HRW points to Assad regime use of CW

While the international community continues "huff and puff" and hesitantly threatens to bring the house of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in, available evidence strongly suggests Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013, Human Rights Watch -- the New York-based independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights -- says in a report published Tuesday.

These attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, appeared to use a weapons-grade nerve agent, most likely Sarin.

Mother and Father weep over their child killed in Ghouta (via HRW)

The 22-page report, “Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria,” documents the two chemical weapons attacks on the opposition-controlled suburbs of Eastern and Western Ghouta, located 16 kilometers apart, in the early hours of August 21.

The report says:

Human Rights Watch analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon systems used, and the medical symptoms exhibited by the victims as documented by medical staff.

“Rocket debris and symptoms of the victims from the August 21 attacks on Ghouta provide telltale evidence about the weapon systems used,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “This evidence strongly suggests Syrian government troops launched rockets carrying chemical warheads into the Damascus suburbs that terrible morning.”

The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces, Human Rights Watch said.

Via HRW

Human Rights Watch analyzed publicly posted YouTube videos from the attacked areas as well as higher-resolution images of weapon remnants provided by a local activist in Eastern Ghouta. 

Two separate surface-to-surface rocket systems believed to be associated with the delivery of chemical agents were identified. The first type of rocket, found at the site of the Eastern Ghouta attacks, is a 330mm rocket that appears to have a warhead designed to be loaded with and deliver a large payload of liquid chemical agent. The second type, found in the Western Ghouta attack, is a Soviet-produced 140mm rocket that, according to reference guides, has the ability to be armed with one of three possible warheads, including one specifically designed to carry and deliver 2.2 kilograms of Sarin.

The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the attacks and has blamed opposition groups, but has presented no credible evidence to back up its claims. Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weapons in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack or their associated launchers.

While Human Rights Watch was unable to go to Ghouta to collect weapon remnants, environmental samples, and physiological samples to test for the chemical agent, it has sought technical advice from an expert on the detection and effects of chemical warfare agents. The expert reviewed accounts from local residents, the clinical signs and symptoms described by doctors, and many of the videos that were taken of the victims of the August 21 attacks.

Via HRW

Three doctors in Ghouta who treated the victims told Human Rights Watch that victims of the attacks consistently showed symptoms including suffocation; constricted, irregular, and infrequent breathing; involuntary muscle spasms; nausea; frothing at the mouth; fluid coming out of noses and eyes; convulsing; dizziness; blurred vision; red and irritated eyes and pin-point pupils (myosis). Some young victims exhibited cyaonis, a bluish coloring on the face consistent with suffocation or asphyxiation. None of the victims showed traumatic injuries normally associated with attacks using explosive or incendiary weapons.

Such symptoms, and the lack of traumatic injuries, are consistent with exposure to nerve agents such as Sarin, Human Rights Watch said. There is laboratory evidence that Sarin gas has been used in a previous attack in April on Jobar, near Damascus, when a photographer for Le Monde newspaper who was present at the time later tested for exposure to Sarin. 

Victims of the August 21 attacks: A picture the world should never see again

The use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international humanitarian law. Although Syria is not among the 189 countries that are party to the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, it is a party to the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol. Customary international law bans the use of chemical weapons in all armed conflicts.

The August 21 attacks on Ghouta are the first major use of chemical weapons since the Iraqi government used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurdish civilians in Halabja 25 years ago, Human Rights Watch said.

“The increasingly evident use of chemical weapons in Syria’s terrible conflict should refocus the international debate on deterring the use of such weapons and more broadly protecting Syria’s civilian population,” Bouckaert said.

Gallup: Only 36% of Americans favor strike on Syria

A Gallup poll, published on Friday, shows the support by Americans for U.S. military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad -- for its use of chemical weapons on a Damascus suburb on August 21 --  is the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years.

Although history shows support increase should conflict start, writes Gallup’s Andrew Dugan, thirty-six percent of Americans favor the U.S. taking military action in order to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons. The majority -- 51% -- oppose such action, while 13% are unsure.

Americans also opposed military intervention in Syria in a May Gallup survey. In that poll, by 68% to 24%, Americans opposed military action "to attempt to end the conflict" if "all economic and diplomatic efforts fail to end the civil war in Syria."

