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

[lifeinslowmotion]

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.

Whether we bomb or not people are going to be killed. We are trying to stop IS from beheading, shooting, raping and all the other atrocities they are committing, we are trying to stop children being drowned as they try to flee, we cant just sit here and do nothing.

If anyone has another idea of what we can do I would be interested to hear it, in the mean time we are bombing IS oil fields and trying to cut off their resources, people do not live in oil fields. This does not mean we condone babies dying.

Airstrikes so far have stopped Isis advancing further into Syria and Iraq. It's not necessarily about seeing things resolved- it's about them not being as bad as they otherwise could be too.

I would agree that the "innocent babies" comments have a tendency to shut down debate even if it is unintentional, but then so do "don't you care about the Syrian victims of IS?" comments too.

If you are pro - airstrikes for 'humanitarian reasons' i.e. to save those Syrians who are being tortured / killed by IS, do you think we should be bombing other places with regimes or groups perpetrating human rights abuses (N Korea, Nigeria, Sudan etc) or just Syria - if so, why?

What is special / different in this case?

Yanbu

I was listening to the radio call in and many took this approach.

What is the solution to hold discussions with ISIS how when they have no interest in holding discussion they have no foreign policy spokesman no military spokesman we are aware of senior members but what would they want to discuss nothing that we could ever agree with

The situation in Syria has created a refugee crises in Europe that has not been seen since WW2

That is what is different

What is special / different in this case?

The fact that ISIS or whatever else we or they call them/selves, do not recognise any country's border and have an intent to impose their brand of islam upon everyone. They are also not open to negotiation, have no interest in peace and don't care how many die mostly including themselves.

Most other unsavoury regimes have leaders who want to be accepted by other countries and want to be able to trade etc and will give the semblance of complying with international law, or they are so big and powerful already that they don't give a shit and we know that if we tried anything they'd whup our asses. They also seem mostly okay about perpetuating their regime within internationally accepted borders.

"Sorry I think YABU if the uk was being bombed for 'necessary' reasons how would you feel?"

???? If the "necessary" reasons included being home to ISIL which is expanding its murderous range day by day and killing and enslaving people all over the UK, then honestly I would probably welcome the bombs. At least the bombs try to target facilities and terrorists. ISIL targets civilians--deliberately.

Bombing is not clear-cut and a reasonable case can be made for and against.

However, sensible reasons against bombing are not things like:

"We should negotiate with ISIL!" (How?)

"The west's values are as evil as those of ISIL anyway!" (No, they are not)

"Let's send a group of women to go and talk to them!" (To be murdered or made into sex slaves?)

"War is BAD and peace is GOOD" (Gee, really? I never thought of that. How profound. And what are your practical suggestions, pray?)

Killing innocents to save innocents will not work. It will only cause ISIS to grow in numbers imo.

There will always be civilian casualties. It's just the nature of war.

The question then becomes what tactical advantage does bombing achieve? Do we have the correct information to know we're bombing the correct place? Will bombing shut down the bases?

Ignoring casualties, if we can justify it tactically as a smart military move, it should be done. But it should be done in a way that minimizes civilian casualties as much as possible.

Wars aren't won in fights against soldiers. They're won when the country as a whole has been demoralized and surrenders.

Personally, I think bombing is too dramatic, it's easy for them to use as a recruitment tool and feel they're going out gloriously. We should slowly starve them out, make them die as unglamorously as possible and low key as possible. Make it completely unappealing to join them.

Well said senpai

senpai starving them out would result in far more civilian deaths than bombing (there are many civilians trapped in ISIS controlled areas). If it were even possible - the borders are leaky and ISIS has no difficulty getting money and oil in and out.

This argument also makes the false assumption that people who advocate "not bombing" are therefore in favour of "doing nothing"

As I said before I am solidly on the fence.

I have spoke to several people, only saw some of the debate (due to work) I am wanting someone to tell me the alternative proposal.

Because I haven't heard anything vaguely viable yet. I really want there to be an alternative.

In regards to the OP.

Civilians will die as part of the bombings, it's inevitable.

Civilians will die anyway if we don't.

You can debate this without using accusatory language like 'baby murderer'.

You can acknowledge the consequences without insulting.

If you want people to see you PoV language like this is never helpful and is designed to shut down the discussion.

There is name slinging whatever people think. That's because there is no easy answer to this. I don't support the air strikes because they have done no good in the past but I can see the other PoV and would never sling insults at supporters.

Mistigri "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..."

Not true. In fact, air strikes so far have helped prevent the Yazidis being wiped out in IS's deliberate attempt at genocide, and have helped the Kurds limit IS advances. People don't seem to grasp that this is partly about preventing IS from expanding the territory they control, and getting hold of more civilians to slaughter and turn into sex slaves. Even if IS's opponents can't (yet) recover much conquered territory, that is not the only objective of military action against them.

The killing innocent babies line is long tried and tested.

A family member ( now deceased ) used to tell us regularly that when army recruiters were trying to raise troops they would show pictures of The Hun with dead babies pierced on their bayonets .

As for air strikes not working, well they have slowed the expansion of ISIS.

We should slowly starve them out, make them die as unglamorously as possible
But that would involve starving the civilians too. Who gets fed first in those circumstances?
(Clue: 1945, the population of Malaya was very short of food, children's growth was seriously stunted and people were dying on the streets of Singapore. The Japanese troops there, however, were in fine physical condition.)

Everyone gets fed up with something.

I, for example, am fed up with people trying to find ever more emotive and tenuous ways to say "I am against bombing Syria" rather than just saying it outright, purely in order to shut down a debate before it's even started.

I just heard on the radio of daeshs latest promo video.

Six kiddies won a competition! The prize? To get to behead someone and in one case, slit their throat.

I can't see how these people will stop. They are rearing a generation of barbarians.

They are striking ISIS, not innocent people. They know what they are doing. And something does need to be done. But - there are many terrorists that are here already, and that is the target that will be very hard to hit.

Sick we (the uk) don't do something to try and wipe out Isis then I suppose the rest of the world could end up bombing us if we sit back and let Isis grow and flourish and continue to radicalise,here in the uk. We could become 'the new home of isis'