Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to be fed up of people saying I don't care about innocent babies being killed re Syria

71 replies

lifeinslowmotion · 03/12/2015 13:47

Whenever people ask what my opinion is on bombing Syria and I say I agree with it I get a barage of comments about how I 'don't give a shit about innocent children and babies being killed' and 'how can any mother support killing babies?' Like I don't have any feelings whatsoever and it's one or the other. I can have sympathy for those that will undoubtedly get caught up in it and support the idea that airstrikes are necessary.

OP posts:

Mistigri · 03/12/2015 19:13

Almost no one is going to want innocent civilians to be killed. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the bombing shouldn't happen. It's an argument that derails discussion.

If it derails discussion, then this is because people who are in favour of airstrikes are uncomfortable about acknowledging the likely consequences.

There is an almost 100% certainty that even strictly targeted airstrikes will kill civilians. So by being in favour of airstrikes, you are tacitly agreeing that collateral damage is an acceptable price to pay in return for the for the supposed benefits of bombing.

Destinysdaughter · 03/12/2015 19:19

Just saw on the news that they're now saying we will be bombing for 3 years. 3 YEARS? Don't think Cameron or Hillary Benn mentioned that in their support for these air strikes did they? How many people are going to die in this unwinnable war? Unwinnable because you're trying to destroy an idea, how can you do that by bombing the shit out of a country...?

JenniferYellowHat1980 · 03/12/2015 19:21

I can have sympathy for those that will undoubtedly get caught up in it

Now there's a consoling euphemism for us all. And meanwhile, ISIS are nowhere to be seen.

CatMilkMan · 03/12/2015 19:22

Worked pretty well for destroying the ideas of the nazis.

SuckingEggs · 03/12/2015 19:26

If it derails discussion, then this is because people who are in favour of airstrikes are uncomfortable about acknowledging the likely consequences.

And dare I say, those who don't want air strikes seem prepared to let the hideous status quo remain. Because it will. Every bloody day: rape, torture, murder. It's already happening to civilians!

EddieStobbart · 03/12/2015 19:26

Assad is killing far more civilians that Isis. It is the power vacuum that his behaviour created that lead to Isis being able to take control where they have. Unless there is a proper plan to sort out that situation (and we're more likely to be shoring him up in the name of "stability") then we can bomb Isis all we want, it'll just seem growing.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 03/12/2015 19:31

If the experts are struggling worldwide (the proper ones, not the ones who just write for the papers) then how are we expected to have it cut and dried?

Indeed. Surely intelligent people will listen to the arguments presented and make up their minds and Like HB perhaps change them either way, for bombing or against it.

I admire people who are able to be adamant about a decision but I do not trust their judgement because they have not made one.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 03/12/2015 19:33

acknowledging the likely consequences

And we know 100% the consequences of Daesh don't we, and Assad

I never saw this vitriol when assad gassed his own people in the night, killing children? I never saw this outrage then....

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 03/12/2015 19:35

Unwinnable because you're trying to destroy an idea, how can you do that by bombing the shit out of a country...?

Because the idea is the caliphate that they have created across syria and iraq.

The caliphate " who knew in our life times the caliphate would be created", its given hope and momentum to islamic fundamentalists, wow its here, something to fight for, etc.

cressetmama · 03/12/2015 19:41

I can agree that morally Da'esh must be defeated to prevent their loathsome cult spreading. Hitler also had to be stopped. Assad is equally guilty of appalling crimes.

It does not mean that I like the prospect of innocents being killed.

What is right when all the options are abhorrent? The greater good should prevail but sadly none of us know what it is. I am profoundly grateful not to be the person making the decisions.

kesstrel · 03/12/2015 19:41

So by being against airstrikes, you are tacitly agreeing that murder, torture, rape and sex slavery are an acceptable price to pay in return for the supposed benefits of not bombing....

starbug1 · 03/12/2015 20:13

It is heartening to see more of a discussion here (my fb thread is full of anti-war rhetoric) and agree with PP that throwing hurtful accusations closes the argument down.
It is a hard call to make and I understand the reluctance but all the language of austerity cuts yet money for bombing muddles the issue. Cuts are shit, bombing is shit, yet neither is as shit as what is happening now in Syria. There are far fewer civilians killed now by US/UK targeted bombing than ever before, not so Russia, daesh or the barrel bombs that Assad drops on children, which is surely what our targeted bombing would be trying to stop?

Mistigri · 03/12/2015 20:21

So by being against airstrikes, you are tacitly agreeing that murder, torture, rape and sex slavery are an acceptable price to pay in return for the supposed benefits of not bombing....

Yes, opponents of bombing would certainly need to respond to this, if there was good evidence that airstrikes would bring an end to murder, torture, rape and sex slavery.

Unfortunately for anyone attempting to use this argument, air strikes have been on-going for quite some time, with no noticeable impact on ISIS's propensity to murder, torture and rape...

