It wasn’t too long ago when the United States was on the brink of attacking Syria.

It wasn’t too long ago when we heard the familiar arguments of “the U.S. is not the world’s police!” and “we have a moral obligation to do something!”

It wasn’t too long ago when Syria destroyed its chemical weapons production facilities.

And it wasn’t too long ago when we settled back into complacency, forgetting all about Syria. 

Yes, Bashar al-Assad’s regime is now unable to use chemical weapons, and they are on track to be destroyed outside of the country.

But does that mean that inhumane and atrocious mass murder has stopped?  Of course not. 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report detailing the Syrian government’s use of incendiary weapons in at least 56 attacks since November 2012, when the government intensified its airstrikes.

The most recent, which occured on August 26, 2013, involved an attack on a school full of teenagers in the Aleppo Governorate.  Regime forces dropped a 500kg bomb containing “some kind of jellied fuel-like substance similar to napalm.”

While most were killed instantly, many others had their clothes, including leather belts, melted to their skin.  Numerous children and teenagers later died of their severe burns and wounds. (Find HRW’s video here.  WARNING: video contains graphic footage.)

Where does the world stand on incendiary weapons?  According to HRW’s report, over 107 states were parties to the international protocol banning and restricting incendiary weapons as of October 31, 2013.

If you haven’t guess already, Syria is not one of those parties.  There have been no statements from other parties to the protocol condemning Assad’s regime for the indiscriminate burning that has occurred for over a year. 

Why do chemical weapons constitute a “red line”, and incendiary weapons do not?