Talk:Hayan missile massacre, August 12, 2016
White Helmets hoax
This is the clearest case of a White Helmets hoax I have come across. I think effort should be put in analyzing an exposing this incident. There are very few unknown variables. A simple scene. There are hundreds of these "WH with child" hoax videos, but you could always assume there was some hidden reason for what is happening. Here we see the whole setup. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- As you note, they rushin and "save" the mangled boy who's clearly starting to decay. What is this, WH rule #12? Always be seen running urgently whether it makes any sense or not. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I only watched the videos once so far, might refime these points, but I'm fairly confident these people were killed somwhere else some time earlier, and then dumped here. I suppose how they were spread out, largely tumbled over the dirt mound, was meant to suggest their being tossed in the air, from somewhere, and the kids flew further. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Blood present: appears to be less than there would if they were killed here. The soil miht have absorbed some, and if often reddish. But that's the natural color here, it seems, and we can see where blood soaked in - one body was bleeding moderately when dumped here, and the body was moved, leaving a smear. That's blood on the ground, and there's hardly any other spots you see it. So, most of it already came out somewhere else. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Decay signs: It might be easy to over-estimate how long ago these people died. I note some blackening skin, which usually takes a day or more to start in summer. But massive injuries like these bodies have speeds this up, with more entry points for bacteria. I'd say they could be dead less than a day, but probably a bit on the plus side, and probably less than two days. But that's only a semi-educated guess. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
After a few years of anlayzing victims records, I still had no solid graps of why most, but not all, married women in Syria get listed by father's (maiden) family name, instead of her husband's family name, as happens in the West. This comes up again here, where the same handy name - Qraitem - is carried across all 15 victims in this apparent, spread-out massacre. Why?
I finally looked it up, but didn't bother saving the links. The gist is Islam says it's haram (forbidden) to take your husband's name - you belong to no one, except your dad, and God. This will probably apply wherever people are seriously religious, probably Shia as well as Sunni, and to whatever degree, across either religion just by custom, even if they're not really zealous. Some more "modern" or Western-influenced women have adopted the Western custom. This would be tolerated, but seems unusual, in Syria ... according to the names recorded by the sources I consult, anyway (but seems to be agreed by "both sides.").
So ... it's a possible clue, but sort of vague. IF these are even the names they went by, rather than just applied by the opposition activists and/or their murderers ... they might be Christians or other non-Muslim, not very religious or atheist, or "modern" Muslims (Sunni, Shia, or Alawi), or Druze, etc. One way or another, it suggests things that could well put them on Al-Nusra's bad side.--Caustic Logic (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)