Wednesday, August 29, 2012

234 US Intelligence Agencies fed up with Israel...

This blog:

America Planning for a Post-Israel Middle East?
By Franklin LambAugust 28, 2012 "Information Clearing House" ----  

The first paragraph of the article (The fuzz") is a bit confusing and not very relevant, so I took it out and put it at the end of the articel: in blue.
Here is the original article. 

So what is all the fuss about?

It’s a paper entitled: Preparing For A Post Israel Middle East, an 82 page analysis that concludes that the American national interest in fundamentally at odds with that of Zionist Israel. The authors concludes that Israel is currently the greatest threat to US national interests because its nature and actions prevent normal US relations with Arab and Muslim countries and, to a growing degree, the wider international community.

The study was commissioned by the US Intelligence Community comprising 16 American intelligence agencies with an annual budget in excess of $ 70 billion. The IC includes the Departments of the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Defense Intelligence Agency, Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, Drug Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency commissioned the study.

Among the many findings that Ros-Lehtenin and Kristol and other unregistered agents of Israel will likely try to exploit politically between now and November 6, by using them to attack the Obama Administration. A sampling of the findings includes the following:

•   Israel, given its current brutal occupation and belligerence cannot be salvaged any more than apartheid south Africa could be when as late as 1987 Israel was the only “Western” nation that upheld diplomatic ties with South Africa and was the last country to join the international boycott campaign before the regime collapsed;

•   The Israel leadership, with its increasing support of the 700,000 illegal settlers on the occupied West Bank is increasing out of touch with the political, military and economic realities of the Middle East;
•   The post Labor government Likud coalition is deeply complicit with and influenced by the settlers’ political and financial power and will increasingly face domestic civil strife which the US government should not associate itself with or become involved with;
•   The Arab Spring and Islamic Awakening has, to a major degree, freed a large majority of the 1.2 billion Arab and Muslims to pursue what an overwhelming majority believe is the illegitimate, immoral and unsustainable European occupation of Palestine of the indigenous population;

•   Simultaneous with, but predating, rapidly expanding Arab and Muslim power in the region as evidenced by the Arab spring, Islamic Awakening and the ascendancy of Iran, as American power and influence recedes, the US commitment to belligerent oppressive Israel is becoming impossible to defend or execute consistent given paramount US national interests which include normalizing relations with the 57 Islamic countries;
•   Gross Israeli interference in the internal affairs of the United States through spying and illegal US arms transfers. This includes supporting more than 60 ‘front organizations’ and  approximately 7,500 US officials who do Israel’s bidding and seek to dominate and intimidate the media and agencies of  the US government which should no longer be condoned;

•   That the United States government no longer has the financial resources, or public support to continue funding Israel. The more than three trillion dollars in direct and indirect aid from US taxpayers to Israel since 1967 is not affordable and is increasingly being objected to by US taxpayers who oppose continuing American military involvement in the Middle East. US public opinion no longer supports funding and executing widely perceived illegal US wars on Israel’s behalf. This view is increasingly being shared by Europe, Asia and the International public;
•   Israel’s segregationist occupation infrastructure evidenced by legalized discrimination and increasingly separate and unequal justice systems must no longer be directly or indirectly funded by the US taxpayers or ignored by the US government;
•   Israel has failed as a claimed democratic state and continued American financial and political cover will not change its continuing devolution as international pariah state;

•   Increasingly, rampant and violent racism exhibited among Jewish settlers in the West Bank is being condoned by the Israeli government to a degree that the Israel government has become its protector and partner;

•   The expanding chasm  among American Jews objecting to Zionism and Israeli practices, including the killing and brutalizing of Palestinians under Israeli occupation,  are gross violations of American and International law and raise questions within the US Jewish community regarding the American responsibility to protect (R2P) innocent civilians under occupation;

•   The international opposition to the increasingly  apartheid regime can no longer be synchronized with American claimed  humanitarian values or US expectations in its bi-lateral relations with the 193 member United Nations;

The Draft ends with language about the need to avoid entangling alliances that alienate much of the World and condemn American citizens to endure the consequences.
Interestingly, it notes Iran as an example of a country and people that have much in common and whose citizens have a real interest in bilateral associations (here an apparent reference to Israel and its US lobby) not determined by the wishes of other countries and their agents. It also highlights the need for the US to undertake “the repairing relations with Arab and Muslim countries including the drastically curtained use of drone aircraft.

The coming days will clarity the success of Israel’s in making an issue of the finding in the soon to be published daft report and the degree to which the Republican Party will gain for its findings in the race for the White House.
Franklin Lamb, former Assistant Counsel, US House Judiciary Committee and  Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, earned his Law Degree at Boston University and his LLM, M.Phil., and PhD degrees at the London School of Economics. Following three years at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Lamb was visiting fellow at the Harvard Law School’s East Asian Legal Studies Center.
He is currently doing research in Lebanon and volunteers with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign and the Sabra-Shatila Foundation.  Lamb is the author of: Israel’s 1982 War in Lebanon:  Eyewitness Chronicles of the Invasion and Occupation, South End Press, First Printing, 1983, International Legal Responsibility for the Sabra-Shatila Massacre, Imp. TIPE: 42, Rue Lebour 93100 Montreuil, Paris, France 1984, The Price We Pay: A Quarter Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons in Lebanon (Lamont Press) 2007, His latest book, The Case for Palestinian Civil Rights in Lebanon, is due out shortly.

Here is the introduction of the article: 
Congresswoman Illena Ros-Lehtinen will have her hands full as she makes the political and social rounds at this month’s Republican National Convention. Illena, is the only female committee chair in the House of Representatives and arguably Israel’s most ardent agent. She is a constant thorn in the Obama administration's side, regularly castigating the president for playing "political games with U.S. foreign policy” and being “soft on Iran” and undermining the legitimacy of Israel. Ros-Lehtinen is a congressional cheer leader also for her Jewish voters in Florida -- a key battleground in the rapidly approaching US presidential election. Most recently, Ros-Lehtinen helped shepherd through Congress yet another bill tightening sanctions against Iran while calling for US military action against the Assad regime in Syria.

The Congresswomen’s focus will likely not be on pushing the republican’s talking points regarding her party’s nominee, Mitt Romney the former “moderate Massachusetts governor” who she is aware is unlikely to win the White House. Nor, according to a source at the Democratic National Committee, frantically putting together final touches on their own Convention, to be held the week of September 3 in Charlotte, North Carolina, will Ileana spend much time with or promoting Mitt’ running mate, Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, an Ayn Rand (author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as well as founder of the Objectivism movement) follower, regularly tells audiences that “Ayn Rand’s teachings have been one of the most profound philosophical influences of my life.” Well, except for religion and abortion and a few other matters, as Ayn, who passed away in 1982 was an avowed atheist and strongly pro-abortion, the opposite of what Ryan tells audiences he is.

Rather, Ros-Lehtinen will be meeting with local, national, and international Jewish leaders in this must win state where she has been assigned the task of reassuring them that the Republican Party is Israel’s best friend and that a recent US government draft report urging a US re-think of its relationship to Israel is the responsibility of none other than Barack Obama, and it reveals his true disdain for Israel.

