Syria Rebels Executed Civilians, Say Human Rights Watch

[Comrade Grumpy]

Source: BBC

Rebel forces in Syria killed as many as 190 civilians and seized more than 200 hostages during a military offensive in August, Human Rights Watch says. A report by the New York-based group says the deaths occurred in villages inhabited predominantly by members of President Bashar al-Assad's minority Alawite sect near the city of Latakia.

"This operation was a co-ordinated, planned attack on the civilian population in these Alawite villages,” said Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch.

In its 105-page report, it says that in the early hours of 4 August opposition fighters overran government positions in the Latakia countryside and occupied more than 10 Alawite villages. HRW says it appears the civilians were killed on the first day of the operation.

"Witnesses described how opposition forces executed residents and opened fire on civilians, sometimes killing or attempting to kill entire families who were either in their homes unarmed or fleeing from the attack," the report said.

<snip> much more at the article

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24486627

[radicalliberal]

1. All the more reason for the U.S. to STAY OUT of this conflict.

It seems the rebels mentioned in the article are as ruthless as Assad's forces. Are there any "good guys" in this conflict?

It's horrible.

[delrem]

2. What do you mean "stay out"? The US isn't "out of this conflict".

How can Americans, even an overwhelming percentage of those on the "American Left", delude themselves by using wording that paints a false picture, in this case as if the US wasn't behind the whole fucking thing from the beginning, from Hillary R. Clinton's "Friends of Syria (tm)", to coordinating 100% with the GCC?

"stay out"????? fuck that kind of shit-stick waving, the US should *get out*. The US should own up to what it has *actually done* in the ME, and stop counting everything in terms of $billions$ of weapons sold, or given away "free".

[radicalliberal]

4. I meant well, but I'm apparently not as well-informed as I should be.

Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:45 AM - Edit history (1)

If the situation is as you say, then the U.S. should get out. I agree with you. Please don't be upset with me. I didn't know all the facts.

I'm quite aware that our government's foreign policy has repeatedly betrayed our ideals for decades by wrongful interventions all around the world. I knew that a long time ago. U.S. history is whitewashed in that regard.

Edit: By the way, I'm just a nobody posting in a forum. I have no influence whatsoever to have any impact on anything. Virtually every single officeholder in the vicinity of my humble residence (which means every incumbent whose name appears on the ballot) is a Republican. A one-party state, sad to say.



My goodness, what an intemperate response! You'd think I was Jesse Helms or something.

[leftynyc]

12. Don't let it bother you

Some people think so much of themselves here that they feel free to lecture and admonish on cue pretending they're something more than you are, just an anonymous poster with an opinion. There's an ignore function you may want to become familiar with.

[Javaman]

17. Nice post, Jesse!

I kid, I kid. Welcome to DU.

Sometimes you need a thick skin here from the people who jump from zero to 1000 in nothing flat to hurl accusations.

The nice ones on here out number the nuts. LOL

Cheers!

[awoke_in_2003]

33. No, you are more like Pol Pot...

just kidding

[Uncle Joe]

34. Don't sell your influence short, you make a ripple in the pond with every post.

Peace to you and welcome to D.U. radicalliberal.

[leftynyc]

3. We should have

never gotten involved in that mess. Both sides suck.

[delrem]

6. You mean, you all should have never orchestrated that mess. The mess sucks.

[leftynyc]

11. But of course

What business is it of ours if al assad wanted to oppress, imprison and torture his people. That's what you mean, right?

[leveymg]

18. In that case, we might also intervene in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,and half the other states in MENA

But, the difference is, those despotic theocracies have major US investments and networks of political influence in the U.S.

Don't fool yourself. Our sort of humanitarian intervention is highly selective, and largely commercially determined. You're not fooling anyone else here, anymore.

[leftynyc]

22. LOL - not trying to fool anyone

Asked you a direct question which, instead of answering, you decided to deflect. Which is pretty typical. Actually, I didn't even ask it of you, did I? My position is to stay out of the politics of the region other than protecting our interests which is what every single country in the world does.

[leveymg]

23. Your last statement implies we do have business and moral cause to intervene in Syria.

As for U.S. national interest, how has that been served by our actual policy and actions there?

You asked an open-ended rhetorical question. I answered it. Sorry if that intrudes.

