BBC: it turns out that the Syrian militants also commit crimes against humanity

2013-10-11 translation by HBT

On August 4, 2013 Syrian militants killed around 190 civilians and kidnapped another 200 in an assault on several Alawite villages on the outskirts of Latakia, according to the BBC report www.bbc.co.uk in Russian, with references to a report by Human Rights Watch.

This report can be regarded as sensational. Indeed, up to now any civilian casualties in Syria have never been called by the Western Human Rights organizations, together with their governments and media, anything except «crimes by the Syrian government».

The so called «rebels» have always had to look clean and fluffy, or, in some cases, forced to kill by the actions of that same government. Sometimes it came up to complete madness. For example, the very BBC site that hosts this new Human Rights Watch material, possesses www.bbc.co.uk an interview with a representative of the so called «opposition» who openly boasts of cannibalism in public. The «free» media is not, of course, blatantly excited at this matter, but treats it, so to speak, with understanding, allowing this fighter against tyranny to explain his «position». Indeed, isn't it fun to consume heart or liver of the dead enemy? Especially when he «did not want to do it», but was «forced to do what THEY do»: it is not allowed to doubt the fact that the governmental troops eat exclusively women and children. He was even wounded several times (some scratch is shown).

Indeed, having seen such an example of «objectivity» in portraying what is happening in Syria, one may regard as somewhat unpredictable to see the appearance of a report by a human rights organization stating that the «opposition» herself commits «crimes against humanity». Especially when it is mentioned that those actions «have not been a bottom initiative», that «this operation has been a planned and coordinated attack against civilian population of those villages», and even that «the Islamist groups include many foreigners, and are financed by private sponsors from Kuwait and other Gulf states».

But do not hurry to rejoice. Reading has to be careful. When it comes to conclusions, a different picture shows up. These are the conclusions: «The evidence strongly suggests that the killings, kidnappings, and other assaults committed by the opposition forces on 4th of August or later, come up to the level of crimes against humanity». So, in reality there are no crimes, there are assaults that together with the killings and kidnappings only «come up to the level of crimes against humanity». «Come up» means have not came up yet.

Probably, it was not accidental that the human rights watchers have been coming up to publishing this report for more than two months. You think, it is easy to come up with a formula that calls mass murder and kidnapping not a crime, but something that just comes up to the level of crime? Well, we have to admit though, that other factors also contributed to the delay. The most important reason is that two months ago no one was going to even proceed with this case, more precisely, to view this case from such an angle of vision (Internet hosts sea of materials on Syrian militants' brutality, but the Western media does nothing except for savoring some of those, like in the example shown above). Most probably, we are dealing with a cleansing operation within the so called «opposition forces», because some of them have committed crimes of openly denouncing a ground operation by the US in Syria. It is no surprise that the human rights watchers do not mention «the main rebel force — Free Syrian Army». It has to remain as clean and fluffy as before.

Of course, the «Islamic gangs» themselves will not pay attention to any of such publications, but their mentioned «private sponsors from Kuwait and other Gulf states» may have their tails squeezed, as their Western bank accounts may well be confiscated under the pretext of sponsoring what «comes up to crimes against humanity» and in this way dares to break the conventional monopoly on this kind of business that has settled in recent decades.