Helping her smear the White House with the findings in the draft  analysis will be William Kristol, publisher of the neoconservative Weekly Standard and Director of the New American Century, an “Israel first” Washington-based lobby “promoting joint Israeli and American political and military leadership across the globe, while bringing democracy to the Middle East”.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

233 How the US goes to war, nowadays.

What you need to go to war in the 21 century:

1. Humanitary causes
2. Humanitary collaborators
3. Snipers 
4. Propaganda

Humanitary causes:  to prevent genocide, prevent use of nerve gas, of WMD's, etc.

Humanitary collaborators : Human Rights organisations, Amnesty International  etc. etc.

Snipers:  Let them shoot people, and use this for propaganda, or to stir up civil war.

Propaganda: Let the Media spread info from ONE side only, let the story do the brainwashing.

If you work with these 4 ingredients,  you are free to go to war: by yourself, or with a coalition, or by proxy.

(By proxy:  like in Syria, where Saudi Arabia lures the salafists in to serve Israëls agenda). 

Nobody will criticise you in the MSM and the uninformed masses think they are on the 'Right side of History."

Of course I had heard before that Libya was 'Bosnia all over again' ,  and of course I saw the same pattern in Syria, but today I happened to read a story about Yugoslavia, written in 1996, where all these elements were already mentioned ! 

I will translate two short passages:  ( the yellow marked passage)

Recently the NYT had to admit that after an investigation of months, French UN militaries had to conclude that it was Bosnian-muslim snipers who did shoot regularly, and for months, on their own people in Sarajewo, in order to get gruesome pictures that would create more international support for them for more harsh treatment of the Serbs. 
They concluded what everybody knew already: that one sniper worked from the roof of the Parliament building, which was under controle of the muslims. 
It was muslim fighters who were responsable for the cruel attacks that made headlines all over the world and drained every support that the Serbs might have left:  shooting a funeral procession, shooting a waiting-line in front of a bakery. 
Also stories of concentration camps with skin-over-bone inmates was fake.
Note: This is also reported on Global Research, in more detail :  See: Self-Inflicted Atrocities

These are the ingredients 1 and 4:  Humanitary causes and  Sniper attacks. 

In the article we also read about ingredients 2 and 3:

Humanitary collaborators: 
Pax Christie, Novib and many others supported the muslims and Western intervention.

The article shows that 'The Media' only tell the story of the muslim-victims.  Never they asked the Serbs about these muslim-snipers.

What is the goal of all this ? 

De imperialistische mogendheden willen - zoals Manifest al eerder schreef - kostte wat kost - Joegoslavië en andere oost Europese landen - uit elkaar laten vallen in machteloze staatjes.

Translation: The imperialistic powers want these Easter European countries to fall apart and become powerless. 

I agree with this. Milosevic was not 'in the hands of Washington' and so he had to leave. 
Also oil and pipelines played a remarkable role: Oil could enter Europe from the Caspian sea, over land, and the US could do nothing about it. They would not be in controle of European economy. 
Now the US has a giant military base, in Kosovo, and can, if it wants, controle the flow of oil to Europe. ( Engdahl wrote extensively about this in 'A Century of War'.)  

In Libya and Syria it is not so much Washington's agenda, but Israel's agenda that is being served: make all arab countries impotent. 


Here is the Dutch article. 
The author is a communist sympathiser. That may explain why he was alert to the real story behind the 'official story'. 


Leugens over Bosnië en de gevolgen

Door Rik Min
Begin Augustus is Kroatië dan eindelijk de door haar fel begeerde aanval op de Bosnische en Kroatische Serviërs begonnen. Deze massale aanval van de door Duitsland en Amerika bewapende Kroatische troepen was vorige maand reeds ingeluid door de inname van de belangrijke Balkan-snelweg naar Belgrado. De westerse media deden daar toen - ten opzichte van de latere akties van de Bosnische Serven bij Srebrenica en Zepa - onvoorstelbaar schijnheilig over. Alsof daar géén mensen woonden en géén vluchtelingen waren. De groot opgezette militaire aktie rondom de autosnelweg - tegen de Serviërs - kunnen we nu rustig als de inleiding zien tot wat we nu het beste de tweede fase in de Balkan-oorlog kunnen noemen.
Bonn en Washington staan achter het massale offensief van de Kroaten (Twentsche Courant, 5 aug. '95). De imperialistische mogendheden willen - zoals Manifest al eerder schreef - kostte wat kost - Joegoslavië en andere oost Europese landen - uit elkaar laten vallen in machteloze staatjes en de minderheden dientengevolge overal naar toe laten 'verhuizen';.
De regiems van Kroatië en Bosnië zijn duidelijk fascistisch. De Nedelandse regering steunt hen 'klakkeloos';. De CP 86 stuurt er zelfs zijn leden heen om mee te vechten. Het kenmerk van de mensen die daar aan de macht zijn, is dat ze geen acht slaan op de ellende van de bevolking. Laat staan op de ellende van de minderheden in hun staatjes. In de Twentsche Courant (van 5 aug.) betichtte de nieuwe Schandinavische VN-onderhandelaar Bildt de Kroaat Tudjman van oorlogsmisdaden. Terecht. Dit is echter een schamele - maar belangrijke - poging onpartijdig te lijken, anders zou de eenzijdigheid van de VN, de NAVO en de media wel erg afsteken. Maar dit soort geluiden over Tudjman en de moslims hoor je zelden en verstommen meestal voordat ze ruim bemeten in de internationale massa-media komen. De discussie in de pers, bijvoorbeeld zoals in juli met betrekking tot de massa-slachtingen, tussen Karremans en Voorhoeve, duiden overduidelijk op een complot tegen de waarheid over Bosnie en Kroatië. We leven duidelijk in een nieuw tijdperk wat betreft oorlogsvoering. Leugens, mis-informatie en de gevoelens van het grote publiek spelen in dit soort nieuwe oorlogen een hoofdrol.

Media leugens
De leugens over Joegoslavië zijn de afgelopen vier jaar niet meer te tellen. Er zit een duidelijk systeem in. Het is vanaf de eerste minuut van de afscheidings-oorlogen een grote aanval op het oude Joegoslavië. De Bosnische regering spant qua leugenachtigheid werkelijk de kroon. Mient-Jan Faber, Pax Christi, minister Pronk en de ex-voorzitter van de PvdA, Max van de Berg van de NOVIB, trappen er met open ogen in. Maar niet alleen zij.
Het is haast misdadig zo naief de Nederlandse massa-media en met haar de politici van al de grote partijen en GroenLinks zijn. Bij de Golf-oorlog was er zegge en schrijve één parlementariër (Leonie Sipkens) die niet alle informatie slikte en tegenwicht bood, nu is er naast de NCPN en Manifest bijna niemand. Journalisten en redacties in binnen en buitenland slikken gewoonweg alles van de moslims en de Kroaten (en de CIA). Niets wordt zelfs meer gecheckt. Informatie uit Belgrado wordt niet doorgegeven of niet serieus genomen. Onbevestigde berichten van vluchtelingen of moslim-zegslieden komen zonder meer groot in de krant. Aan hoor en wederhoor heeft men geen boodschap meer. De media hebben blijkbaar maar één doel voor ogen en dat is het doel van het imperialistische-kapitalische systeem: een nieuwe wereld-orde gebasseerd op hun economische systeem. Grenzen tellen niet meer. De accoorden van Helsinki zijn vergeten. Men ziet alleen nog maar begerig uit naar die 6 miljard consumenten die de wereld bevolken en die westerse producten dienen te kopen. De nationale markten en productie-systemen moeten worden uitgeschakeld. Een andere conclusie kan haast niet meer getrokken worden. De nieuwe wereld-orde duldt geen andersdenkenden of twijfelaars naast zich. Alternatieve nieuwsbronnen, zoals vroeger de communistische pers ten tijde van Vietnam (onze voorganger De Waarheid) worden node gemist. In Nederland is er naast Manifest bijna geen enkele concurrent meer om De Volkskrant, De Telegraaf, de NOS en NOVA te corrigeren. Trouw en het verenigingsblad voor Nederlandse militairen zijn soms nog het eerlijkst, ze lijken in ieder geval onafhankelijker. Gelukkig zijn er meer onafhankelijke geluiden: zaterdag 12 augustus liet zowaar de NRC bij monde van de publicist Milo Anstadt optekenen dat de misleiding over de Balkanoorlog nu al veel te lang duurt. Hij schrijft: 'De berichtgeving over de oorlog is zodanig gemanipuleerd dat in het Westen niet anders dan haat jegens de Serviërs kon ontstaan. Wanneer een deelrepubliek zonder formele procedure uit een federatie treedt en haar onafhankelijkheid uitroept, ... is het (dan) een wonder dat de onmiddelijk betrokkenen met wapengeweld hun vermeende aanspraken doen gelden; zouden wij niet het zelfde doen?'; Anstadt rekent ex-minister en Europees Commissaris van de Broek tot de belangrijkste veroorzakers van deze oorlog: is het niet uit 'dommigheid'; en 'gebrek aan kennis'; dan is het misschien onwillekeurig zijn 'katholieke discipline';, zijn solidariteit met het rooms-katholieke Kroatië, die zijn opstelling bepaalt, aldus Anstadt.
Het Bosnische regiem overtreft in leugenachtigheid alles: recent heeft de New York Times moeten berichten dat na maandenlang onderzoek nota bene Franse VN-militairen hebben moeten constateren dat Bosnische moslim-soldaten de sluipschutters zijn geweest die herhaaldelijk en maandenlang geschoten hebben op hun eigen burgers in Sarajevo in een poging om met schokkende beelden de internationale steun te verkrijgen voor harder optreden tegen de Serviërs. De onderzoekers hadden eindelijk - wat insiders al lang wisten - vastgesteld dat één of meer sluipschutters onder andere opereerden vanaf het dak van het voormalig parlement, dat in handen is van het Bosnische moslim-leger.
Moslim-strijders blijken aansprakelijk te zijn voor aanslagen op burgers die de afgelopen jaren de wereld deden schokken, zoals de geruchtmakende aanslagen op een rouwstoet op een kerkhof, op een wachtrij bij een bakker en op bezoekers van een markt in Serajevo. Zelfs de foto';s van een concentratiekamp met een zogenaamde uitgemergelde moslim was misleidende propaganda. Goed ingelichte kringen zijn het over deze vijf 'media-events'; (media-gebeurtenissen) inmiddels wel eens.
Deze gebeurtenissen - inclusief beelden - worden in de media nog steeds domweg, om de haverklap aangehaald om te laten zien hoe slecht de Serviërs wel niet zijn. Deze methoden zijn psychologisch beproefd, en duidelijk fascistisch, om aandacht te trekken van de ook niet meer alles wetende en misleide Westerse en Noord-Amerikaanse bevolking.
Het meest in het oog springende is dat er nooit beelden van vernietigde gebouwen in Serajevo of afgeslachte mensen in de pers verschijnen. Voorhoeve had Dutchbat toch de opdracht kunnen geven om professionele foto';s of video-opnamen te maken, al die zes maanden in Srebrenica. Waarom is er niet één foto van alles wat onze jongens daar hebben gezien? Er was bij Dutchbat blijkbaar zegge en schrijve één wegwerp-camera, nota bene nog wel van een individuele soldaat. De lichtgelovigheid van De Volkskrant, Pronk en Mient-Jan Faber kent werkelijk geen grenzen. Ze slikken alles, behalve de waarnemingen van 306 Nederlandse soldaten die ter plekke andere ervaringen bleken te hebben dan de gangbare opvattingen over Moslims en Serven. De vooringenomenheid van uitsluitend humanistisch denkende mensen en media is beangstigend.

Erkenning van Kroatië, Slovenië en Bosnië
Bij de erkenning van Kroatië, Slovenië en Bosnië besefte bijna niemand in het westen dat er in Kroatië circa 30 procent Serven woonden en in Bosnië naast Kroaten ook circa 30 procent Serven. In Serajevo bijvoorbeeld woonden in 1991 157.526 Serven, 35.867 Kroaten en 259.085 Moslims. Al de 'minderheden'; zijn eenvoudig buitenspel gezet. Afscheiden kun je alleen op basis van vijwilligheid of als er 75, 85 of 95 procent echt voor is. Bij een fifty-fifty situatie (zoals in Bosnië) is afscheiden - volgens mij - misdadig. Dan krijg je automatisch volksverhuizingen en dus een etnische zuivering op je geweten. De VN en de westerse grote mogendheden hebben iets aan iemand gegeven dat niet van hen was. (Dat heeft de VN in 1948 in Palestina trouwens ook gedaan met alle gevolgen met vluchtelingen van dien). Daarmee zijn de westerse regeringen zonneklaar mede schuldig aan de gevolgen en de etnische zuiveringen in Joegoslavië.