PrussianPrue · 03/12/2015 20:38

Last night the UK blew up a couple of oil fields. This actually probably has done some good, hopefully it'll have a small impact on Da'esh's revenue stream. Sure if we hadn't done it another country would have but the bombing itself actually helped.

If it derails discussion, then this is because people who are in favour of airstrikes are uncomfortable about acknowledging the likely consequences.

No. I don't think that's why. I think it derails the discussion because although an unarguable, tragic fact it doesn't actually mean that bombing is still the worse course. War is never a good option but sometimes it's the least bad option. The people shouting about murdering innocent children are forgetting about those already suffering and hiding behind insults.

I agree with a PP, I'm glad I don't have to be the one balancing up these lives.

Being anti-bombing doesn't mean that you aren't balancing out the value of different lives.

Mistigri · 03/12/2015 20:55

Prussian well, if you re read my post above that was kind of my point ... If you agree with bombing you're presumably agreeing that the benefits of bombing outweigh the risk (near certainty, in fact) of killing civilians. You are saying that you are OK with civilian deaths under some circumstances.

I think this is an acceptable moral argument, btw - I am not against military intervention where there is justification - sometimes you have the make the least worse choice.

I think there are two groups of people opposed to air strikes - those who think the military case hasn't been adequately made (and this includes a fair few people with direct experience of war in the Middle East) - and those who would be against in any circumstances.

PrussianPrue · 03/12/2015 21:10

I see what you mean Misti. I don't disagree with any of what you are saying apart from an earlier suggestion that it is an unwillingness to accept the fact of civilian deaths by those who are pro-bombing that derails the discussion.

I think the insults stop the discussion because they alienate people and reduce a complicated situation to black and white.

Mistigri · 03/12/2015 21:18

I don't think you can have a sensible discussion unless you explicitly acknowledge the likely consequences (good and bad) of bombing. And like it or not, civilian deaths are one of the single most likely consequences.

PrussianPrue · 03/12/2015 21:22

I agree that if you are weighing it all up then all aspects should be discussed. However words like 'murdering innocent babies' and 'how would you like your own children to be bombed?' are unnecessarily emotive and accusatory.

ghostyslovesheep · 03/12/2015 21:26

YANBU - is this in real life - face to face?

or are you talking about cyber space? - slightly more expected online but no it's a silly argument

but then just saying 'it's the only way' or calling people 'terrorist sympathisers' is pretty much the same kind of 'end of argument' twattery

Sharoncatastrophe · 03/12/2015 21:28

I don't understand the point which has been frequently mentioned about needing a plan b, needing to know it will work, needing to know what you'll do if it doesn't. War doesn't work like that. You can't plan an exact combat. It's unknown. Can you imagine Churchill guaranteeing the British people what would happen in ww2? That bastard invaded Poland, we'll launch some airstrikes. 6 years later.....

Just because you don't know exactly what will work doesn't mean you do nothing. It's a strange argument.

ghostyslovesheep · 03/12/2015 21:33

but it doesn't mean you do something just to look like you are doing something!

Imagine if Churchill just dove in blindly without a plan ...

Mistigri · 03/12/2015 21:41

Doing nothing can be the most rational response, if you can't be reasonably confident that "doing something" will result in a better outcome than doing nothing.

This argument also makes the false assumption that people who advocate "not bombing" are therefore in favour of "doing nothing". Many of us would like to see effective action taken to prevent money and weapons getting in and oil getting out (but that would require us to ask hard questions of our so-called allies in the middle east).

Sharoncatastrophe · 03/12/2015 21:42

Neither has the UK dove in to Syria blindly without a plan. In fact, the plans are pretty much the same for both combats. And most wars really. Disable enemy infrastructure, watch them suffer. See what they do, react. It's not all planned out because you don't know what the enemy will do. I think expecting a certain foolproof plan is really strange.

LumelaMme · 03/12/2015 21:44

War is never a good option but sometimes it's the least bad option.
Indeed.

I have no idea what the right answer is here. It's very appealing to say, Airstrikes will kill civilians and encourage more extremism therefore airstrikes are bad. But we're up against ISIS: these are men (and I say men deliberately) who will not negotiate, who hold extreme views, who aim to conquer the world. If we don't attack ISIS, there are going to be a lot of Syrian refugees wondering why we're sitting on ours hands. But we don't want to side with Assad because he is undoubtedly a bastard.

It reminds me a lot of World War II: we accepted Stalin as an ally because even though he was a bastard, he was a bit less of a bastard than Hitler was.

MissFitt68 · 03/12/2015 22:09

Isis are already here and amongst us. ( 4 this week in Luton)

I think the air strikes will make Isis try harder to bring an attack on uk mainland. Its almost as if by becoming involved we are trying to goad them into attacking us like they did in Paris

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread