Colonial behaviour on the "Civil March For Aleppo"

Civil March For Aleppo

Statement by two participants of the full plenary, first evening of the “Civil March For Aleppo


Julia and Ansar

We are very sad to announce why we felt we had to step back from supporting or participating in the “March to Aleppo”. We did actually put hope in this march, even if we didn't support all things said by the organizing group in the pretext, but we want to make clear that we really wished it to be successful.

First we want to quote parts of the marches' manifesto which have lead many of us to support this march, as we believed it is actually taking a position of solidarity:
“We’ve been taught submission to war. We’ve been taught to be afraid of the powerful who pull the strings. […] But we refuse to take it anymore. We’ve just withdrawn our consent. We’re ready to deny powerlessness.
[...] We will not tolerate the siege of Aleppo anymore.”
Mentioning for an example the siege on Aleppo, means mentioning the perpetrator which is -the Syrian regime and its allies. There is a political will to commit systematic sieges on whole communities, in this case we can not accept a fairy tale of separating human rights and political issues from one another as was later on enforced on us by members of the organizing team.
As the two people writing this statement, we want to be clear that we were not just sidelining witnesses to the unfolding debate within the march, but participated in this specific evening assembly and do not want to be neutral.
Ansar had actually planned to participate in the march, Julia was asked by several participants to support moderating during evening discussions if necessary. This necessity already arose on the first evening of the march.
That an urgent discussion was imminent was not surprising after the march had just started off from Berlin and organizers had created an awe of shock for several participants by informing them that the Syrian revolution flag would not be permitted and Anna Alboth saying: “I don't know who is doing the bombing in Syria and I don't want to know”.

Already at this starting point in the morning the banning of the Syrian revolution flag and the try of de-politization of the matters lead to several participants to leave the march. But some, even though un-happy about what happened, did continue as they put hopes in this collective action and also in a collective process to discuss, solve and clarify. For many it was hopeful to at last see an action like this in solidarity with the people in Syria being bombed and displaced, like just happened in Aleppo.

After having arrived the first tour stop, a general assembly of all participants was called to come together.

Anna Alboth, the initiator of the march opened the assembly, saying some welcoming words, accompanied by a short excuse for her statement in the morning and further giving mere notice on practical issues in a top-down approach. She then meant to close the assembly on which until then only she had spoken.

At this point several participants intervened and demanded to discuss collectively on the stated goals goals of the march, their need to express the struggle they come from (meaning the Syrian revolution) and its very symbol, the flag of the Syrian revolution, just as the need to point out the actual perpetrators of war crimes in Syria.

Tensions quickly became quite high and efforts needed to be made to keep everybody together and actually start an open discussion. This was when Julia offered to moderate for enabling a plenary of about 100 people who until then hardly knew each other. This discussion was also meant to fill the obvious gaps between the small faction of organizers and the many participants who -as we understand- should be part of the collective process a march like this can only be.

Of course it is naturally given on such an occasion that over 100 people coming together for an action like this are from various backgrounds: places of origin, political knowledge or experience and especially on the given topic they were marching for: Aleppo/Syria.

There was an Arabic speaking corner, translated by Ansar which consisted of about 15 people. We also tried to point out that for taking measures of group and self care, accurate translations must be available at all times, filming or recording (that was already taking place) must be agreed upon and rotating moderation should be considered to give a group of people such as this a chance to grow together. All these things were clearly not prepared for, but most people present committed to take care of this collectively in future.

How do we now describe the discussion that evolved over the next several hours?

It is important to notice, that it was Syrians present who opened up the topics needed to be discussed. It was the organizers that had on the one side answered with “we love to listen to Syrian's and their stories”, but on the other side they were trying to block discussing with the argument of having already discussed and decided as a core group in the pretext of the march.

Now people strongly voiced their disagreement and expressed their frustration of feeling a creation of an obvious line of separation between a mainly European decision making group and many Syrian people present (and non-present) on who's behalf this group claimed to act.

This was not diffused by any of the organizing team, but many of the other non-Syrian participants did acknowledge the legitimacy of the the Syrian struggle and expressed their solidarity with it.

Many people present said, this march can not go along and ignore the cores of the struggle for freedom, democracy and dignity in Syria as expressed by the Syrians, or without mentioning the perpetrators of violence against just this struggle. So, the discussion continued.