Vijftig jaar leugens
Nu we vijftig jaar leugens en bedrog in de Koude Oorlog hebben gezien; nu we gezien hebben hoe de CIA 50 jaar lang de massa';s hebben bedrogen en verkocht; nu we getuige zijn geweest dat misleiding van de mensheid zeer veel invloed heeft gehad en geldelijk gewin heeft opgeleverd voor het kapitalistische systeem, meer dan de zwaarste atoom-bom; nu moeten we allert zijn op gebeurtenissen en feiten. Want juist nu kunnen we een reeële inschatting maken van de half begrepen gebeurtenissen en verschijnselen uit de Koude Oorlog, toen we er midden in zaten, zagen we soms niet half hoe het element van volksmisleiding werkte. Nu kunnen we met de - hun mond voorbijpratende - getuigen al veel beter zien hoe het mogelijk is geweest dat de communistische partijen zo op het verkeerde been terecht zijn gezet. (Men maakte communisten zo zwart dat haast niemand - vooral middengroepen en intelectuelen - openlijk tegen onbewezen mis-informatie durfde in te gaan).
In grote groepen ontkent men domweg de mechanismes van misleiding en bedrog. Alleen in kleine kring en in boeken van persoonlijke ontboezemingen erkent men hoe de werkelijkheid van de massa-psychologie en communicatiekunde werkt en wordt aangewend voor de wereldhegonomie van het internationale groot-kapitaal. Mensen die hier bewust of onbewust aan meedoen beginnen behoorlijk te lijken op mensen met een NSB-mentaliteit vanuit de oorlog: liever Mussert dan Moskou. Die zullen zich later moeten verantwoorden. Recent zijn er enkele boeken verschenen die analyses van de Koude Oorlog maken. Het boek van A. en H. Toffler, De nieuwe krijgselite; en L. Martens, Een andere kijk op Stalin;. Ze geven een helder beeld over moderne oorlogsvoering: massa-beinvloeding, mis-informatie, het verhullen van leugens, belangentegenstelling, het in dienst nemen van de nazi-elite en de anti-communisten, de media als doorslaggevende factor bij oorlogen, de rol van inlichtingendiensten, het anti-communisme en het zwartmaken van de vijand, etc.

Vrije en communistische pers
Communisten analyseren de feiten en kijken naar de belangen van de massa. Communisten weten dat er in dit soort gevallen als de Golf-oorlog en het verval van oost Europa grote, principieel verschillende belangen - tussen mens en kapitaal - op het spel staan. Communisten geloven de burgelijke pers niet zomaar. Zij gaan bij hun wereldbeschouwing en hun visie op de mens uit van de tegengestelde belangen van kapitaal en de mensen die door arbeid hun brood moeten verdienen.
Het is te hopen dat de bevolking in west Europa en Noord Amerika gaan inzien dat een pluriforme en een vrije, onafhankelijke pers iets heel belangrijks is. En dan spreken we nog niet eens van een nationale en internationale communistische pers. In belang van de bevolking in de armere delen van de wereld en de werkende mensen over de hele wereld is het noodzakelijk dat de bevolking van de rijkere delen van de wereld niet alles blijft geloven en in ieder geval steeds opnieuw probeert in te zien wat wiens belang is. Dat is de enige garantie op vrede en een rechtvaardige (socialistische) toekomst.
Enschede, 1995 - 1996?

232 The Houla Massacre. 3

The Houla massacre 3.

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:

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?
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 .

231 Human Rights Report unreliable: Ali Alsayef

This blog:
An 11 year old boy survived the Houla massacre and says he saw it all happen. He is an important witness.
The UN interviewed witnesses like this  Ali Alsayed and concludes that probably Assad's people did the massacre.
Because all the witness stories were consistent.

How is this possible, when even the most important witness has two very different versions of what happenend ?

Below you will see what happened to his family-members, according to Ali.
The problem is: Ali told his story two times, and both stories are all but consistent.

He spoke on a video, made by the rebels, on the same day as the massacre, 25th of may. But in this video Ali says that he saw his dead uncles on Syrian tv, the day after the massacre: 26th of may. Impossible.

He also  gave an interview to The Guardian.
There are many differences between the two stories. 

Consistent in both stories: 
 mother:  killedkilled
5 year old sister Rashakilledkilled
brother Naderkilledkilled

his father's name: AliAref
his fathers fate: not mentionedkilled outside, 25 may
Shaoki/ Shawkiarrested
Next day on tv: killed
Oldest brother Arefnot mentionedkilled ouside, 25 may
( He was found last, as Ali says.) 
Abu Haidernot mentionedkilled ouside, 25 may
Ogbaseen to be arrested
Next day on tv: killed
Arefseen to be arrested
Next day on tv: killed
Unknown ucle: Was on TV and said his children were killed by gangs.

Who were killed on 25 may, according to Ali  ? 
and brothersNader
father Aref
Brother Aref
Uncle  Abu Haider
According to Ali the soldiers spoke about six dead people, five plus Ali.

The same boy gives three different versions of the number of deaths: 
 In the video he does not include a father or any uncle
In the Guardian he has a total of 6.
But he quotes the killers who spoke of 6 deaths, with Ali as one of these 6 dead.

Friday, August 03, 2012

230 The Houla massacre. 2.

This blog:

Last Update: 18 august: the 16 August UN Report.  See all below: in green. 
My first blog about this massacre is a list of many articles. 
Here I want to produce just one article by the German paper  Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,  FAZ,  from 13 june 2012. 
I consider this the most reliable version of what happened in Houla, because it is more or less compatible with other sources ànd gives the numbers and names of the victims . 
The UN has promised to make a thorough investigation to what happened in Houla, but the man responsable for it says that he only wants to speak to the Syrian opposition. So that will be an unreliable report.
FAZ is not perfect either. 
In a 7 june article the FAZ gave this information about the victim's names: 

Only members from  Alawi and Shii families  were killed, by Sunni killers. One family had recently changed from Sunni to Shii religion, and more than 20  members of this family were killed. 

Also members of the Schomalia family ( Alawi's) were killed, and members of a Sunni member of Parliament, as he was considered a traitor. 
and on 13 june they write: 
 The names of the 84 civilians that were killed are known. They are the father, mother and 49 children ( Probably an extended family: with  grandchildren etc. J.V.) of the Sajjid family and two branches of the Abdarrazzaq family.  People from the town say that these victims were Alawites and muslims that changed from  Sunni to Shii religion.   Also familymembers  of the Assad-loyal member of parliament, Abdalmuti Maslab,  were killed. ( The members who live in Taldou.) 

The houses of the three families are in different parts of Taldou.  All members of each family were killed, with one exception. No neighbor was killed or even wounded.  Familiarity with the village was a necessity for these well planned 'executions." Associated Press quoted the only survivor of the al Sajjid family, the eleven year old Ali, with these words: "The perpetrators had razored bald heads and long beards. " Thats how fanatic Jihadists look, not the Schabiha militia. 
To my knowledge up untill now the Syrian Opposition has never given such detailed information: no names of the killed, no family relations, not political affiliations. 
If you give names , you can be falsified. 
If you give no details but  just a crude accusation like " They killed 100 people" , you don't run the risk of being falsified. 
But the statement of the FAZ can be falsified: If the rebels can find even one Taldou-member of these families to be still alive, they have falsified the FAZ claim.
So far they did not. 


I found a site on the internet which has a lot of information.
here is the site:

Here we see that the rebels have puvlicised a list wih all the names of the dead people ! 
But there is a problem: 
Other rebels published a video in which they have a young boy tell about all the victims in his family, the Al Sayyad family. 
There must be more than 4 Al Sayyad deaths, according to the rebels.
But the list of the rebels has no people people with this name !!

Then there is the 11 year old boy who tells his story on video, and also to The Guardian.  But he messes up. In his accounts he gives different first names for his father, and he messes up with the names for his brothers, uncles and father.  An 11 year old boy from a culture where famiyrelatuins are very important should be able to remember the different names of his relatives. 

Another reason for not believing the story of the rebels is this: Their first account of what happened wads that the people got killed by fire from government tanks.  Then when they showed the dead to the UN people ( did they expect the UN people to be there so quickly? Normally dead people are buried within a day ...) it turned out that they were killed with knives and close range shots.....

Why did they first tell a different tale?  If they did not do it, there was no reason to lie. 

Below you will find some more info from the 'Coser Look' site.

Alls below, after the FAZ article, you will find the integral Closer Look site. 


From that site, some  more info:

Here is a female witness with a long story of what happenend, according to her:  Source: a video by a Russian journalist.


Here is the famous little boy-survior, Ali.  Source: a video by the rebels.

He now tells the story of tanks and government soldiers who were the killers. From Martin Jansen's blog I had the impression that his family was Assad-loyal, and that his family was killed by the rebels.
Now this video was clearly made by the rebels, and they were the ones in power there,  as they showed the UN people around.

The boy clearly had not the liberty to say that it were not the soldiers with the tanks that killed his family. Even if he wanted to say that.

Question: was he speaking the truth? Were the perpetrators indeed coming out of tanks that they put in front of the house?

He says he was hit and shows the proof, but I don't see it ( 2.01 min.)

He says the some  soldiers were bald shaven, but that is more typical for the
He is asked what he wants to sat  about it all ( 3.05) , and answers that the international  community should come and help them.  On demand he says this several times.
The interviewer concludes with saying that it is 25 may at that day, which is the day of the massacre. This is incompatible with the boy stating that the next day, 26 may, he saw his uncle on tv.

For a boy who very recently lost is father mother, brothers and sisters he is quite composed.
There is no trace of fear.
He seems proud to be telling this story.
Then there are 3 possibilities:
1. He is indeed 'friends' of the rebels and eels safe with them, which proofs that it was the government soldiers who did it. ( Or at least that is what he thinks.)
2. This is not the real Ali, but an actor.  Family photographs or genetic tests should be able to solve this, later on.
3. It is the real Ali, but he was out with some friends and then told his family was killed by the army, and treated like a little hero and asked to star in this video.  This takes some preparation, and could not be done on 25 may.  Is that why the video concludes with the explicit date: 25 may 2012...  to 'proof' it was not rehearsed ?

The Guardian has a story and a video.  But the video is recorded  in such a shaky fashion that it gives me the impression that it was done on purpose.  Even someone if full panic should be able to woint the camera at one point for more that 1 second.

SyrienEine Auslöschung

13.06.2012 ·  Das Massaker von Hula ist ein Wendepunkt im syrischen Konflikt. Die westliche Öffentlichkeit beschuldigt, gestützt auf die UN-Beobachter, die syrische Armee. Diese Version kann auf Grundlage von Augenzeugenberichten bezweifelt werden. Demnach wurden die Zivilisten von sunnitischen Aufständischen getötet.
Das Massaker von Hula war ein Wendepunkt im syrischen Drama. Groß war die weltweite Empörung, als am 25. Mai dort 108 Menschen getötet worden waren, unter ihnen 49 Kinder. Rufe nach einer militärischen Intervention wurden laut, um dem Blutvergießen ein Ende zu bereiten, und in Syrien eskaliert seither die Gewalt unaufhaltsam. Nahezu einhellig beschuldigte die Weltmeinung, gestützt auf arabische Nachrichtensender und den Besuch der UN-Beobachter am folgenden Tag, die reguläre syrische Armee und die regimenahen Schabiha-Milizen des Massakers.
Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung hat in der vergangenen Woche diese Version auf der Grundlage von Berichten von Augenzeugen in Frage gestellt. Sie hatte berichtet, dass die getöteten Zivilisten Alawiten und Schiiten waren. Sie wurden in Taldou, einer Stadt der Ebene von Hula, gezielt von bewaffneten Sunniten getötet, während um die Ortschaft um Straßenkontrollen heftige Gefechte zwischen der regulären Armee und Einheiten der Freien Syrischen Armee stattfanden. Diese Darstellung ist von vielen Medien weltweit aufgegriffen und von vielen als unglaubwürdig verworfen worden. Daher stellen sich vier Fragen: Weshalb folgt die Weltmeinung bislang einer anderen Version? Weshalb macht der Kontext des Bürgerkriegs die bezweifelte Version plausibel? Weshalb sind die Zeugen glaubwürdig? Welche weiteren Fakten stützen die Version?
Erstens, weshalb folgt die Weltmeinung einer anderen Version? Unbestritten waren in den ersten Monaten des Konflikts, als die Opposition noch über keine Waffen verfügte und schutzlos war, alle Greueltaten auf das Konto des Regimes gegangen. Die Annahme liegt daher nahe, dass sich dies fortsetze. Ferner genießen die syrischen Staatsmedien keine Glaubwürdigkeit. Seit dem Beginn des Konflikts verwenden sie gebetsmühlenartig gestanzte Formeln wie „bewaffnete Terrorbanden“. So glaubt ihnen niemand mehr, wenn dies einmal wirklich der Fall ist. Zu Leitmedien sind hingegen die arabischen Nachrichtensender Al Dschazira und Al Arabija geworden, die Qatar und Saudi-Arabien gehören, zwei aktiv am Konflikt beteiligten Staaten. Nicht ohne Grund kennt das Deutsche die Redewendung „Im Krieg stirbt die Wahrheit zuerst“.
Zweitens, weshalb macht der Kontext des Bürgerkriegs die bezweifelte Version plausibel? In den letzten Monaten wurden viele Waffen nach Syrien geschmuggelt, die Aufständischen verfügen längst über mittelschwere Waffen. Jeden Tag werden in Syrien mehr als 100 Menschen getötet, dabei halten sich die Toten beider Seiten die Waage. Die Milizen, die unter dem Banner der Freien Syrischen Armee firmieren, kontrollieren die Provinzen Homs und Idlib weitgehend und weiten ihre Herrschaft über weitere Teile des Landes aus. Die zunehmende Gesetzlosigkeit hat zu einer Welle krimineller Entführungen geführt, sie erleichtert zudem das Begleichen offener Rechnungen. Wer in Facebook blättert oder mit Syrern spricht: Jeder kennt aus dem Alltag Geschichten von „konfessionellen Säuberungen“ - von Menschen, die getötet werden, nur weil sie Alawiten oder Sunniten sind.
Die überwiegend von Sunniten bewohnte Ebene von Hula, die zwischen dem sunnitischen Homs und den Bergen der Alawiten liegt, ist von einer langen Geschichte konfessioneller Spannungen belastet. Das Massaker hat sich in Taldou ereignet, einem der größten Orte von Hula. Die Namen der getöteten 84 Zivilisten sind bekannt. Es handelt sich um die Väter, Mütter und 49 Kinder der Familie al Sajjid und zwei Zweige der Familie Abdarrazzaq. Einwohner der Stadt sagen aus, dass die Getöteten Alawiten sind und Muslime, die vom sunnitischen zum schiitischen Islam konvertiert sind. Wenige Kilometer von der Grenze zum Libanon entfernt, machen sie sich damit als Sympathisanten der unter Sunniten verhassten Hizbullah verdächtig. Zudem waren die in Taldou lebenden Verwandten des regimetreuen Parlamentsabgeordneten Abdalmuti Mashlab unter den Ermordeten.
Die Wohnungen der drei Familien befinden sich in verschiedenen Teilen Taldous. Die Mitglieder der Familien wurden gezielt und bis auf eine Ausnahme getötet. Kein Nachbar wurde auch nur verletzt. Ortskenntnisse waren eine Voraussetzung für diese gut geplanten „Hinrichtungen“. Die Nachrichtenagentur AP zitierte den einzigen Überlebenden der Familie al Sajjid, einen elfjährigen Ali, mit den Worten: „Die Täter waren kahlgeschoren und hatten lange Bärte.“ So sehen fanatische Dschihadisten aus, nicht die Milizen der Schabiha. Überlebt habe er, weil er sich tot gestellt und mit dem Blut seiner Mutter beschmiert habe, sagte der Junge.

