Starving Children in Moadamiyeh

About one week after the alleged Sarin attacks on the Damsacus suburbs of East Ghouta, and also the southwestern suburb of Moadamiyeh al-Sham, the latter was pushed into the headlines again. The continuing government siege of the rebel-held Moadamiyeh (aka Medmat al-Sham, Medmah, Muadamiyet, etc.), allegedly blocking all food and humanitarian aid was causing people, or at least a few children and babies, to waste away and die before rebel video cameras.

The opposition narrative, supposedly proven by these images, was that siege was killing children and must be ended. But just a moment's thought should be sufficient to wonder why some specific children are starving to death when others -notably the rebels fighting and filming around them - aren't anywhere near as bad off. What happened to sharing with the food that is available, even if it grows scarce?

Reported Victims
August 31, ten days after Moadamiyeh joined in claiming they had been chemically attacked, the new atrocity was aired: the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights on their Facebook page publishes a series of posts "Syrian children die of malnutrition."
 * Two children (aged 3 and 7) from the city of Mou'adamiya have died of Marasmus, which is caused by severe malnutrition in children. This was caused by the severe lack of foodstuffs and aid, as well as doctors treating them were not able to receive required immediate medicines . the rebel held parts of Mou'adamiya are under an intense siege by the regime forces.

That is posted along with a photo of what seems to be the same boy shown above, right, and beneath a photo of a much younger child still in diapers. and another post linking to an article at the syriahr.net website.


 * August 31 video-isn't this a third child dead at the same time? الشهيد الطفل ابراهيم خليل نتيجة نقص التغذية معضمية الشام 31 8 2013 Doesn't look to me like either of the others.


 * September 23: allegations of regime shelling that was starving more kids in Moadamiya, this time a baby girl "in danger of death" (see top of page image) From: James Miller/EA, Sept. 23: (halfway down the page, upsetting video). He says the girl's suffering is "a result of the continued regime siege." How exactly that translates to this little girl not getting even the scraps shared with her is not spelled out. End the siege. Youtube video direct link. My notes:  she seems to be around 18 months old, give or take some months (no expert), but bald like newborn (shaved head? Why?) and poorly kept by someone, cellophane diaper. A rebel doctor jabs at her symptoms at length for our edification. She's breathing hard, looking hard, thinking hard, cooperating, tender all over but jabbed all over, not at death's door but within a few blocks of it. I sense no human compassion coming her way from the people in this room. Subjective I know, but I dare you to test that. And previously, the people around have given her too little food. The Islamist doctor's fingers aren't very bony looking. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Food Embargo, in Myth and Reality
Ideally, this is where we'd do really detailed and thorough research to establish the truth as best we can. Any thoughts? --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To start, some of the claims:
 * Syria crisis: The night I saw death – survivors of the Ghouta massacreBy Justin Byworth, World Vision, October 4 (re: Ghouta in general):
 * “No bread or flour or rice was allowed to enter Ghouta for three months. Only women were allowed into Damascus to buy any food at all, but when I brought bread the guard threw it on the ground, stamped on it and told me ‘now you can take it’. If I complained he would beat me too,” continued Rawda.


 * “The guards started using bags of bread instead of sandbags around their checkpoint, just to humiliate us. They said that one bag of bread cost one bullet. So we were afraid like this for three months before the massacre. We lived by picking whatever fruit or vegetables we could find in Ghouta.”


 * 972mag (Israel) reported on October 3: chemical attack, Damascus suburbs face starvation By Elizabeth Tsurkov
 * The siege of Ghouta dates back to in January 2013 when regime forces erected checkpoints at all roads leading to the area, positioned snipers nearby, blocked the entry of food and other goods. Activists and rebels who attempted to smuggle food into the area were shot at checkpoints or by snipers.
 * While the situation is dire in eastern Damascus, it is much worse in Moadamiyat al-Sham, a rebel-held town south of they Syrian capital. The regime laid siege to the town at the same time as eastern Ghouta, but according to Ahmad, “the siege [of Moadamiya] is tighter. Moadamiya is surrounded by Assad strongholds; it is next to the Mezzeh Military Airport and many brigades, including the 4th Armored Division [made up of Alawite soldiers and led by Bashar al-Assad's brother, Maher – E.T.] surround it.” Moadamiya residents relied on stored food until March when it ran out. Water is also scarce in the area because the regime has cut off the water supply and targeted tanks on residential buildings and public reservoirs.
 * The siege of Moadamiya resulted in the death of seven children in the past month, according to videos uploaded by the opposition, while another child starved to death in the besieged Hajeerat al-Balad, south of Damascus. 
 * The siege of Moadamiya resulted in the death of seven children in the past month, according to videos uploaded by the opposition, while another child starved to death in the besieged Hajeerat al-Balad, south of Damascus. 

...
 * According to Ahmad, “there is no food at all and no supply of medicine” to the area, “FSA [Free Syrian Army] fighters eat just leaves, without bread.” 

See below: Few fat people to be seen, but most of them are getting adequate carbs.