As a symbol that represents exactly this struggle, the flag became also a symbol within this discussion. The discussion lasted several hours. Repeatedly Syrians and non-Syrians connected to the revolution had to explain the simple meanings of the flag to an organizing group that seemingly had not done their homework.
A lot of constructive proposals came up, such as offering information evenings throughout the march, showing movies about the situation in Syria, giving briefing on historical events that lead to the revolution and how it unfolded. These proposals were welcomed by many present and should lead to a way out of the dilemma of the lack of knowledge and empower participants.

To cut things short, many arguments arose throughout this discussion: The aspects of colonial behavior when determining for others, what solidarity is or can be, basic steps on how to start an action as a core group and make it a collective one, the importance of listening and the possibilities of different beliefs under one common umbrella.

It was a fruitful discussion and let many understandings actually develop. For this we are extremely thankful. For example the issue mentioned above on the importance of an anti-colonial discourse, which as people pointed out can not be left aside when people start to march for other people's causes.

It also needed to be clarified for many Europeans present, that most Syrians who wanted to join the march would not be able to walk more than a few days with it, as they do not share the privilege to cross even the first border.

People supporting the Syrian revolution expressed clearly that they don't demand from people to hold up their flag, but that it is too hurtful and unacceptable for them to be pressured to deny what is important to them. Furthermore it is those who dared this revolution who in return are being bombed into submission in Syria by the Syrian regime and it's allies.

A decision was taken to vote at last and determine how people in the whole assembly felt on visible symbols. The results were clear: almost everybody in the room voted for letting the revolution flag be present.

When asked if anybody was strictly against the presence of the flag, three people expressed this still being a concern for them. As a moderator Julia mentioned the possible practice of trying to reach a consensus rather than enforcing only the will of a majority (which was to keep the Syrian revolution flag).

To find a possibility for these last three of about 100 people to feel comfortable, the collective decision was made to continue to temporarily accept the presence of the Syrian revolution flag at the march for the next day and to continue the discussion on the following evening. This included the repeated offers to explain the meanings of the flag, it's history and symbolism and really using the march and the time spent together to learn about the actual struggles and causes in Syria from various backgrounds.

In our eyes this is really important, as a main goal defined by the organizers throughout the discussion was “to end the conflict in Syria” and “just wanting peace”, but the lack of knowledge by the organizers and many participants of just the basics of the conflict they declare wanting to end, was so abundantly clear. Outstanding was also the lack of will on the side of many organizers to actually take a position of solidarity.

This morning should perform itself as another shock: when the march was just about to start moving, the organizers called three of the Syrian people to their side and informed them that “over night we changed our minds” and now once again they were not permitting the flag to be present. They also let them know, that they had informed the police about this decision, which inevitably means that they had even taken the steps to instrumentalize police force against participants.

The few participants presented with these orders demanded a public announcement of this and an explanation, which was refused. The big crowd was not informed and had already started walking not knowing of these happenings, which deepens the impact of undemocratic imposing of decisions taken by few against all.

For nearly all Syrians and also some others the march that had started just one day earlier ended here.

It is a pity: the long discussion was important and resultful. To override the whole assembly's decisions is ignorant towards the people and the cause that was discussed, but also towards any democratic process in any collective action.

We want people to be informed about this. The underlying structures we have tried to describe here must change. As they are for now as such, we have decided to step back from the march.



The statement is written by two persons and was originally published on Facebook:

Zeige Kommentare: ausgeklappt | moderiert

The first day, as magic as it was, was not without it’s issues, and we would like to make a statement about the biggest of those: Flags and their meaning. We have waited a day with the issuing a statement as we believe in factual, rather than emotional summaries.


We, the Civil March For Aleppo, by marching we stand against all the war criminals and all the forms of violence in Syria. For us, peace is achieved through dialogue by all sides and not by more and more conflicts. We march for peace, but also social justice and human rights - and above all, we march for all the civilians, not just for the civilians of one of the sides.


From the beginning: 3 weeks ago, in all of our communication, logos and messages, we were clear about marching with white flags only.

Why white ones? It's not a surrender. For us, we took it as our sign, which symbolise for us the struggle for peace, democracy and freedom. A community which united against the killing.


From the first hour of the march, everyone was clearly informed about white flags only. Some people decided not to join the march in this point. Some of the people decided to do it, thanks to this statement. However, during the march we have noticed some people did not respect our agreement and carried various flags associated with strong political agenda. Since the march from the very beginning was created to be above the political divisions, we have decided to have a communal discussion, since it is very important for us to listen to all the people, especially to some part of the Syrian group.


