The Houla Hoaxsters
by Justin Raimondo, June 04, 2012
It
was supposed to be another “Benghazi moment” –
an incident so horrific that it would spark Western military intervention in Syria’s increasingly
violent civil war. The massacre at Houla was reported to be just such a
moment: Syria’s security
forces stand accused
of killing 32 children under ten years of age, and more than 60 adults, by
bombing the rebel-held village
of Houla. Photos of the
massacre soon appeared on Twitter: and on YouTube,
videos of the slaughter, uploaded by anonymous “activists,” appeared on cue.
There was just one problem with this “evidence” of a massacre committed by the
Syrian government – much of it was completely made up.
Take
the photo the BBC used to illustrate the atrocity: it showed a young boy
jumping over piles of corpses neatly laid out in preparation for burial. Very
dramatic, and very disturbing – except it wasn’t a photo of anything that
happened in Houla. Instead, it was a photo taken by Marco Di Lauro in Iraq, in 2003,
and appropriated from his
web site. The stolen photo was accompanied by a caption that read:
“Photo from Activist. This image – which
cannot be independently verified – is believed to show bodies of children in
Houla awaiting funeral.”
“Somebody
is using illegally one of my images for anti [S]yrian propaganda on the BBC web
site front page,” Di Lauro says,
“I almost fell off
my chair when I saw it.” When confronted by Di Franco, BBC editors took it
down, and, by way of explanation, pointed to the caption as somehow
exonerating.
Yet
it is the very phrasing of that caption that condemns them out of their own
mouths, the key word being believed. Why was it believed by the BBC when
they received it from some anonymous “activist”? Because it suited their
propagandistic purposes – that is, the purposes
of the British government, which runs and funds the BBC, just as the Syrian
government runs and funds their own state-controlled media. The photo was
believed to be an accurate representation of events taking place in Houla
because the editors wanted to believe it.
It
isn’t just the photos purporting to show the massacre, it’s the “reporting”
that is also thrown into doubt: after all, these accounts are all coming from
the very same “activists” who have no compunctions about supplying fake photos
to the very same media who report their every
word as gospel. It is claimed the Syrian army bombarded Houla, and yet the
photos shows people with their throats
cut, and shot in the head at very close range: this seeming contradiction
required a revision of the “activist”-supplied narrative, which was duly
changed to depict government-controlled
“militias” coming into the village after the bombardment. Yet even this
hasty revisionist version didn’t cover all the bases: for
example, one of the victims was a candidate in Syria’s recent elections who had
refused to stand down at the demand of opposition “activists.” He, too, was
brutally murdered, and the question is – by whom?
The
BBC’s falling for – or enabling – “activist” fakery is hardly the only such
incident: there was the case of “Syria Danny,” whose on-camera
antics were exposed in
flagrante delicto as he staged a Syrian army “attack” for the benefit
of CNN. And don’t forget the fake “blogger” who purported to be “Amina Abdallah
Araf al Omari,” a 35-year-old lesbian living in Damascus, supposedly kidnapped by the Syrian
regime and abused. “Amina” turned
out to be a middle-aged married American schmuck and “Middle Eastern
activist,” one Tom MacMaster, studying for a degree at the University of Edinburgh,
in Scotland.
The cause of “Amina” was taken up by those ubiquitous Syrian “activists” and
trumpeted by their online propaganda apparatus – which has sprung up with
weed-like rapidity. That’s what a healthy infusion of money from Western
governments will buy you.
Yet
even all that money apparently can’t buy competent sock-puppets, with amateurs
like MacMaster, “Syria Danny,” and whoever supplied the BBC with Di Lauro’s
photo running wild.
Speaking
of running wild with enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars, the rebels – already
receiving cash, arms, and other emoluments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Gulf
sheikdoms – have already handed a $12
billion bill for “post-Assad development” to the Western “Friends Group,”
led by Germany. That, you can be sure, is just the beginning. With the Eurozone
going down into the economic abyss, and the Germans berating their Greek (and
now Spanish and Italian) partners as unproductive free riders, one has to
wonder about German priorities. The British, too, are on the hook, having just upped the amount they’re
sending – at a time when government subsidies to the very needy are on the
chopping block. And of course there’s no telling how many American tax dollars
have been funneled in “non-lethal”
aid to the rebels-who-couldn’t-get-their-lies-straight, but one thing is clear:
their American trainers and advisers have their work cut out for them.
The
US State Department has posted aerial photos
of Syrian troops massed near the village, which purportedly show the government
was in control of the area when the massacre occurred. The Syrians, for their
part, claim they were in a defensive
posture, and “activist”-supplied videos are unreliable for all the reasons
detailed above. We will probably never know the truth about what happened at
Houla – at least, not before the regime-changers in Western capitals and their
Saudi allies kick the propaganda ball over the goal post.
Remember
that the aim of war
propaganda is to create
a general impression, not to establish the truth (or falsehood) of any
particular disputed fact. The idea is to hurl as many accusations against the
target as rapidly as possible, without regard for their source, so as to
generate the kind of murkiness where the truth can be created, rather
than merely reported. It’s all about establishing a narrative, and any
bothersome facts cropping up and getting in the way are hurriedly kicked aside.
Amid
all the loud lamentations over the Syrian regime’s brutality, one fact
downplayed by Western media outlets is that there are over 60 different rebel
militias operating in Syria,
whose activities are indistinguishable from the shabihas, or
pro-government militias, which are getting the brunt of the blame. As the Washington
Post reports:
“As the shabiha’s ranks and violence
have grown and widened, groups have sprung up to counter them. Analysts say
shabiha-style militias made up of the Sunni Muslims who represent the majority
of the population have also started to emerge in regions such as Homs province,
where Houla is located and where Sunni and Alawite communities sit side by
side, increasing the potential for sectarian violence.”
In
funding and arming rebel groups, whose violence is now being unleashed on
civilians caught in the middle, the US and its allies are actively
undermining Kofi Annan’s peace
plan, which the Syrians have accepted. The rebels are determined to destroy
the plan, which leaves them out of power: they won’t be happy until they’ve
given the West a pretext
to intervene militarily. As Hillary Clinton’s public pronouncements
acquire a certain shrillness, that prospect is becoming increasingly likely.
By
supporting
the “Free
Syrian Army,” the US and its allies are openly engaged in another
Libya-style intervention, with the same radical
Islamists as their armed wing, while a supposedly “secular” and
“democracy”-oriented “youth movement” serves as the public face of a deeply
reactionary rebel army.
Imagine,
for the moment, that some group of foreign powers were involved in financing
and arming a “Free American Army,” which launched attacks on US army bases and
carried out terrorist acts – car
bombings, as have occurred
in Damascus, for example – in Washington, D.C. Imagine this rebel army had
acquired footholds in key areas, and called for the overthrow of the “regime”
in Washington. Do we even have to ask what would be the reaction
of the US
government?
The
Western powers are intent on establishing international rules of governance
they have no
intention of applying to themselves, and, in this instance, are utilizing
the United Nations as their chosen instrument. However, it is by no means
certain the UN will go along with the game plan, as Annan’s peace
plan – which calls for mutual disarmament and an end to hostilities – would
indicate. In which case, the West will do everything it can to undermine the
Annan plan and destabilize Syria
to the point where they can declare it a “failed state” – and move in for the
kill.
The
“activist”-authored narrative of a ruthless dictator slaughtering his own
people – complete with fake photos, phony videos, and tall tales legitimized as
“news” – is aimed at a Western audience. In Syria – where the majority fears
the opposition as
much, or more, than the dictator Assad – they know better. Unfortunately
for them, they have no power to stop the Western-initiated juggernaut headed in
their direction.
NOTES
IN THE MARGIN
Today’s
column brings to mind Wesley Clark’s 2007 revelation,
proffered in a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, that he was
privy to a classified US government plan to overthrow seven governments – Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran. Gen. Clark told his audience
this was prefigured by a 1991 conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz, in which
the then-Undersecretary of Defense gave the project a timeline of five years.
While they may be a bit behind schedule, it looks like the War Party is today
on the brink of success.
Which
brings us to the question of how this is playing out in this country. Where is
the opposition? Nowhere to be found, apparently – except right here in the
pages of Antiwar.com. That’s our job, and it’s a full-time one: exposing the
lies of the interventionists as they lead us into one disastrous war after
another. Their trail of deception and destruction is many miles long, and just
as wide: and we’ve been following it doggedly for the past fifteen years or so.
Our
readers have been supporting our efforts for just as long, but recently – with
the economic downturn, in part caused by the very policies we’ve been opposing
– the stream of contributions has begun to dry up. People just don’t have the
money anymore, it’s as simple as that. Our most recent fundraiser has been one
long scary ride, and up until recently it looked as if we might not make it.
However, a last-minute flurry of donations, in response to a special urgent
appeal, has brought us closer to our goal. Now we just need $10,000 more to put
us over the top. That’s not a lot of money by the standards of your normal Washington think tank,
which takes in hundreds of thousands from arms manufacturers and other special
interests on a regular basis. From our very different perspective, however, it
is a great deal of money, without which we’ll find ourselves having to make
noticeable cutbacks in our coverage. So please – help us fill in the $10,000
gap. Make your tax-deductible
contribution to Antiwar.com today.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker