Talk:Attack on Ghita Al-Rahmeh Refugee Camp

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to: navigation, search

I read the MoA piece, b, comments - lots of good points as usual, but in reading the scene, some reach too far in some directions, not far enough in others. Maybe just to be the inconclastic asshole I'll jump in with a long comment here.

Some ask if this is a refugee/IDP camps, where are the refugees? where is anyone? Out of the danger zone for the moment anyway. They could be al-Nusra terrorists, or refugees, can't say. They'd be off-frame, from the fire and weork crews and maybe fear of another strike.

Only one tent burned is clearly wrong. There's the one full uncovered frame seen, a few partly covered (non-burnt) but damaged frames, and numerous stray poles from probably 2+ onetime frames, and maybe others with frames completely gone. We could consider the burnt patches (there are a few) as likely tent locations, and the size of the gap here. I think it would suggest a block of tents (maybe 4-8?) are gone and more are damaged - better images and closer analysis would help.

I agree there's a wind issue between videos, which is very relevant. The wind likely spread a fire. This incident may show poor planning of the tent city, even if it doesn't show an attack. May or may not be a violent spark - the videos they provide show something has caused a poof of smoke and/or dirt at some time, rising up in the still air, and at another time, maybe on the same day, there's a heavy wind and the place is just-now burnt down. (can just a fire - in a mountain vally - create enough suction to create such a wind? Yeah, maybe... but otherwise) The connection is totally unclear.

There was likely a blast. The little girl seen burned is more blown-up, and maybe burned. Only dead people would lay there and burn. Location not proven but I suspect this is from the same incident. Something blew up - jet missile, surface rocket, mortar shell, hand grenade, propane tank, some combination. I suspect it was intentional - "calculated," as someone called it - by someone who calculates it's going to be blamed on the other side.

Further, even if the video events are linked (could be) a death toll of 28 from a shelling attack / mystery blast seems really high, and worse yet for a simple fire. House fires kill most people by asphyxiation. Tents breathe better, are far easier to escape. No one will die from a tent camp fire this small. It'll be on the alleged shell. That's possible, but if 28 actually people died, precedent suggests it's like this: - the one little girl horribly blown up by some blast probably linked to the fire (seen on video) - 0-3 others killed and several injured in that blast - a few burn cases (one serious) and 5-10 mild smoke inhalation cases from the tent fires - 24-27 people (about 22 men, 3 boys, 1-2 women) held prisoner by rebels somewhere nearby were massacred and blamed on that inexcusable and mysterious explosion. --Caustic Logic (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Precedent may not hold here. Often people say these massacres just launder rebel fighters and I doubt that. But I just re-checked the VDC - opposition site that usually passes on such claims with no problem. After 2 days, still no Idlib people or anyone killed by warplane shelling - anywhere in Syria. All civilians, nationwide = 21 collected - the most (12) killed in a suicide bombing in Homs province. The only thing close to 28 or in Idlib is 25 dead people from Idlib - all rebel fighters, killed by shooting "in the clashes." What's it said, 28 were killed? The little girl isn't listed yet. Her and two others maybe died at the camp and getting a slow listing? Or 28 delayed entries? Or none? Unclear. --Caustic Logic (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Gah, those sneaky bastards. Just a couple hours later I check back and they have the dead civilians listed. Partly. Same warplane shelling link above now shows 14 people - all from Aleppo, mostly Anadan. 5 men, 4 women, 2 boys, 3 girls. That, so far, does not look like the usual hostage-killing incident, but it could be just more balanced than usual. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)