The "decision" reached by the end of the discussion was not voting but rather a feeling of the crowd (suggested by the German participant as such), as called by the moderator, as many people in the march felt that they did not know enough about all the sides of the conflict and wanted to learn more in the next days through discussions and sessions. The next days brought a change, due to the facts that came to our attention during the night that changed the context of the discussion. What facts? That the media covering the march put us immediately to the box of the one side. And we are not. That the translation of our event in Arabic had a political agenda in it. Which is very disappointing and destroying the trust in the common intentions. That most of the team of the organisers would withdrawn their involvement if we will not stuck to what was the strongest thing, we have created together: our manifesto.


We therefore decided to stand with our initial to walk only the white flags and our logo. The decision had to be taken in few minutes, otherwise the march would have to been stopped by the police waiting for us. We talked with the group with the flags about it and we all understood each other: that we cannot go further with the flags, and that they cannot go further without. They were supposed to talk between each other and tell us the final decision, but they didn't come to the place where we gathered and in the moment had a chance to announce it to the big group - they were already done. It should have happened in another way and we are very sorry about it. We also would like to have a chance to say goodbye to them and thank them for their very important input.


We understand that the march cannot represent everyone. We share many beliefs together, and we all stand for all civilians in the besieged areas (not only Aleppo). We would still love the people who decided to leave the march to join us, whether in discussions or marching, as we believe we are all standing for the same thing: the peace for the civilians in Syria! Their access to humanitarian aid, to the food and the medicines. Is there anybody against it?!


Throughout whole discussion everyone was always warmly invited to stay with us, but we asked to refrain from carrying any political flags. We tried to solve the misunderstanding about white flags as much as we could - we had a communal 6-hour discussion, while being very tired, we listened to all sides, we spoke with people from the outside of the march too, various activists and in this light, we need to remain with our original idea.


When we invited the group of people who are now so vocally opposing the March to stay with us, if they agreed to our basic premise of not carrying any flags, they not only declined but also threatened us that they would destroy our March if we didn’t give in to their demands. Which they are now trying to do. A few of the participants left because of the flag issue, but the rest, whether German, Polish or Syrian (we have 14 nationalities on the board!), stayed because they expressed support for the initial decision of white flags only and wanted the march to remain above the political divisions. We stayed and continue the march because we believe in peace for Syria and we stand with the civilians, not political sides of the conflict.


We do not support and do not stand with the existing methods of power and violence - the current regime powers, military fractions, the rebel groups and fractions, the external powers' involvement, arm trade and the international response to the conflict. Whether it is violence from within Syria, from war coalitions, or from the Western countries. We are all aware of the situation in Syria and support the wishes of the Syrians and understand who is bombing Aleppo, but we support the humans, the people, not any political side. We refuse to be forced into taking a side and adopt a political agenda and abandon our initial, peaceful direction.


Pawel Krzysiek, the head of communications at the international committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who is in Aleppo said very important for us words: “We need to depoliticise the process of protecting civilians. We need to put their lives first”


There are many Syrians who stayed and they did so, precisely because we didn’t agree to carrying any other symbols than the white flag. The Syrian community is not one homogeneous body and many agree with our stand. We do not “disrespect” the Syrian community, instead we simply didn’t allow one group of people to take over the very basic premises of our March. Will not be threatened, blackmailed or pressured into letting anyone use the March to push their political agenda. We are not walking towards Syria to cooperate with any side of the Syrian conflict. We are doing this to draw attention to the life loss of Syrian civilians as well as to the humanitarian crisis taking place in the region, not to collaborate with any of the oppressors.


Let us say it once more, #CivilMarchForAleppo is a march for peace. It is a march for all the civilians of Syria by the civilians of the world.


With love from the whole
Civil March for Aleppo Team


found here:

here are also some comments from the syrian people who pariticipated at "civil march for allepo", i some cases the organizers answered with some very confusig answers and some arguments (it seems from outside) to exposed as lies:


read the convorsation with -

- mohammad al wazeer

- phil butland (who starts with a sarcastic comment)


use the hastags #boycott_the_uncivil_march_for_aleppo and the original one #civilmarchforaleppo



some comments from syrian people - please use the an online-translator for the arabic one; its pretty good:



here is the arabic translation of the original statement above:







بيان من قبل مشاركتين في الجلسة التي عقدت في الليلة الأولى من المسير المدني لأجل حلب.

Arabic translation of the English version of the Statement by two participants of the full plenary, first evening of the “Civil march to Aleppo”

26.12.2016 في الصالة الرياضية في مالو بالقرب من برلين
جوليا وانصار
نحن نشعر بالحزن و نعلن لكم الأسباب التي جعلتنا نتراجع عن دعمنا و مشاركتنا في المسير المدني لأجل حلب حيث كنا متأملين بالرغم من عدم دعمنا لكل ما قاله المنظمون قبل المسير لكن نريد توضيح بأننا كنا نأمل النجاح للمسير.
بداية نود أن نراجع البيان الذي صرح به منظمو المسير و الذي جعلنا نشارك و ندعم هذا المسير أيمانا بموقفهم المتضامن مع صراع الشعب السوري من أجل الحرية و الكرامة و العدالة الاجتماعية

لقد علمونا الخضوع لواقع الحروب. لقد علمونا أن نخاف من القوى التي تتحكم بالخيوط […]
لكننا لن نقبل هذا بعد الآن!
لقد سحبنا تقبلنا الصامت في هذه اللحظة. إننا جاهزون لرفض عجزنا.
لن نستحمل الحصار على حلب بعد الآن.

ذكر البيان بالحصار المفروض على مدينة حلب و هذا يتطلب الذكر بشكل واضح الجهات المسؤولة عن حصار مدينة حلب و هي نظام بشار الأسد و حلفاءه هناك أرادة سياسية للقيام بفرض حصار ممنهج على مجتمعات و مدن وبهذا الشكل لا يمكننا قبول أساطير طفولية عن التفريق بين حقوق الأنسان و المواقف السياسية كما حاول بعض المنظمون فرضه علينا

نحن نريد التوضيح من خلال هذا البيان أننا في تلك الليلة لم نكن متفرجين فقط بل شاركنا في النقاش حيث لم نكن و لن نكون حياديين.
أنصار خططت للمشاركة بالمسير و طلب بعض المشاركين من جوليا دعم المسير من خلال تنظيم نقاشات مسائية عند الحاجة وقد ظهرت الحاجة لتنظيم النقاشات من الليلة الأولى في المسير.

الحاجة الماسة للنقاش ظهرت بانطلاق المسير عندما صدم منظمو المسير بعض المشاركين بإعلامهم عن قرار بمنع رفع علم الثورة السورية في المسير و كذلك كان مفاجئا تصريح الصحفية (آٍنا آٍلبوث) صاحبة فكرة المسير حيث قالت:(أنا لا أعلم من يقوم بالقصف في سوريا و لا أريد أن أعلم )

صباحا مع بداية انطلاق المسير قرار منع رفع علم الثورة و حالة التفريغ السياسي أدى الى دفع بعض المشاركين لمغادرة المسير ولكن البعض مع عدم سعادتهم بالحالة و بما حدث استمروا بمشاركتهم في المسير متأملين بإمكانية التغيير من خلال العمل الجماعي و محاولة إقناع المنظمون و النقاش معهم و التوضيح و الاستيضاح لأن هذا المسير أعطى أمل للكثيرين بعد فترة جمود طويلة و تقصير في التضامن مع الشعب السوري الذي يتعرض لكل أنواع الإبادة في معظم أنحاء سوريا ما حصل في حلب مؤخرا على سبيل المثال.

بعد وصولنا لأول محطة في المسير عقدت جلسة عامة لكل المشاركين في المسير
(آٍنا آٍلبوث) افتتحت الجلسة و بعد الكلام الترحيبي حيث اعتذرت بشكل مختصر عن ما قالته في الصباح عن عدم معرفتها بالقاتل في سوريا و أكتفت بإعطاء معلومات تقنية ثم حاولت أغلاق الجلسة التي لم يتحدث فيها أحد غيرها عند هذه النقطة تدخل أكثر من مشارك و طلب فتح نقاش جماعي عن أهداف المسير و عبروا عن حاجتهم للتعبير عن الثورة السورية و رموزها (علم الثورة السورية) و كذلك الحاجة للتوضيح و التصريح بمرتكبي جرائم الحرب في سوريا (النظام السوري و حلفاءه)
سيطر التوتر بشكل سريع على الجلسة و كان يوجد حاجة لجمع الجهد لاستكمال الجلسة هنا قدمت جوليا عرضا لتنظيم الجلسة التي يحضرها ما يقارب مئة شخص و كان الهدف من هذا النقاش ملئ الفجوة بين مجموعة المنظمين الصغيرة و المشاركين وأهمية المشاركين كونهم يمثلون الحالة الجماعية للمسير.

من الطبيعي أن يوجد في هذا النقاش مئة شخص من خلفيات متعددة أماكن و أصول مختلفة و مستوى معرفي مختلف و تجارب مختلفة خصوصا الموضوع الذي أجتمع الكل لأجله و هو حلب و سوريا.
كان يوجد قسم ترجمة عربية حيث قامت أنصار بترجمة الجلسة لخمسة عشر شخص لا يتحدثون الإنكليزية و نحن أيضا حاولنا التوضيح بضرورة توفر ترجمة محترفة لكل المشاركين في الجلسات كما نوهنا على ضرورة الاتفاق على وجود تسجيل و تصوير للجلسة بموافقة الجميع حيث كان بعض الأشخاص يقومون بتصوير الجلسة بدون موافقة الجميع و أيضا ضرورة إدارة الجلسة بشكل دائري حيث يتناوب على إدارة الجلسة كل يوم شخص مختلف لكي لا تتركز أي نوع من السيطرة بيد شخص واحد.و لفتح المجال لهذه المجموعة لتكون نواة لمجموعة واحدة يمكنها القيام بأنشطة مختلفة في المستقبل.
كيف يمكن وصف النقاش الذي تطور بعد عدة ساعات؟
من المهم التذكير بأن السوريين اللذين كانوا في الاجتماع فتحوا النقاش حول المواضيع التي يجب نقاشها بعض المنظمين قالوا من ناحية أنهم يريدون الاستماع لقصص السوريين الشخصية و من ناحية ثانية سدوا النقاش من خلال حجة أنهم قرروا شكل المسير و أهدافه مع النواة الأساسية للمسير قبل البدء.
حاليا عبر بعض المشاركين عن عدم موافقتهم و إحباطهم و شعورهم بخلق انقسام بين مجموعة أصحاب قرار و هي بغالبها أوربيين و مجوعة ثانية فيها سوريين و غير سوريين حيث أن المجموعة الأولى تدعي أنها تتخذ قرارات باسم المجموعة الثانية و المجموعة الأولى التي هي مجموعة المنظمين لم يحاولوا أنهاء حالة الانقسام التي سيطرت على الجلسة بالوقت الذي حاول فيه الكثير من المشاركين المساهمة في توحيد صفوف المجموعتين و أعترف الكثير من المشاركين بشرعية الثورة السورية و التضامن معها.

الكثير من الأشخاص الموجودين قالوا أنا هذا المسير لا يمكنه الاستمرار بتجاهل نواة الثورة السورية من أجل الحرية و الديمقراطية و الكرامة و العدالة الاجتماعية كما قال السوريين كما أكد أيضا الكثير من المشاركين أن المسير لا يمكنه الاستمرار بدون التصريح بشكل واضح بهوية القاتل الديكتاتور مرتكب العنف ضد الثورة السورية و هو النظام السوري و حلفاءه لذلك أستمر النقاش

كرمز يمثل الثورة السورية أصبح علم الثورة رمزا في هذا النقاش و أستمر النقاش لساعات عديدة أن السوريين و غير السوريين كل من له صلة بالثورة شرحوا و كرروا مرات عديدة المعاني الأساسية التي يحملها علم الثورة لمجموعة المنظمين اللذين تبين أنهم لا يعلموا أي شيء عن الوضع في سوريا و لم يقوموا بتجهيز أنفسهم من خلال جمع معلومات عما يحدث في سوريا تم اقتراح العديد من المقترحات البناءة مثل ندوات نقاش مسائية تعطى فيها معلومات عن الثورة السورية و عرض أفلام سورية قصيرة و شرح الأحداث التاريخية التي أذت لنشوء الثورة السورية و كيف تطورت الثورة السورية كل هذه المقترحات كان مرحبا بها من أغلبية المشاركين و كان من المفروض حل معضلة عدم المعرفة و تمكين المشاركين من خلال معلومات موثقة

باختصار طرحت براهين و أدلة كثيرة أثناء النقاش:
السلوك الاستعماري عندما تتخذ قرارات نيابة عن الأخرين.
طبيعة التضامن, ما يمكن أن يكون تضامنا و ما لا يمكن.
كيفية تطوير المجموعة من نواة لمجموعة متحدة.
أهمية الاستماع للأخرين.
الإقناع بإمكانية وجود معتقدات و أراء مختلفة تحت مظلة واحدة.