[leftynyc]

25. My statement does nothing of the kind

We have zero interest in Syria.

[leveymg]

27. Yet, we supported and trained Syrian opposition groups for at least 5 yrs before the uprising

started. As did the Saudis. That made us, along with our "allies", part of the outcome from the very beginning.

We certainly have culpability for bad outcomes in Syria and Libya, as they were entirely foreseeable. If it wasn't in our national interest to do so, there needs to be political accountability (not reward) for those who pushed such bad policy.

[leftynyc]

29. No argument from me

(although you appear to be looking for one). My position on Syria has been to stand down right from the beginning. Never wavered.

[joshcryer]

5. Syria government forces executed at least 248 civilians

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014593756

So it looks like Syria is ahead of the rebels as far as executing civilians.

And this is assuming that the chemical weapons attack wasn't done by Syria (which is likely was).

[Warren Stupidity]

13. So we should keep a tally and back the side that executes fewer civilians?

[joshcryer]

14. Nope.

We should realize there are evils on both sides. But it's likely the Syrian executions will be ignored.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. So you are against backing the "rebels"?

[joshcryer]

16. Yes.

Friends of Syria is a shitty idea.

But so is Russia's arm supplies to Syria.

I support a full arms embargo on Syria.

[karynnj]

26. No - we should work as hard as we can for a political solution - knowing that we are NOT the ones to

decide the future government.

Kerry and Lavrov have spoke of negotiations starting in November. As hard as their September negotiations were, this will be harder. Then, the goal was a US/Russian agreement that the UN would pass -- and the resolution passed was essentially their agreement. This time the people who really need to find an agreement are the Syrians.

It is hard to see how they get past the over 100,000 killed to create a government and stop the violence. It is sad to think that had Assad made relatively small reforms early on giving some power to moderate Sunnis in 2010 or 2011, They would have had a better situation than the best that anyone seems to anticipate in the future.

Even if this does happen, it is hard to imagine how long the country will need to recover from the atrocities that their neighbors did. However, difficult as it is - there are places that have gone through similar things and were able to become more peaceful.

[Igel]

36. Varous have been proposed.

They seem to be of a two kinds.

1. Assad must go and we must have all the power.

2. Let's find a way to share power.

3. Let's find a way to share power, being very clear that this is a very short-term arrangement prior to Assad going and being put on trial in a way that clearly shows that we're right or too conservative about the extent of his guilt. Then we can have all the power, since we must have it.

(1) and (3) are very similar, if you ask me. (1) is the rebels' position. (3) is the NATOist position, framed in the rebels' POV. (2) is Assad's and Russia's stated position, whatever their true position(s).


What's lacking is any kind of a compromise that the rebels will agree to. At best they've offered to talk about conditions of Assad's surrender, and usually they've balked at even that (since they weren't in a position of power).

Now, we may distrust Assad and assume that (2) is a feint, a way of manipulating things and with the clear plain-speak translation "Assad will keep totalitarian control." Perhaps. It's a testable hypothesis, though, with the alternative being that distrust accepted on blind faith. It's that faith that's led to most of the deaths in the last year or so.

This is faith made all the blinder--so far, at least--by the way the chemical weapons that Assad "would never admit to having, much less give up" have been dealt with. It may yet be justified if Assad bails and is found to have cheated. But so far that faith has been falsified, and the only thing left in the air is the chant, "We believe in what we believe." This strikes me as very, very conservative, sticking to that old-time religion.

[karynnj]

38. The NATO/US position is not as far from 2 as you suggest

NATO/US have spoken of sharing power as well. That is not inconsistent with saying that Assad himself can not rule. The reason is that it is NOT saying that the Alawites/Assad allies get no power. (It is interesting that you see the flaws in NATO/US position, but take the Russian/Assad position at face value - when Assad REFUSED for years to share the power.)

I also think that - if you look at it - Obama and Kerry moved away from the rebels when they made the issue use of chemical weapons. The rebels were and are furious with the agreement that Kerry and Lavrov made - in some ways more verbally angry than Assad. I would not be surprised if negotiations do not cater to the rebels - especially if they do not rise to the occasion and create a credible delegation to a peace conference. Obama has always seemed reluctant to get more involved - unlike Clinton and others in the administration. Kerry in the 60 minutes overtime segment explicitly says that we do not want to get involved in fighting a civil war. Note that Obama did not back Powers in keeping language on the ICCC, blaming Assad and a direct trigger to chapter 7 consequences in the resolution.

