Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

why do people simply not care when it comes to clivilians getting killed in Syria?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    Mate it's called Muslim not "Moslem". No one says Moslem anymore. Why you trying to be weird?
    Don't be childish, and go and read a reputable dictionary:

    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...english/moslem

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muslim
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Don't be childish, and go and read a reputable dictionary:

    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...english/moslem

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muslim
    I'm saying that it's weird to say Moslem- it's not a wrong word and it does exist but we tend to say Muslim nowadays and Muslims prefer the term Muslim. Moslem does have some negative connotations in Arabic. I don't see why you feel the need to call them Moslems when they themselves prefer the term Muslim as that is closer to how it is pronounced in Arabic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We care but can't stop/prevent people from dying in every conflict & atrocities

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    I'm saying that it's weird to say Moslem- it's not a wrong word and it does exist but we tend to say Muslim nowadays and Muslims prefer the term Muslim. Moslem does have some negative connotations in Arabic. I don't see why you feel the need to call them Moslems when they themselves prefer the term Muslim as that is closer to how it is pronounced in Arabic.
    1. The pronunciation is not affected by the spelling. Another example is gaol & jail.

    2. We are speaking and writing English, not Arabic; what it might mean in Arabic is irrelevant. Lots of words are derived from foreign words and have a completely different meaning from the original meaning.

    3. I use the words I prefer to use, not what other people like me to use.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    1. The pronunciation is not affected by the spelling. Another example is gaol & jail.

    2. We are speaking and writing English, not Arabic; what it might mean in Arabic is irrelevant. Lots of words are derived from foreign words and have a completely different meaning from the original meaning.

    3. I use the words I prefer to use, not what other people like me to use.

    Now push off and lecture a Moslem about how he shouldn't call me a kuffar.
    The word Muslim is in the English dictionary, a word can be both Arabic and English.
    I don't see why you are so obsessed with wanting to say it differently to literally everyone else. No one says Moslem anymore and it's not the preferred term.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    The word Muslim is in the English dictionary, a word can be both Arabic and English.
    As I showed you, so is "Moslem". And as I said, I don't care if it is also an Arabic word; i am writing in English, not Arabic. I'm quite sure that many other words we use in English are offensive in other languages, but we don't stop using them for that reason.

    For instance, "mist" is offensive in German, "sheet" sounds rude in Swedish, "sale" means dirty in French. None of that is relevant when writing in English though.

    By the same token a German using "fahrt" might seem offensive to an English speaker, but he merely means "drive", and a Swedish "prick" is only a spot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    One death is a tragedy, 1million deaths is just a statistic. Stalin. There's your answer
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i care about it! more so about the children and babies but everyone in general.
    pretty sure all the people that dont care about it soon would if it happened here and their own familes got blown up
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yoloinator)
    Now when you say we should hold them responsible, what do you think we should do? Arrest the last leader of Syria who is keeping that state together by the strings, he may be killing rebels with innocents in the aftermath but it beats pure anarchy. And you mention Putin, are we going to arrest the leader of a global power as well. tad bit optimistic or delusional. They won't prosecuted because it's a case of drop some bombs that kill a number of civilians or turn our eyes whilst Daesh take over Syria and slaughter every man, woman and child that disagrees with them. Now when I consider these 2 alternatives it is with a sorrow heart that I say keep the missiles going in.
    Holding them accountable is not the same as arresting them. It also applies to putting pressure on them through sanctions and resolutions. They should not be given free reign to commit atrocities just because Da'esh is doing worse. Dropping bombs on Da'esh and killing innocent people being held captive by them is far less effective than supporting ground troops which are currently combating them and undercover operations to rescue people in the territory.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Holding them accountable is not the same as arresting them. It also applies to putting pressure on them through sanctions and resolutions. They should not be given free reign to commit atrocities just because Da'esh is doing worse. Dropping bombs on Da'esh and killing innocent people being held captive by them is far less effective than supporting ground troops which are currently combating them and undercover operations to rescue people in the territory.
    How on Earth will sanctions do anything? We already have sanctions on Russia since Crimean and guess what Putin just recently won the last Russian election. He's changing nothing and how would sanctions effect Assad, he's dealing more with the Russians. We can put pressure on yes but no where near enough that they'd hand themselves over the The Hague or even stop the missiles. The missiles work, they are effective that's why they are used.

    If killing a few hundred in missile attacks saved tens of thousands from religious persecution then so be it. Build an Anderson shelter and take cover. They have free reign to do what ever because the UN don't have the balls to stop them and we (NATO) don't want a war with 2 states whilst fighting a terrorist group. They will change nothing and no-one will risk elections because of the deaths of hundreds. Name:  untitled.png
Views: 23
Size:  413.5 KB
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure most people care in one sense, but they don't actively care. This is because people simply cannot emotionally afford to be invested in every bad thing that happens. Thousands of people starve to death every day. At every given moment, there is great suffering being had by many. At every given moment, thousands of people are in physical and mental anguish and thousands of families are grieving a loss. You cannot afford to let yourself worry about all of them. So most people will only actively care about things that happen fairly close to them, that represent a potential threat to them or people they know.

    This being said, the moral poverty of some people on such issues as this I find pretty insane. Anyone who says "well, it's war, innocent people will die"...I cannot fathom that level of detachment and lack of respect for human life. You can justify such things however you want, e.g. arguing that things would be worse for them if we weren't bombing the area, but I will always find the sentiment inherently disturbing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yoloinator)
    I don't care what faction those cowards fight for, in English civil war everyone picked a side. Matilda or Stephen, York or Lancastrian, Royalist or Roundhead. This is an internal issue and we are backing a certain rebel group and the kurds and the free Syria army. Why don't they join their national army, same goes in Iraq as well. Most are cowards. When the Poles fled Poland they need not ask for social services when they arrived but they fought to free their homeland. I say train them then send them back. