way forward is for them to win? (peacefully, of course, if possible, but maybe with a little push if it's not possible, which it isn't). Who's trying to get their jets shot down to trigger full-on war? Who's providing training camps in Turkey and Lebanon? We, us, our elites, the Western powers and their lackeys in the Gulf.

But I agree, if their plans are foiled, it won't because of my report.

Quote:

What is left is the historical record, and, provided your writings get through peer review, you may be part of writing the correct history of the uprisings following the Arabian Spring, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to our discussions about conspiracy theories.

That's more what I think could happen. You're able to get it, even without my spelling it out too well just yet. Kudos.

Quote:

In short, I don't get what you want to achieve with regards to the situation in Syria, and I don't get what you want to achieve with posting about this here.

It's a forum I'm a member of, so, I waste a little time to inform my friends about something that'll totally change the world and usher in a new era of peace.

Quote:

The most persistent roadblock is probably not understanding what you hope to achieve in conjunction with not giving a crap.

Achieve communication, inspire thought, and somehow, yeah, no one here much seems to give a crap. They're still hungering for the next episode of git the diktater, the popular new unreality TV show. The real-world costs for the people living there, boring.

Quote:

I'm attacking neither. It's just a feeling I'm getting.

Ah. I asked because I can do that unintentionally sometimes, but have been trying not to.

[Caustic Logic]

Okay, so to start with, no one contests that I'm probably, quite possibly, correct in my assessment of this massacre 11 months ago, catching a major deception that all our mainstream media, governments, NGOs, the UN, etc. all missed. All of them dumbly believed the bizarrely inconsistent rebel lie which I've probably exposed here. The whole world has semi-demonstratably moved forwards with a false impression of the "most clear-cut war crime" of the whole "humanitarian" war, until the rebels got to Sirte...

And it may well not be the only such case, by a long shot. And this is boring, as well as irrelevant to what's happening in Syria now or Iran in a few years. No one cares, and I should just drop it. [/thread] predictions, etc.

It is all better than silence in a way, but...

Here's another way to look at the Libya-Syria connection and lessons we can learn already. Anyone remember the Houla massacre? 108 people killed, including little kids, with guns, blades, hammers, etc.? Same technique I applied here bear fruit when applied to this truly horrific and unforgivable event.

As I just wrote elsewhere:

Quote:

Yarmouk/Houla Parallels: Check Those "Witnesses" Carefully
The first has to do with murky massacres and the power of both fake witnesses in a team effort, and the power of exposing that effort with careful analysis. We made good work of the Khamis Brigade shed massacre, in the report A Question Mark Over Yarmouk (PDF available here, provocative press release here), dicovering fake witnesses with changing names and stories, massive contradictions between the alleged witnesses, and adequate signs of rebel execution of the massacre. Syria had its quite different and horrifying "Houla massacre" in the town of Taldouon May 25. A reported 108 people were killed with guns and blades and hammers, including 49 children, many women, and less men, whole families of disputed identity killed at home by disputed parties.

Along with other(s) I'm slowly doing an analysis of the rebel-supplied witnesses for what happened at Houla, as well as the non-rebel witnesses with their own overall story. The rebel witnesses have their flourished of politics over-truth (with religio-ethnic/sectarian overtones), strange details like how they survived (as at Yarmouk, a fertile field to plow), and probably some serious inconsistencies (though these are harder to find in this case of scattered massacres, whereas Yarmouk was one event in a one-room shed).

One detailed comparison of three accounts given by one star witness proved a potent starting point. Ali Al-Sayed, a little eight-year-old kid called 11, can't remember his own family members' names or number, but can detect an "Alawite accent" that probably doesn't exist, and managed to implicate his uncle in the massacre, in a fanciful twist. That the most famous and moving victim, a blessed miracle survivor, unharmed but for the brain damage (?), is so clearly coached and saw none of what he says is a bad sign for this rebel cover story. Remember, little kids, some just months old, were shot, sliced, and bludgeoned to death there by someone. I've seen the photos and videos and saved copies.

If so, can we still say war just sucks and deny any moral aspect worthy of attention? Will we see comments like this later?

Quote:

You may be right that it wasn't Assad's forces that perpetrated the Houla massacre, but that doesn't make Assad's regime any less despicable than I decided they were after seeing that massacre in Houla....

Or expanded just a bit:

Quote:

So what if the only other party who might have killed all those families is the FSA and their allies? So what if that's what the most credible evidence actually suggests? You still can't deny the regime is the greater evil, and the FSA needs to wipe out the scum and we should help them any way we can.

[Caustic Logic]

The ensuing silence suggests, maybe, I finally got through the moral aspect of this, and why truth might still matter, even in these kinds of boring events where many people are killed.

Can anyone confirm or deny that?

[jargon buster]

"Deny", the fact its gone quiet is the very reason I gave earlier in the thread, no one cares mate.

"Chicken shed massacre"
I went down to the shed this morning and I found 6 chickens with their heads missing, I suspect a bloke down the street even though the obvious is that a naughty fox got them.
Im going to spend months on the internet trying to find a connection with my dead birds and the bloke down the road.
Anyone interested how I get on?

[Border Reiver]

You might spend your time mire productively, say putting a board over the fox sized hole in the back of the coop.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

You might spend your time mire productively, say putting a board over the fox sized hole in the back of the coop.

I presume that was directed at me, although it would make sense directed at JB too, depending what exactly it means. The forum's strangely effective immune response is in hyperdrive here, and what do you know, it wore me down. I've run out of things to say, for the moment anyway. On to more productive things.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

On to more productive things.

I wrote earlier

Quote:

What a colossul waste of your time.

So now you have got the message, glad I could be of service.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

I wrote earlier

So now you have got the message, glad I could be of service.

Actually, it really helps to have a voice for what so many others say with silence. I thank you for that, and you have been plenty consistent.

Just to make sure, you caught my post #84, right? You didn'tsay anything, but I'm curious if little kids with throats torn out with claw hammers were involved, would the serious possibility our "freedom fighters" were responsible be any less a waste of time to look into? Or would that too be, as, Alferd Packer put it, roughly
[war]
crap
stuff happens
we win
[/war]

Last question, seriously. Have the last word even, pondered over or not.

[jargon buster]

Quote:

Just to make sure, you caught my post #84, right? You didn'tsay anything, but I'm curious if little kids with throats torn out with claw hammers were involved, would the serious possibility our "freedom fighters" were responsible be any less a waste of time to look into? Or would that too be, as, Alferd Packer put it, roughly
[war]
crap
stuff happens
we win

To quote Bill Hicks "But what about the children?"
Yes, so what, why should it make it any more tragic just because there are children involved?
Stop trying to play the morality (tugging the heartsrings) approach just because people dont care about your original "massacre"

In fact you have all but admitted that you have wasted your time with it already.
Why dont you come around and have a look at my chicken coop, I could do with an investagitive expert like yourself to incriminate my neighbour.

[Her Grey Eminence]

Well I think it is interesting.
After all Mr Jargon, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat. Or perhaps that doesn't concern you?

Any views on Houla, Mr Logic, aside from the investigations of the Frankfurt Algemein Zeitung?

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Her Grey Eminence

Well I think it is interesting.
After all Mr Jargon, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat. Or perhaps that doesn't concern you?

Any views on Houla, Mr Logic, aside from the investigations of the Frankfurt Algemein Zeitung?

Well, that changes the calculus on last words. (and BTW funny how noone complains when the rebels pull heartstrings with videos of dead children, which they might've killed themselves, but when I start talking and get Bill Hicks hurled at me. Bill Hicks! The nerve!)

Indeed I have more to say, but most of it's been said, some here, the rest at the thread you have found or the research wiki.

And FWIW the CIWCL's next report, due soon, will be "A Violation of Medical Neutrality," about this still un-investigated war crime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hjJYQ4BW4k

[Caustic Logic]

Libya Herald reports nine of the perpetrators of the massacre at Yarmouk will get their (first? only?) day in court in about a week.

More information than most will need, but about the right kind:
part one

part two

In particular, why are Lt. Col. Mohammed Mansour and the UN's interviewed prisoner brigadier [028] so similar if not the same? One reported right to Khamis, was in custody, but now doesn't seem to exist (he was Harizi's boss, and Harizi is now the highest-ranked person mentioned). Last heard denying all charges, where most wind up issuing wild and contradictory confessions. The other, Mansour, reported to Khamis, ran the base and the region, was Harizi's boss,like 028visited the base on the 23rd but left before the massacre.

But he is still at large, it's said, perhaps as a fugitive ghost who can pop up in places where Gaddafi loyalists are to be attacked. Anyway, he's not getting a trial.

And what happened to Ibrahim with the morose eyes? He's not listed either.

See his story here