Dugan writes:

Support is now somewhat higher, perhaps because of new allegations, from the U.S. and other nations, that Assad's government used chemical weapons against his own people, resulting in mass casualties. However, the current question specifies a reason for the action -- to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons, a narrower goal than ending the civil war, which is how Gallup previously asked about intervention.

Among recent past conflicts on which Gallup gauged public opinion prior to U.S. action, support was highest for intervening in Afghanistan and lowest for the 1999 conflict in Kosovo. Americans were divided about U.S. participation in the NATO bombing in Serbia's Kosovo region about a month before the NATO campaign began. The similarity is noteworthy because some analysts are comparing a potential strike in Syria with that military episode, in terms of scope, duration, and purpose.

The other three military engagements Gallup asked Americans about before they began -- in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and the Persian Gulf in 1991 -- were all on a larger scale than what President Barack Obama proposes to do in Syria, and involved sending U.S. troops into foreign countries. All of these proposed military operations received majority support before they began. Notably, all of these conflicts, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, were authorized by Congress and/or the United Nations at the time of the polling. Congress is currently debating whether to authorize military force in Syria.

Change if action is taken

If history is any guide, Americans' support for intervening in Syria may increase if the U.S. uses military force, due to what is known as a "rally effect."

Over the past 20 years, Americans' support for U.S. military engagements at the beginning of conflicts has traditionally been quite high, with an average of 68% of approving of 10 previous newly commenced conflicts.

The 1999 Kosovo/Balkans and 2003 Iraq conflicts are the clearest examples of the rally effect. Americans' backing of the bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia climbed to majority levels once the United States became militarily involved. The 2003 Iraq war is even more dramatic: 56% of Americans favored taking military action against Iraq in February 3-6, 2003, polling, about a month before the conflict began. By March 17 of that year, when war with Iraq was imminent, American approval of the coming conflict had risen to 66%. A day after the war began, support climbed to 76%.

Public support for action in Syria may also be bolstered by congressional authorization. Two wars with high levels of initial approval, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, were authorized by Congress via legislation. However, both conflicts took place in a national security climate still deeply influenced by the tragic September 11, 2001, attacks. Importantly, despite robust initial support and congressional authorization, many Americans now see these two wars as mistakes, perhaps due to the protracted U.S. engagement in those countries.

Partisanship

Americans have seen more recent wars through partisan lenses. This is true again in Syria's case, with Democrats divided on whether to intervene and a strong majority of Republicans opposed.

Independents also swing strongly against taking action, with 53% opposed. That more Democrats than Republicans support action -- a sharp reversal from the Iraq war, which Republicans were more supportive of -- is likely because a Democratic president is proposing these war measures.

Surprisingly, liberals and conservatives both skew against military action, while moderates are more divided.

Following news of Syria

The 71% of Americans who say they are following news about the civil war in Syria very or somewhat closely is up from 48% in June -- and higher than Gallup's 60% average for attention paid to hundreds of past key news events.

Implications

As Congress debates granting Obama the authorization to use military force that he deems necessary to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria, the American public is mostly against such action. Support has grown marginally since earlier this year, but a slight majority remains opposed.

Americans, at least initially, were much more supportive of previous military engagements. But after more than a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, war fatigue may be lingering. This is evidenced not only by Americans' relatively low level of support for U.S. intervention in Syria, but also the less-than-majority post-intervention approval (47%) of the 2011 military action in Libya.

Historically, Americans often rally around military actions once engagement begins, and should Congress authorize U.S. action in Syria, this may also heighten support for it -- if it occurs. Currently, though, much of the nation would rather sit this one out.

Survey methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted September 3-4, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,021 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cell telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

G-20 ends with public split on Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama continued lobbying, mostly unsuccessfully, for air strikes against Syria at the just concluded Group of Twenty (G-20) Leaders’ Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

He said before leaving the summit the “Assad regime’s brazen use of chemical weapons isn’t just a Syrian tragedy, it’s a threat to global peace and security.”

The atmosphere at the summit was tense between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin who supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The G-20 leaders of developed and developing economies account for 90 percent of the world economy and two-thirds of its population.

The leaders and representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America did however put out a joint statement on Syria on the margins of the St. Petersburg summit.

It condemns the use of chemical weapons and accuses the Syrian government of being responsible for the August 21 attack in the suburbs of Damascus and calls for a strong international response. The joint statement says:

The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal.  The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere.  Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.

We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children.  The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.

We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.

Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council's responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two-and-a-half-years.  The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability.  We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.  Signatories have also called for the UN fact-finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.

We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides.  More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced.  Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.  We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.

We have contributed generously to the latest UN and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G-20.  We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need. 

European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.

Before leaving the summit Friday evening, President Obama held a news conference and took some questions.

He said he would continue “to consult with my fellow leaders around the world, and I will continue to consult with Congress. And I will make the best case that I can to the American people, as well as to the international community, for taking necessary and appropriate action.”

Obama added he will address the American people from the White House on Tuesday.

On his decision to put the plan for air strikes against Syria to Congress, the U.S. president said, “I put this before Congress for a reason. I think we will be more effective and stronger if, in fact, Congress authorizes this action.”

The following is a transcript of Obama’s opening remarks. You can read a full transcript, including the Q & A here.

* * * * *

… Of course, even as we focused on our shared prosperity -- and although the primary task of the G-20 is to focus on our joint efforts to boost the global economy -- we did also discuss a grave threat to our shared security: And that’s the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. And what I’ve been emphasizing and will continue to stress is that the Assad regime’s brazen use of chemical weapons isn’t just a Syrian tragedy, it’s a threat to global peace and security.

Syria’s escalating use of chemical weapons threatens its neighbors, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel. It threatens to further destabilize the Middle East. It increases the risk that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist groups. But more broadly, it threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations, and those nations represent 98 percent of the world’s people.

Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations, that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence. And that’s not the world that we want to live in. This is why nations around the world have condemned Syria for this attack, and called for action.

I've been encouraged by discussions with my fellow leaders this week. There is a growing recognition that the world cannot stand idly by. Here in St. Petersburg leaders from Europe, Asia and the Middle East have come together to say that the international norm of the use against chemical weapons must be upheld, and that the Assad regime used these weapons on its own people, and that, as a consequence, there needs to be a strong response.

The Arab League foreign ministers have said the Assad regime’s responsible and called for deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation -- its general secretariat has called the attack a blatant affront to all religious and moral values and a deliberate disregard of international laws and norms, which requires a decisive action.

So, in the coming days I’ll continue to consult with my fellow leaders around the world, and I will continue to consult with Congress. And I will make the best case that I can to the American people, as well as to the international community, for taking necessary and appropriate action. And I intend to address the American people from the White House on Tuesday.

The kind of world we live in, and our ability to deter this kind of outrageous behavior, is going to depend on the decisions that we make in the days ahead.

And I’m confident that if we deliberate carefully and we choose wisely and embrace our responsibilities, we can meet the challenges of this moment as well as those in the days ahead.

Mich Café is Cloud961’s Blog of the Month

Mich Café was chosen as "Blog of the Month" in Cloud961’s fourth issue.

Cloud961 -- the 961 being the telephone code to dial Lebanon --  is a Lebanese monthly magazine covering the world of social media, blogging and the socio-digital industry.

It is the first interactive publication in the MENA region reaching out to the digital community and developed by the leaders and stakeholders of that community.

The following is the feautured piece about Mich Café and a few questions I answered to Cloud961’s Paul Gadalla:

* * * * *

If you Google places like Bourj Hammoud, Hamra, or Oyyoun el Samak you'll most definitely come across Mich Café. Voted Lebanon's most popular lifestyle blog at this year's Social Media Awards, Micheline Hazou's blog has managed to pull in readers as she bounces back between life in Lebanon, the Middle East and all the small moments in between.

Her posts have taken readers from the falafel shops of Hamra to the lives of Armenian Genocide survivors to road trips up to Akkar. Having worked in news, she knows how to craft a story and elaborate on many cultural experiences and traditions in the region that we often forget and take for granted.

So what's behind the title, why the café?

Once upon a time, social media was very simple. On Twitter for example, we greeted each other every morning, chatted a lot and invited each other for virtual coffees… at Mich Café. And a hashtag [on Twitter] was created for the virtual coffee shop. At first I was reluctant to start a blog. I didn't know what I would write. I kept putting it off, telling myself I would start it when I found a good name. Then my friend Pascal Assaf said what better name than Mich Café for the blog and pushed me to start it. Other friends joined in. Naeema Zarif designed the header and Abir Ghattas added the Arabic calligraphy. Also, I have always wanted -- and would still like -- to own a café. Maybe one day there will be a real Mich Café.

A lot of your posts bring to life the spices and aromas of the Middle East. Are you proud to be from the region?

Of course. I am proud of being Arab.

Do you think your experience in news has helped shape your blog?

It has certainly taught me to write responsibly. To always check my facts. To link sources and always give credit where it is due.

Your posts can be very compelling, and often pull the reader into your journeys. Do you think having lived in multiple countries contributed to this?

Possibly. The most important thing for me is to write from the heart. I am very passionate about Mich Café. I think of what I could write about all the time, wherever I am and whatever I see.

Sometimes your posts are very personal, even touching on personal subjects like the loss of loved ones. Do you feel bloggers should open up more?

It depends on the blog and the blogger. Blogs are personal. They reflect the views of the blogger, unlike newspapers and magazines that reflect the view of the publisher. Personally, I can only write about something I am interested in and feel strongly about.

You're also quite popular on Twitter, do you think your Twitter presence helped promote the blog?

I don't know about being popular, but definitely Twitter and Facebook help promote a blog. Without Social Media it is more difficult to reach a wide audience.

* * * *

Cloud961 aims to become a platform of interaction and opinion-sharing between bloggers, social media activists, social media managers, digital marketing professional, IT and Telecom policymakers, the international digital community and more.

It hopes to play a leading role in connecting the digital community by organizing regular tweet-up events, professional conferences and partnerships with initiatives and events covering its field of expertise and reaching out to its target audience.

The magazine is available free-of-charge in digital format through its online platform as well as in a print edition distributed to subscribers.

This year, Cloud961 hopes to expand by covering Saudi Arabia (Cloud966) and the UAE (Cloud971).

You can read Cloud961 online or download it here.

Thanks Cloud961 for featuring Mich Café.

Activist writes as Obama defers Syria decision to Congress

U.S. President Barack Obama, in a statement in the White House Rose Garden on Sunday, formally asked Congress to authorize military action against the Syrian regime over chemical weapons attacks on August 21.

While he was clear on the need for action following the release of the U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013, which found that “at least 1,429 Syrians were killed” in the August 21 attack in the Damascus suburbs, “including at least 426 children,” Obama said any operation would be limited, ruling out a ground invasion.

But, Congress is on holiday and will only reconvene on September 9!

British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a Commons vote on Syria action on Friday (August 30).

While we wait for Congress’ decision, I came across this letter from “a human rights activist to an antiwar activist” on Syria.

It was shared on August 29 by Syrian writer Rime Allaf, also a commentator and associate fellow at Chatham House in London, from Toronto-based Malaz Sebai’s Facebook page:

* * * * *

A letter from a human rights activist to an antiwar activist on Syria

RE: Stop the War in Syria

Hello Antiwar Activist,

How are you? It’s been two-and-a-half years. I’ve missed you. I hope all is well. Thank you for writing back. Yes you’re right, we have to stop this war!

I am glad you are here now. We can use your help. You are against war, right? So you must really care about the Syrian people and want to help save them from the tragedies they have endured for far too long. Let me catch you up to speed so you can join the effort to help end this war.

The media is telling us that the West is about to attack Syria. You seem concerned. Just a heads up, Israel attacked Syria a month ago. The West attacked Mali last year, Libya the year before that, and continues to use drones worldwide every day. I didn’t hear from you then so you probably just didn’t get the memo. The war isn’t just about to start. It’s actually been going on for 2 and half years. 100,000 people are dead. 1 out of every three people is displaced. 1 out of every 3 people needs humanitarian assistance. The medical system has collapsed. And third of the country is in rubble because conventional weapons are being used indiscriminately every day.

So, the West is about to attack. We don’t want foreign military intervention right? Oh but Iranian and Lebanese forces have been there for some time now fighting with The Government’s army, and along with Russia have been arming them with sophisticated weapons. I guess that doesn’t count as foreign because those are not western countries. Israel attacked Syria a few times too but they are not Western so let’s forget about that too.

What’s important now is to stop the West. They’re always looking to start wars. They are the bad guy. So that means Syria must be the good guy. Oh you don’t know much about them. Let me fill you in. There is a dictatorship there. It’s been about 40 years. It comes with all the stuff you expect from good guys, no freedom of expression, no democracy, gross human rights violations, political prisoners, and complete theft of the economy. In fact one guy owns 60% of the entire Syrian economy! Hmm, let me see what else. Oh yeah they were responsible for the killing of an entire city of Hama killing over 20,000 people in 1982 and are a designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. And in case you forgot they attacked, kidnapped, tortured, and killed peaceful protesters for the first 6 months of the conflict while people asked for their basic rights and freedoms. Most recently chemical attacks were used against people while they slept killing over a thousand men, women, and children. In case you were wondering, Syria has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world.

But they are not the bad guys, right? It’s more important to stop the West because they cause collateral damage. Never mind the existing collateral damage caused by The Government that has reduced a third of the country to rubble and killed tens of thousands in the process. No need to protest against the daily indiscriminate missile strikes being used by Syria’s military because the 3 days of missile strikes by the West will be much worse for the people of Syria.

I mean who does the West think its fooling? After their claims about Iraq, who can believe them? There is no proof that a war exists in Syria and that The Government is responsible for anything. Maybe we should check with someone else who we can really trust. Let’s see what AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, UN-OCHA, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, AND REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS have to say. What? You’re kidding me? There actually IS a war going on and The Government IS responsible for the vast majority of crimes against humanity. You mean they have been using tanks, airplanes, helicopters and snipers indiscriminately against the population? You know, I don’t think I have heard you mention this war. Maybe you believe that war is only bad when other countries get involved, and that it is not a war when the government attacks its own people?

Let us be clear. When you say stop the war, you don’t just mean that West should not attack? You also mean that The Government should stop indiscriminately attacking its own population? I don’t think those countless reliable sources are wrong when they have repeatedly documented that a war has been going on, that The Government is largely responsible, and that this is not acceptable? You are against war, right? Or maybe it’s okay if the war is just inside the country itself? I mean the government’s crimes against humanity are needed because their enemy is foreign jihads who eat human hearts. That’s the real bad guy. Oh didn’t you know? The foreign jihadis have always been there. They have been there for 40 years so that’s why it was okay to have a dictatorship that trampled people’s freedom for decades. They were there during the peaceful protests, that’s why The Government had to attack and kill peaceful protestors for 6 months. And they are everywhere now. No Syrian has ever picked up a gun to defend himself after seeing his wife raped, his children slaughtered, and his home razed. The 100 000 people killed and 6 million people displaced are all foreign jihadis.

Don’t you know that dictatorship, oppression, waging war, and committing crimes against humanity does not cause a local population to resist? This is all just one big conspiracy by the West. Syrians don’t have a problem from 40 years of oppression. The scenes of millions of people across the entire country protesting peacefully for the human rights were all faked. And if they weren’t, well they must have been orchestrated by the West. I mean any human rights activist can tell you how easy it is to mobilize nationwide protests in the millions for 6 months. Even in the face of torture and death, they continued to protest because the West wanted them to. It had nothing to do with any internal desire for their own basic rights. We all know how easy it is to brainwash millions of people to go in the street and protest day after day when you’re facing possible death.

I mean in the end, it’s the people you care about right? That’s why you don’t want the West to attack. Protesting against a limited Western attack will help the people much more protesting against a war that has destroyed the country for 2 and half years, calling for more help in the largest humanitarian operation in the history of the UN, or demanding our governments do something, anything REAL to stop the bloodshed. Protesting against a limited Western attack will help the people by stopping the war all together. That’s what you really care about after all, the people. It has nothing to do with protesting yet another American foreign attack. You are there to protest because you truly care about the people.

Hmmm but where have you been. I haven’t seen you protesting and lobbying your government to increase humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. You do know it’s the largest humanitarian disaster of the century? That there are over 7 million people who need humanitarian assistance? I haven’t seen you asking for more pressure on the Syrian government to stop attacking civilians indiscriminately. You do know not a single UN Security Council on Syria has been passed.

Well you are here now. Nice to have you. I hope I can count on you to help the people of Syria. We need all the help we can get. We need to stop this war. We need to help the people. Let us stand together in solidarity and call for an end to the war in Syria. Let us stand together and demand protection and aid for the people of Syria. That’s why we are here right. It’s not just about stopping a small scale limited Western military intervention. It’s about ENDING THE WAR! It’s about helping the people of Syria. We are activists for a reason, right? Stopping wars is not our end goal, it’s just a means to saving our fellow man from oppression.

I have been here for some time now. I am exhausted. It’s nice to have you next to me. This war will likely not end anytime soon. I hope you will stay for the long haul.

Thank you,

A Human Rights Activist