Human Decency Embargo?
In normal, human, non-terrrorist situations, people share first and foremost with the children. Apparently that's not happening uniformly in Moadamiyeh, and that's probably the main problem here. That, and that a blockade of something has some rebels so pissed off they're ready to starve some children to prove the point that it's to blame. That could better explain why the young and no one else is starving; they have the greatest propaganda value once dead. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The best vicitims would be, if available, captives. Maybe the exchange negotiations didn't work out, or you got the ransom but don't want to let the Alawites go. You could gas them, but that's so a couple weeks ago. In September, it's starving. So you put a few kids in some special closets with no food until it's time to film. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been pushing these observations in comments, like at two of the SOHR posts above, and elsewhere. My favorite so far is al-Akhbar article on the Ghouta chemical allegations and flaws with the U.N.'s report, I saw a comment by fellow wiki member Clay Claiborne, who shifted the subject to Clay asked So you think your beloved Assad regime didn't do the chemical attack in Moadamiyah? They were killing the people there before the CW attack and they are killing them still. See for example: (links to the Sept. 23 starvation video) So you want to explain how the regime is not responsible for this shelling too?" My response:
 * Clay, these alleged baby-starving shells are off-topic emotive distractions here, and besides - babies get preference even under siege. If babies are starving and everyone else isn't, (are they? I only see scattered kids) look to the people immediately around that baby. One has a rebel activist video camera. Other activists explain the whole story and get suckers like you to push for NATO air cover, over these regime CW attacks and regime blockades.--Caustic Logic (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Or under 978 mag:
 * Closely follow images of fighters from M. al-Sham and you'll see they're not leaf-chomping musselmen ready to keel over. But these kids in the area they control are starving clear to death. Why? Normal humans, even in a real food embargo, give kids food precedence. Why not here? Look to the people right around them, not those far away. Some have opposition cameras, and not-too-bony fingers. They also might have hostages: Alawi, Christians, Kurds, loyalist Sunnis. I wonder how well those people are being fed?

Another not approved, referring to another commentator on the write track:
 * This is a call to action, by the way, to Ms. Tsurkov. Check the last poignant "moral lesson" portion of this story, in light of what Philos and I are saying, and consider if it's at all possible you walked into a sick trap here. Do we want to run the risk of supporting baby-starvers in a bid for power over yet more families?  --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

World Reaction

 * Syria must allow aid convoys to starving civilians, says US – BBC, 19 October 2013
 * ''The US has urged the Syrian government to allow immediate aid convoys to starving civilians cut off in rebel-held suburbs of Damascus.
 * ''Washington said the army's months-long siege left many people in desperate need of food, water and medicine.
 * ''It also cited "unprecedented reports" of children dying of malnutrition just a few kilometres from President Bashar al-Assad palace.

Islamic Cleric Reaction

 * BBC News October 15: Clerics rule besieged Damascus residents may eat dogs By Sebastian Usher
 * In a video, the Muslim clerics said people could eat cats, dogs and donkeys to stave off hunger. The fatwa comes amid reports of starvation in the besieged, rebel-held Damascus suburb of Muadhamiya.
 * The clerics said it was a cry for help to the whole world, adding that if the situation continued to deteriorate, the living would have to eat the dead.
 * The clerics said it was a cry for help to the whole world, adding that if the situation continued to deteriorate, the living would have to eat the dead.

They seriously said that? Talk about a bald-faced, amped-up, passive-aggressive guilt-trip. Note that this was issued just after a large percentage of the most vulnerable were already evacuated from the place (see below).

BBC side-note:
 * The general director of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), Christopher Stokes, has described it as an "absurd" situation when chemical weapons inspectors are able to drive freely through areas in desperate need while aid convoys are blocked.

Evacuating Moadamiyeh
"Hundreds of Syrian civilians, some carried on stretchers," were finally able to leave "Moadamiyeh, where local activists say at least six people have died of starvation" during a temporary cease-fire that actually held for both sides, during October 12 and 13, perhaps continuing. It wasn't clear who brokered the calm; "Neither Syrian officials nor activists close to rebels would discuss the cease-fire."
 * Associated Press, Oct. 13: Hundreds of Syrians flee from besieged subur/Gunmen kidnap 7 Red Cross workers in Syria:
 * "It's (been) an area of military operations for months, so to see this halt of fire, and to see this exodus of people, means there's a high level cooperation — not regular cooperation," said Rami Abdul-Rahman, the director of the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The report also says SANA reported that by the 12th 2,000 women and children had been evacuated to the nearby suburb of Qudsaya.

On the 14th, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (head of operations Khaled Erksoussi) confirmed "Around 1,500 people, most of them women and children, were evacuated from a point on the outskirts of Moadamiyet al-Sham and taken to shelters," ... He added that the evacuated civilians "were in a state of major fatigue and were very scared."

I haven't read into it yet, but I suspect rebels and their sponsors have complained loudly that it's not fair to take the civilians out of the siege area to somewhere safer, and let the government target only the militants in their ghost town, as they did to the best of their abilities in Quseir. The human shields innocent civilians must be left in place in the crosshairs, all attacks ceased to preserve them, food, medicine, fighters and arms and all other humanitarian aid must be allowed in. That's the usual message from the humanitarian world community. --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From the tone of reporting, I don't think there will be much complaint directly about this strangely unanimous cease-fire and evacuation. But as noted above, the U.S. is demanding that "aid" start to be allowed in Ghouta's suburbs in general, the people helped in situ, not after disentanglement from the sticky, rebel-controlled honeycombs they're living in like prone larvae. So essentially, yes, they prefer that people maintain human shield status so their vulnerability can still be used against Syria. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)