The massacre of Al-Hula delivers more questions than answers, while the Western powers are convinced in public that the Syrian government and army is responsible for this massacre, even when some details reject such a conclusion.
Not to mention that such a horrible massacre is a benefit for the Syrian opposition and not for the Syrian government and President al-Assad. The real implementation of a ceasefire in Syria and the following political dialogue is not in the interests of some sides and e.g. the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) knows that such political talks are counterproductive to their (only) goal.
To the question “Cui bono?”, the visit of William Hague to Moscow, Russia, could deliver a possible answer.
Even after the statement of the United Nations (UN) to the horrible massacre in Hula (Houla / al-Houlah), there are more questions than answers. Not to mention that the Norwegian Major General Robert Mood is still not able to say who is responsible for all the dead in the Syrian region of the city Homs.
Apart from the important question “Cui bono?”, especially about this “Hula massacre”, there are still some other couple of things which are interesting.
1. The journalist Anhar Kotschnewa is in Damascus and said that she has long studied a detailed map of the province of the Syrian city of Homs and that there is no place called “al-Hula” (or “El-Houleh” like the UN is using it). The journalist Anhar Kotschnewa was not able to find this village on the map.
She knows the region and has even already reported from Homs. But this is only the Latin version of the name, because the place “Houla” reads in Arabic like “Kafr Laha”. A village called “Houla” (also in Arabic) can be found in South Lebanon. Google was recently in the news because of the fact that Google has deleted the name “Persian Gulf” from Google Maps.
Already in February, Google has changed geographical names without respect, especially in Syria. Google became a collaborator of the armed gangs in this country: even street names were changed in the capital Damascus, at the behest of the “Syrian National Council” (SNC), based in Istanbul, Turkey.
As a viable source of this conflict, “Google Maps” is, at least, to put into question. Or different: Where is this village of Hula?
About the screenshots: On the left, there is a screenshot of the website “toptopglobe.com” which operates on the basis of Google Maps. Maybe at this service, older data are cached. In any case, everybody is able to read the Latin name there – written “Kafr Laha”. On the right: A current screenshot of Google Maps and it shows the name “Houla”. It is, at least, strange. In any case, there’s an irregularity.
2. Even such an apparently non-Syria-friendly source like BBC accompanied the news of Al-Hula with the usual phrase for reporting from Syria, “International media are not able to report freely in Syria and it is impossible to verify reports of violence.” But already Christoph Hoerstel (Christoph Hörstel) showed that this phrase is just used for propaganda purposes and not true.
This affects the stories of the armed rebels: artillery fire and targeted executions by the Syrian army had caused the deaths of more than 90 people, including 32 children, in Al-Hula (al-Houleh/Hula), near Homs. Despite all this, several Western leaders have assigned the responsibility for the “Hula massacre” immediately to the Syrian government, of course.
From Stalin’s time the following dialogue from the Politburo was handed down: Stalin said about a “state enemy” – “Arrest, condemn and execute!“. Berija answered: “Perhaps we should conduct an investigation of this matter?” Stalin replied, “Sure, Comrade Berija. Investigate this incident and then, execute him immediately.”
The authenticity of this dialogue is uncertain, but that’s how things go with the massacre of Al-Hula, Syria. It is not to say who is to blame for this “Hula massacre”, but the culprit is already a foregone conclusion for the West.
The massacre in the village (or town) is in itself an extraordinary horrible event, but may be the cause of much worse things in future. The signs are right now that way, that this induces retaliation or aggression against Syria.
Not to mention that the logical conclusion of the so-called “terror management” would assume that more horrible events could follow. More terrorism, explosions, suicide bombings and massacres. The further destabilization of Syria and the plan to keep Syria on a weak level is in the interests of some sides.
In the near future – certainly within the next week – there will be a reaction to this mass murder in al-Houleh/Hula. Then the matter is out of date, so far, the “topic” must be exploited quickly as possible to the maximum.
3. William Hague, the British foreign minister, flies to Moscow to discuss the situation in Syria. The reason for the trip is (also) Al-Hula. The spontaneity, which lets the effect follow the cause at this point, is raising a polite interest in this visit.
Just two days ago, the statements of UN observers were publicized, and these statements are raising a lot of questions, and lo and behold, Hague is going to fly to Russia (Moscow).
Good appetite, William Hague!
Why the British minister William Hague will discuss the topic Syria with Moscow and not the “crazy Clinton” is actually clear. Ever since the Litvinenko affair, the British-Russian relations are rather tense. Whether the Russian Cheka has really poisoned the obscure man in London with exotic teas or not, cannot be determined exactly, in any case, the relations between Russia and England are bad at the moment. But because the United Kingdom is almost a sacred land within the Russian elite and anti-elite, the UK has his change here.
The issue is also clear: Syria for us and you stay away, and we make the relationships good again.
Coincidentally, also just now, Mikhail Khodorkovsky wrote to Cameron and asks him to implement a travel ban to the UK for some 300 Russian government officials. Here is something in the bush.
All in all, the classic scenario: a trading, the carrot and the stick. Of course, his trade about Syria is unfavorable for Russia, because the give up of Syria would be irreversible for Moscow. The relations of the British are a bit tricky. We know from the past: the Russians have allowed themselves to move to enter the First World War, without any interest in contributing to, and had to pay for it with the collapse of their own country. So there are already such experiences.
The trouble is that the interest of the Russian elite does not necessarily reflect the interests of Russia. The entry ban may therefore represent quite a pretty painful maneuver against some powerful Russians: children and wives, lovers and lovers of the beloved, etc., etc. are there.
Immovable property in London is a question of prestige for the Russian elite. The Brits know this, of course. That’s why they come – well, that the subordinate bandits in Syria just provide a reason is a benefit, too.
In this whole situation, it may well be that the Syrian army was not at all close, but the accompanying print resources for yesterday`s trip to Moscow could not so easy be leave to chance.