Ian Henshall – via Salem-News June 2, 2012
BBC’s Newsnight last night interviewed a London based Syrian businessman who stated that the families murdered by terrorists in Houla were supporters of the Syrian government, not the opposition.
If correct this would make it highly unlikely that the narrative pushed by the mainstream media is true, and suggests the opposite is the case: the atrocity was committed not by the Assad regime but by the insurgents, supported by NATO, Al Qaeda and the gulf Arab dictators, and reported to be covertly armed by Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood linked government.
The official story of the Houla massacre has changed substantially since it first broke, with unconfirmed reports from insurgents (routinely described on the BBC as activists).
Version one, corroborated by at least one BBC correspondent, had it that the victims were killed by heavy weapons of the Syrian army.
“the Syrian army unleashed a barrage of heavy weapons late on Friday in response to a local anti-government protest.” (BBC)
Version two was that villagers had been randomly killed by militias sponsored by the Assad government.
“…most victims died in two bouts of summary executions carried out by “shabbiha” militiamen loyal to President Bashar al-Assad…” (Reuters)
Version three, the current version, concedes that most of the victims came from a few extended families.
It should not be difficult to establish who the families were loyal to: the insurgents or the Syrian government. The Syrian businessman on Newsnight stated they were related to an MP elected in recent elections which the insurgents have boycotted.
It was not clear whether the information from the Syrian businessman was expected in this live TV show. The potential bombshell was ignored by hawkish presenter Gavin Essler and high profile warmonger Paul Wolfovitz, who demanded a military attack on Syria. A UN spokesman refused Essler’s invitation to confirm that the Houla victims were killed by Syrian government forces.
If we now hear less and less about the massacre with no further details, many will conclude that the prima facie suspects for the atrocity are the insurgents, backed by NATO and the Gulf Arab dictators, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, including the BBC. This would be a classic false flag terrorist atrocity. Ironically the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Bortherhood has denounced the 9/11 attacks as a false flag atrocity organised by Israel or the CIA.
In one way this would be good news: there are no logistical reasons why these people cannot be arrested, prosecuted and tried. It is established in international law that propaganda on behalf of war criminals is in itself a war crime. The fact that no-one would expect this to happen is testimony to the tacit acceptance that NATO governments and media have no real interest in human rights.