It is interesting that you state that Assad's position is to share power -- yet that is precisely what he rejected in 2009 and 2010 when the Obama administration worked to get him to do just that. You also ignore that Russia, Iran and Syria all have not spoken of the connection to Hezbollah.

So, I would add a number 4 that is not the position of Syria, the rebels, Russia or the US. I assume it should include a government that includes all the diverse populations in Syria That government MUST be ratified by a majority of the Syrian people. It is likely that Assad must agree not to run in the election coming next year. I think there has to be some agreement not to fund in any way Hezbollah - possibly there might be a push to get Hezbollah to renounce its military role. Hezbollah is powerful politically in Lebanon - so there is some possibility of incentives to abandon the terrorist role - especially if both Iran and Syria drop support for it. Such an agreement should NOT speak of the ICCC or declare quilt of anyone. Note that it was just this decade that Cambodian war crime tribunals were held.

It is entirely possible that there may have to be some provision to deal with any forces in Syria that will not agree with any government.

[pampango]

7. "the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called on the UN Security Council to refer

Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC)."

Since war crimes and human rights abuses have been committed by all sides in Syria, the Security Council should refer it to the ICC. None of the Big 5 on the SC should not protect 'their' side in the conflict.

[dipsydoodle]

8. "committed by all sides in Syria"

The sides are as bad as each other.

[pampango]

9. All sides in every conflict have war criminals. They should all be subject to prosecution.

IMHO, that does not make all sides in every conflict equally "bad".

It is possible that the quantity and severity of war crimes committed by one side makes it "worse" than another side. However, war criminals on all sides should be prosecuted.

[joshcryer]

10. As a sovereign state Syria should arrest those responsible in its government.

And it should bring to justice those within the rebel factions (a harder prospect, I realize).

[Ash_F]

19. The US, with its awesome justice system, won't arrest its own war criminals.

I doubt a government as corrupt as Syria's would do so. The side that loses will go on trial.

You are not wrong though.

[joshcryer]

20. We don't disagree.

It would be nice if both states got their act together in that respect.

[leveymg]

21. The problem with the prosecute "all sides" approach is where does it stop?

Prosecute only those individuals who can be proven to have pulled the trigger in atrocities?
Prosecute their military commanders too, with or without proof of command authorization?
Prosecute the civilian political leadership too?
Prosecute those foreign parties who provided arms?
Prosecute those foreign parties who provided money?
Prosecute those foreign parties who provided political support and comfort?

If you start, where do you stop? Who doesn't get prosecuted? Whose left to do the prosecution?

[pampango]

24. Prosecutions for war crimes in Yugoslavia at the ICTY were not stymied by these questions.

There will certainly be guilty parties in Syria who are missed, but that is not a reason to let all war criminals avoid justice.

The very first hearing at the ICTY was referral request in the Tadić case on 8 November 1994. As of February 2013, the Tribunal has indicted 161 individuals, and has already completed proceedings with regard to 97 of them: 17 have been acquitted, 67 sentenced, 13 have had their cases transferred to courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (10), Croatia (2) and Serbia (1). Another 36 cases have been terminated either because indictments were withdrawn or because the indictees died before or after transfer to the Tribunal. 48 of the 67 convicted were transferred to 13 different states where they served their prison sentences—sentences handed out to the rest of the convicted indictees amounted to time spent in detention during trial. 34 have served their term, and 3 died while serving their sentences.

The indictees ranged from common soldiers to generals and police commanders all the way to Prime Ministers. Slobodan Milošević was the first sitting head of state indicted for war crimes. Other "high level" indictees included Milan Babić, former President of the Republika Srpska Krajina; Ramush Haradinaj, former Prime Minister of Kosovo; Radovan Karadžić, former President of the Republika Srpska; Ratko Mladić, former Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army and Ante Gotovina, former General of the Croatian Army.