النقاش كان مثمر حيث جعل الكثير من المفاهيم تتطور و لأجل ذلك نحن ممتنين على سبيل المثال كموضوع الخطاب اللا استعماري الذي لا يمكن تهميشه عندما يقوم البعض بأنشطة للتضامن مع قضايا الأخرين.

كما كنا بحاجة للتوضيح للأوربيين الموجودين أن أغلبية المشاركين السوريين ليس لديهم الامتياز حيث أنهم لا يمكنهم حتى عبور الحدود الأولى.

الأشخاص الداعمين للثورة السورية عبروا بشكل واضح بأنهم لم يطلبوا من المشاركين رفع علم الثورة السورية و إنما جارح و غير مقبول بالنسبة لهم أنهم تعرضوا للضغط لأنكار رمز الثورة السورية و من المهم ذكر أن السوريين اللذين بدؤا هذه الثورة رفعوا علمها في وجه نظام بشار الأسد الدكتاتوري الذي واجههم بالرصاص و القصف و الاعتقال و الحصار و التجويع.

أتخذ قرار للتصويت في نهاية الجلسة لتحديد مشاعر المشاركين أتجاه الرموز البارزة كعلم الثورة و الراية البيضاء التي تعبر عن مفهومهم للسلام حيث كانت النتائج واضحة:
أغلب الموجودين في الصالة صوتوا لصالح رفع علم الثورة السورية في المسير و عندما سألنا إذا كان أحد الموجودين يعترض على رفع علم الثورة أثناء المسير فكان هناك اعتراض على حمل علم الثورة من قبل ثلاثة أشخاص و ذكرت جوليا بكونها منظمة الجلسة بإمكانية الحصول على إجماع بدل فرض إرادة الأغلبية و هي وجود علم الثورة أتفقنا على رفع علم الثورة و الراية البيضاء في اليوم التالي و إتمام النقاش للوصول إلى أتفاق نهائي يرضي الجميع. و تطلب تكرار عرض و شرح معنى و تاريخ و رمزية علم الثورة من أجل استخدام المسير لنتعلم من بعضنا و لنتعلم ما ذا تعني الثورة السورية بكل تفاصيلها.
من وجهة نظرنا تبادل و مشاركة المعلومات أمر مهم جدا بما أنه هدف أساسي معرف من قبل المنظمون و مذكور من قبلهم أثناء النقاش (لأنهاء الصراع في سوريا و إرادة السلام فقط) و لكن عدم معرفة أساسيات الصراع السوري الذي يودون إنهائه كان واضح جدا. و كان بارزا أيضا عدم إرادة اتخاذ موقف متضامن من قبل بعض المنظمين

في الصباح تفاجئنا بصدمة جديدة عندما كان من المفروض ن يتحرك المسير مجددا المنظمين أخبرونا مع شباب سوريين أنه خلال الليل نحن غيرنا رأينا و أتخذنا القرار مجددا بمنع العلم كذلك أخبروهم بأنهم بلغوا الشرطة بقرارهم بما يعني انهم أتخذوا قرارا بتوظيف عنف الشرطة ضد المشاركين اللذين يحملون علم الثورة السورية.

طالب بعض المشاركين الموجودين إعلان عام و شرح و لكن لاقى هذا الطلب تجاهل و رفض من قبل المنظمين و لم يتم تبليغ المجموعة الكبيرة من المشاركين حيث أنهم تحركوا بدون دراية بما حدث و هذا يعمق تأثير قرارات غير ديمقراطية اتخذت من الأقلية و فرضت على الأغلبية.

بالنسبة لمعظم السوريين المشاركين و بعض المتضامنين مع الثورة السورية أنتهى عند هذه النقطة المسير الذي بدأ قبل يوم واحد فقط

مؤسف جدا:
النقاش الطويل كان مهم جدا و ذو نتائج إيجابية.
تجاوز قرارات الجلسة العامة و تجاهل المشاركين في الجلسة و تجاهل القضية التي تم مناقشتها و أيضا ما قام به المنظمون فعل غير ديمقراطي.

نحن نريد أن يعلم الناس بما حدث و الهيكل الموجود حاليا الذي قمنا بتوصيفه يجب أن يتغير و لكن هو الأن كما هو نحن قررنا التراجع عن هذا المسير

Can you please stop talking about "the Syrians"? Thanks. You don't speak for me, you don't speak for anybody I know.