Sunnitische Rebellen betreiben „Liquidierung“ aller Minderheiten

Bereits am 1. April hatte die Nonne Agnès-Maryam vom Jakobskloster (“Deir Mar Yakub“), das südlich von Homs in der Ortschaft Qara liegt, in einem langen offenen Brief das Klima der Gewalt und der Angst in der Region beschrieben. Sie kommt zum Ergebnis, dass die sunnitischen Rebellen eine schrittweise Liquidierung aller Minderheiten betrieben; sie schildert die Vertreibung von Christen und Alawiten aus ihren Häusern, die von den Rebellen besetzt werden, und die Vergewaltigung junger Mädchen, die den Rebellen als „Kriegsbeute“ übergeben werden; sie war Augenzeugin, als Rebellen in der Straße Wadi Sajjeh erst einen Händler, der sein Geschäft zu schließen sich geweigert hatte, durch eine Autobombe töteten und dann vor einer Kamera von Al Dschazira sagten, das Regime habe die Tat begangen. Schließlich schildert sie, wie sunnitische Rebellen im Stadtteil Khalidijah von Homs alawitische und christliche Geiseln in ein Haus gesperrt und dieses in die Luft gesprengt hätten, um anschließend zu erklären, dies sei eine Greueltat des Regimes gewesen.
Weshalb haben in diesem Kontext die syrischen Augenzeugen für glaubwürdig zu gelten? Weil sie keiner Konfliktpartei angehören, sondern zwischen den Fronten stehen und kein anderes Interesse haben, als eine weitere Eskalation der Gewalt vielleicht doch noch aufzuhalten. Aus ihrem Kreis sind bereits mehrere Personen getötet worden. Niemand will daher seine Identität preisgeben. Gewissheit, dass sich alle Details exakt wie beschrieben zugetragen haben, kann es jedoch in einer Zeit nicht geben, in der eine unabhängige Überprüfung aller Fakten an Ort und Stelle nicht möglich ist. Auch wenn sich das Massaker von Hula in der hier beschriebenen Version ereignet hat, lassen sich daraus keine Schlüsse für andere Greueltaten ziehen. Wie zuvor im Kosovo muss nach diesem Krieg jedes Massaker einzeln untersucht werden.
Welche weiteren Fakten stützen diese Version? Die F.A.Z. war nicht die erste, die über eine neue Version des Massakers von Hula berichtet hat. Andere Berichte hatten sich nur nicht gegen die großen Leitmedien behaupten können. Der russische Journalist Marat Musin, der für die kleine Nachrichtenagentur Anna arbeitet, hatte sich am 25. und 26. Mai in Hula aufgehalten, war teilweise Augenzeuge geworden und hat die Aussagen anderer Augenzeugen veröffentlicht. Zudem hat der in Damaskus lebende niederländische Arabist und freie Journalist Martin Janssen nach dem Massaker Kontakt zum Jakobskloster in Qara aufgenommen, das in der Vergangenheit viele Opfer des Konflikts aufgenommen hat und dessen Nonnen aufopfernd humanitäre Arbeit leisten.

Rebellen schilderten UN-Beobachtern ihre Version des Massakers

Die Nonnen schilderten ihm, wie an jenem 25. Mai mehr als 700 bewaffnete Rebellen, aus Rastan kommend, vor Taldou eine Straßenkontrolle der Armee überrannt haben, wie diese nach dem Massaker die Leichen der getöteten Soldaten und Zivilisten vor der Moschee stapelten und wie sie am folgenden Tag vor den Kameras rebellenfreundlicher Sender den UN-Beobachtern ihre Version von dem angeblichen Massaker der syrischen Armee erzählten. UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon teilte am 26. Mai dem UN-Sicherheitsrat mit, die genauen Umstände seien ungeklärt. Die UN könnten aber bestätigen, „dass es Artillerie- und Granatfeuer gegeben hat. Es gab außerdem andere Formen der Gewalt, darunter Schüsse aus nächster Nähe und ernsthafte Misshandlungen“.
Folgender Tathergang lässt sich rekonstruieren: Nach dem Freitagsgebet am 25. Mai griffen mehr als 700 Bewaffnete unter Führung von Abdurrazzaq Tlass und Yahya Yusuf in drei Gruppen, die aus Rastan, Kafr Laha und Akraba kamen, drei Straßenkontrollen der Armee um Taldou an. Die zahlenmäßig überlegenen Rebellen und die (meist ebenfalls sunnitischen) Soldaten lieferten sich blutige Gefechte, bei denen zwei Dutzend Soldaten, überwiegend Wehrpflichtige, getötet wurden. Während und nach den Gefechten löschten Rebellen, von Einwohnern aus Taldou unterstützt, die Familien Sajjid und Abdarrazzaq aus. Diese hatten sich geweigert, sich der Opposition anzuschließen.
Quelle: F.A.Z.


Houla: Victims.
The only complete victims list known to us so far originates with the Damascus Center for Human rights Studies which is an opposition site according to the bloggers who posted it.[1]The DCHRS is a member of the the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH/IFHR)

According to opposition sources, the individuals and families targeted for mass-killing on May 25/26 were selected more or less at random, for supposedly supporting the rebellion, and in some views simply for being Sunni Muslims.
Rainer Hermann famously inserted a contrasting allegation into the mix, citing unexplained "opposition activists" who gathered witness accounts. “According to the witness accounts … Killed were nearly exclusively families from the Alawi and Shia minorities in Houla which has a more than 90% Sunni population. Several dozen members of one extended family [Abdel Razaq], which had in recent years converted from Sunni to Shia faith were slaughtered. Also killed were members of the Alawi family Shomaliya and the family of a Sunni member of parliament who was [by the rebels] considered a government collaborator.” Syrian government sources initially declined to specify religion, thus failing to either support or confirm these details accompanying a story otherwise like their own. Instead, their statements claimed the families were targeted due to remaining loyal to the Syrian government and rejecting the armed rebellion, irrespective of any religious motives.

The Al-Sayed Family
At least two households of the Al-Sayed family were targeted, and perhaps three. This family was of Sunni faith, according to all sources. Their political affiliations, are, however in dispute.
Different Names
Two male heads of households are named by government sources. One is Meshleb al-Sayed, a Secretary of the People’s Assembly[2] alternately Abdalmuti Mashlab[3]. The other is Muawiya al-Sayed, a police officer[2] or alternately "a senior official" given as Mouawyya al-Sayyed. (v) In full, SANA reported on June 2 that many of "the victims belong to the family of al-Sayed, with Muawiya al-Sayed being a police officer who didn't defect and was always in danger, along with two other al-Sayed households who are related to Meshleb al-Sayed who recently became Secretary of the People's Assembly."[2] A local from Taldou explained in a video interview that "of Al-Sayed family, they killed the family of the brother of Abdullah Al-Mashlab, the 3rd person in the Syrian parliament. He was elected on May 24th, and the next day they killed his wife and three kids and his brother and his big family as well."[4]

In contrast, a boy survivor 
Ali Al-Sayed gives his killed father as Ali Alsayed[5] and to the Guardian as either Aref or Shawki: "They said they wanted Aref and Shawki, my father and my brother."[6] To the Guardian he says the soldiers "asked about my uncle, Abu Haidar. They also knew his name." There he cites five deaths in his household; "they shot my father and uncle. And then they found Aref, my oldest brother, near the door. They shot him dead too."[6] In the video interview, he names a brother Shaoqi (Shawki), his father Ali, and two uncles: Oqba, and Aref, unclear if one or both were arrested or killed.[5] An alleged witness for an attack by opposition forces was quoted by the Syrian Arab News Agency supporting the existence of an "Okba" of that family, killed. "the group led by one Haitham al-Housa hated al-Sayed family ... this group didn't even fire at the detachment but rather at the house where Okba al-Sayed, his brother, his sister-in-law and their children were, killing them." [2]

Despite the amazing confusion over his immediate family and their names, Ali's two accounts consistently suggest another - unnamed - uncle was complicit in the killings. To the Guardian, he reported running to his uncle's house for safety. The soldiers who had attacked his home then arrived and, unseen, he overheard them "asking his uncle if he knew who lived in the house that they just rampaged through."
[6] In the video, he says his uncle(s) and brother were taken away, rather than killed there. He said "the next day I saw them dead on the government TV channel. My uncle came on saying that armed gangs killed his children.”[5]) The name of this uncle is unspecified in both cases, but the speaker of the Peoples' Assembly is likely to be featured on state TV following the murder of his family. It therefore seems possible Ali is here implicating Mashlab in the massacre of his own family.

The one known witness list (from the Damascus Center for Human Rights Study), comprehended with Google translate, doesn't clearly contain any names Al-Sayed (
السيد). There is a similar السويعي (Alsoiei) for entries 22-25, with no matching first names. The family name Arif or Aref (عارف), included with a "Mr." does appear. This is the first name of Ali's father/uncle/brother, and appears for entries 30, 31, 48, and 93. Family matches include Nader (#30) and Rasha (#48), a younger brother and sister cited by Ali. (the other two Arifs given as dying are Mohammed and Adel) [1] With two or three households attacked, there should be more than four members of this family killed. Just Mashlab's nuclear family loss is reported this size: a wife and three children, no mention of survivors and no room for uncles. The name Adel is of further interest. A brother Aden, aged 8, was also reportedkilled in Ali's account to the AP, May 30 (NYP) Further, anti-government activist Maysara al-Hilawi described to Reuters a single survivor of the Al-Sayed family: "A baby, Ali Adel al-Sayyed, miraculously survived." (KO)
The People’s Assembly Speaker?
On May 7, 2012, Syrians voted in nationwide elections for the Peoples' Assembly, their parliament. (good citation needed) It's reported the anti-government activists urged people to boycott the elections, and the Syrian NAtional Congress refused to run. (citation needed). Those elected were sworn in on May 24. China news reported on the ceremony and day's activity:
"The newly-elected Syrian parliament has held its first session in order to elect a speaker and members of the parliament’s office. This comes as the country is passing through a delicate phase amid 15 months of continuing crisis." (C)
It's said by a local in Taldou, where Al-Mashlab/Sayed's family lived, that Al-Mashlab/Sayed "was elected on May 24th, and the next day they killed his wife and three kids and his brother and his big family as well."[4] Having lots of work to do, the new speaker would remain in Damascus, with his family at home in Taldou, where they were apparently massacred late on first full day on the job.
An Anti-Government Family?
There is some acknowledgment of this parliament connection, although vague, from the other side. American NPR reported:
"The Syrian government says the massacre was the work of hundreds of foreign-born terrorists stationed in a nearby town. It says these militants were out to punish one family that had a relative in the Syrian parliament, but Maryam Sayid, who survived the massacre of that family by running away, said the government's version is simply untrue.
MARYAM SAYID: Why would we flee and hide with anti-government rebels, she says, if we were with the government? She describes the killers as Alawite thugs wearing all black and chanting sectarian slogans. … This was a sectarian killing, Maryam says. They killed us because we are Sunni."[7]

local refs

The Abdel Razaq Family
§  Around 60 of the victims belonged to this family, including most of the children.
§  The DCRHS victim list is dominated by names containing Abdul Razaq, a total of 60 entries out of 107. These include one of the soldiers (#107), likely unrelated. The rest are clustered into four groupings (entries 1-21, 35-45, 50-68, 82-89) [1]
§  Human Rights Watch reported that "local activists" handed them "a list of 62 dead members from the Abdel Razzak family." HRW also spoke to three survivors of this family: a 10-year-old boy, his mother, and an elderly woman. [8]
§  HRW was told by "survivors" that the family "owns the land and farms next to the national water company and the water dam of Taldou, and lives in eight or nine houses next to each other, two families to a house." [8]
§  Accounts vary as to the family's religion - Sunni, or Sunni recently converted to Shi'ism. See Abdel Razaq family: Sunni or Shi'ite?
§  Like the Al-Sayed family, they were clearly targeted for some reason, and not hit randomly. Testimony by Akrama Bakour, Free Syrian Army, breaks up the whole clan victims into sub-families killed at three distinct locations.[9]
§  "They then entered the house of Samir Abdul Razaq. He was killed with his children - Sawsan, Houda, Jouzila and Nada. And his daughter-in-law Halloum El Khlaf, six months pregnant, with her son Ala'a Abdul Razaq, and Samir's sister-in-law Khaloud El Khalaf, and her daughter, Rahaf Al Hussein - but her daughter Zahra Al Hussein was shot twice but survived.
§  "Samir's wife was hit with the back of the rifles but she fainted and is now still alive. Also among the victims in this house were four kids whose father is Fadi al-Kurdi.
§  "The next house they entered was the house of Qutayba Abdul Razaq, he survived and his one-year-old daughter was injured. He lost his wife and five of his children.
§  "All of those I'm counting died by gunshots, direct fire. They were gathered in one room and shot. There was one kid however whose head was skinned with a knife. The knife was found among the bodies and we have its picture.
§  "The third house belongs to Nidal Abdul Razaq, his wife and four of his children were killed, and he and one of his children are still alive.
§  "Adel Abdul Razaq - his whole family, a wife and six children.
§  "Mustafa Abdul Razaq was killed with his four daughters, his wife and his daughter in law.
§  "Ayman Abdul Razaq - all of his six children were killed as was his wife, one of the children was disabled.
§  "Abdul Khalek Abdul Razaq - his wife and daughter survived gun shots but he lost six other children and his daughter-in-law and her three children.
§  "Abdul Rahman Abdul Razaq lost his wife, his five daughters and 11 grandchildren as well as his six daughters-in-law and four of his sons. He still has two who are still alive; one is called Firas and the other Rateb. This massacre was of 27 people in the same room.
§  "Also killed in the massacre were Yaacoub Hussein Abdul Razaq, Mohammad Shafiq Abdul Razaq, Mohammad Abbara and his daughter Amina and her family of seven."
The Shomaliya family
"The Alawi family Shomaliya" cited by Hermann have not been explained by opposition sources or represented by alleged survivors to our knowledge. No such name seems to appear on the DCHRS list. Neither has it, to our knowledge, been supported by Syrian government statements or eyewitnesses, aside from the following possible reference from an eyewitness sheltered in a monastery: Around 10 PM, he said, "armed gangs moved towards the village of Tal Daw. They invested the southern district and massacred Alawite families, men, women and children, then set fire after transporting the corpses." (Vox Clamantis, May 26 - in original French: - an English translation:
Several members of the Al-Turki family were reportedly among the dead. Some names consistent with this appear on the DCHRS victims list. According to those who describe an attack by rebel forces, a number of defending soldiers at the assaulted check-points were killed. The DCHRS list does contain ten army victims, one given as a defector (lieutenant dissident).
1.       ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 DCHRS victims list in Arabic, Excel-File, auto-translated by Google (PDF)
3.        Rainer Hermann, "Eine Auslöschung", FAZ, published June 13,2012, translation from German here
4.       ↑ 4.0 4.1 Interviewed by Marat Musin of ANNA-News. Youtube video: "Al Hula witness" (9:34) Published on May 31, 2012 by sabinachiaburu. Subtitles after transcript in original Russian, translated from Russian to German, translated from German to English
5.       ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Video-Interview with Ali Al-Sayed published 28 May, with English subtitles here and here, Al Jazeera English Report here
6.       ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Houla massacre survivor tells how his family were slaughtered, Martin Chulov for The Guardian, published May 28,2012
7.        NPR audio feature by Kelly McEvers, Beirut "Sectarian Syrian Group Blamed In Houla Massacre", published June 5, 2012
8.       ↑ 8.0 8.1 "Syria: UN Inquiry Should Investigate Houla Killings" Human Rights Watch, May 27, 2012.
9.        Testimonies obtained by telephone interviews by several branches of the BBC, published May 28


Update, 18 august 2012. 

The UN latest report on Syria, which was often called: the definite Houla Report. 

I found it on the website of the Guardian: The Report

My first conclusion: 
In the Summary we read:
"The Commission found that Government forces and Shabbiha members were responsible for the killings in Al-Houla. "

Clear language.

Let's look at the report for the details. 

The Report has this structure: 
1. Introduction
2. Context.
3. Findings. ( pag. 10-21)

Pages 10 and 11 that are: "Special inquiery into Al-Houla."

4. Responsability. ( pag. 21.) 
5. Conclusions and Recommendations. ( pag 23.)

Plus 12 Annexes with pages 26 to 102. 
Of which:
Annex 4: Special Inquiry into Houla. ( pages 63 to 69)


I will summarize in my own words  the Findings on Houla. 
( Page 10 and 11= Paragraphs 41 to 50) 

On 27 june the UN concluded ( preliminary) that the Government was responsable for the deaths, as a result of shelling. Also the Government did not investigate well enough. The Commission was unable to determine the identity of the perpetrators. Nevertheless, it is considered that forces loyal to the Governement were likely to have been responsable for the killing. 

42. We could not enter the country, and the Government did not issue a definite report. 

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. 

45. We found that the 3 actors all could have had acces tot het families that were killed: the rebels, the government and the Shabbiha. 
The victims lived in seven houses of the Abdul Razzak family and two houses of the Al Sayed homes. 
A checkpoint near the Al Sayed home was in control of government forces all the day. 
The front line between rebels and Govt. was north of this checkpoint. Therefore we consider it not so likely that the Al Sayed house was accessed by rebels. 

46. The Abdul Rassak site, where 60 people were killed, must have been visisted by a lot of killers, and therefore we think this cannot be done by rebels, as they would have been seen by Govt, forces.  

47. The hospital was occupied by the government, and none of the victims sought help in the hospital. All the victims sought help from the rebels. 
The Govt. report depicted the loyalties of the Al-Sayed family as pro-Govt. , but surviving family members fled to opposition controlled areas of Taldou. 

48. The govt. did not investigate Houla well enough. 

49. We conbsider the deeds a war crime, and we have reasonable grounds to believe that the perpetrators were Govt. forces and Shabbiha. 

50. We think it is a part of a series of crimes. against humanity. 

--------- so far the "Findings on Houla". --------------

In the "Annex on Houla" we find almost the same information. 

Some comments by Jan Verheul: 

I remember an article by Martin ... in which he wrote that the chief of this investigation ( mr  C.... ) planned only to interview Sunni people by telephone. 

These are the witnesses that is spoken about in this report, I suppose. 

The fact that their story is consistent suprises me, because the young boy who is portayed as the sole survivor of the attack tells his story two times ( one time to the rebels, on video, and one time to the Guardian.) In these two stories he mixes up all the names, and even has different names for his own father, if I remember it well!! 

About the alliances of these families: the report does confirm that one family that was killed was from a policeman for the government. These rebels must have hated him. 

The fact that survivors fled to the rebels could be explained by the fact that they were among the rebels and still alive. Best not to try to fly away, as that would be extra risk. It was the rebels who 'found' the killed people, and who came with the story that they were killed by tank-shelling. 
When the UN people came to Houla thata same day, they saw the people were killed from close range. Then the rebels changed their story for the world. 

My conclusion: 

( A little bit hasty conclusion, I don't want to spend too much time on it.) 

- the witnesses were from the rebels only. This is not reliable. Always ask both sides of a conflict for their information. 

- The witnesses were probably not consistent.  Not in what I read and saw from them.  So it is very surprising that speaking to the UN they all came  with one consistent version of what happened. 

- The loyalties of the killed families are disputed. But not the fact that one man was a policeman for Assad. Why would his family be killed by Govt. forces? There must be thousands of Sunni familes in Houla  that were much more anti-government than this policeman's family.  Much 'better targets'for the govt. forces. 
But for the rebels this policeman may have been very much hated by the rebels ( who were local criminals in many cases, possibly with scores to settle).  The hatred may have motivated the destruction of his whole family.  

- Nobody fled to the Hospital, but they fled to the rebels. Possible, but the people were maybe caught in rebel territory, and as they were not killed , they knew they would not be killed thereafter, except if they would fly to the ennemy and fail  in this flight.
Or were they captured and served as witnesses?  
We don't know.