In 2004, the ICTY published a list of five successes which it claimed it had accomplished:

"Spearheading the shift from impunity to accountability", pointing out that, until very recently, it was the only court judging crimes committed as part of the Yugoslav conflict, since prosecutors in the former Yugoslavia were, as a rule, reluctant to prosecute such crimes;

"Establishing the facts", highlighting the extensive evidence-gathering and lengthy findings of fact that Tribunal judgments produced;

"Bringing to justice thousands of victims and giving them a voice", pointing out the large number of witnesses that had been brought before the Tribunal;

"The accomplishments in international law", describing the fleshing out of several international criminal law concepts which had not been ruled on since the Nuremberg Trials;

"Strengthening the Rule of Law", referring to the Tribunal's role in promoting the use of international standards in war crimes prosecutions by former Yugoslav republics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

Your question about foreign parties who supply arms is a good reason to adopt the UN Arms Trade Treaty which would make arms suppliers to human rights abusers guilty themselves.

[leveymg]

28. So, what happens the next time that US-supplied arms end up being used in atrocities?

Should US officials be held accountable for what's happened in Syria?

I write this not because I think that crimes against humanity shouldn't be prosecuted, but merely to point out the moral ambiguities and practical difficulties once "humanitarian interventions" like this are pursued even though they had foreseeable worse or worst-case outcomes.

[pampango]

31. I hope the same thing that happens the next time that Russia-supplied arms end up

being used for atrocities.

I agree that there are always moral ambiguities and practical difficulties in the prosecution of war crimes - whether they come from "humanitarian interventions" or old fashioned repression/rebellion that has happened many more times throughout history.

[leveymg]

32. It seems the only ones who end up at the Hague are the ones whose sponsors can no longer protect

them, or which have gone too far and been disowned.

It's never the sponsors -- the US or Russians or French or Saudis or oil companies or whatever major powers which ultimately benefit from wars -- who end up in the dock. Something is very wrong with that outcome.

[karynnj]

39. I agree - though I think the first step needs to be ending the fighting nt

[dipsydoodle]

30. France 24 are saying they kidnpapped / detained a further 200.

Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Same figures mentioned here too :

WASHINGTON, October 11 (RIA Novosti) – Syrian rebels led by radical Islamist groups killed at least 190 villagers and seized more than 200 civilian hostages during an attack in August that "rises to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” a prominent US rights watchdog said Friday.

“These abuses were not the actions of rogue fighters,” Joe Stork, acting Middle East director at New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in a statement. “This operation was a coordinated, planned attack on the civilian population in these villages.”

Survivors and witnesses of the Aug. 4 offensive on at least 10 villages said Syrian opposition forces led by radical groups, including the Al-Qaida linked Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) and Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, shot fleeing women and children and killed civilians execution style, HRW said in a report released Friday.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20131011/184076644/Syrian-Rebels-Slaughtered-Civilians-US-Rights-Group.html

[JohnyCanuck]

35. K & R n/t

[jessie04]

37. More cycle of violence .

Terrible.

[eridani]

40. Human Rights Watch Accuses Syria Rebels of 'War Crimes'

They have no idea which, if any of these rebel groups are backed by NATO.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/330-131/19820-human-rights-watch-accuses-syria-rebels-of-war-crimes

Human Rights Watch said Friday that Syrian opposition fighters committed "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" in an Aug. 4 assault, killing at least 190 civilians as the rebels began a large-scale offensive to take back government-controlled areas in Latakia province, where many members of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect live in rural villages.

The report said it is not clear what role, if any, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) - the armed wing of the main opposition coalition that is openly supported by the United States, Britain, France and Sunni Muslim Gulf states - played in the offensive.

"We woke up around 5 a.m. to the sound of gunfire coming closer to us. We started to run away, but as we were running we saw some people getting killed in front of us," New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) quoted a resident of the village Abu Makkeh as saying. "I was fleeing with my mother, father - there were about eight of us, including my brother's newborn daughter. Three neighbors died right in front of me. We walked into the fields nearly three kilometers (1.5 miles) to get to safety."

The high civilian death toll and the nature of the wounds - gunshots and stabbings - as well as the presence of 43 women, children and elderly among the dead, suggest that armed rebel groups intentionally or indiscriminately killed residents, HRW said. More than 200 hostages were taken during the offensive, according to the rights group.

Syria's mainly Sunni Muslim rebels have been battling for two and a half years in an attempt to overthrow Assad, whose Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam and makes up about 12 percent of Syria's 23 million people. The conflict erupted in 2011 with a violent crackdown on peaceful protests against four decades of Assad family rule.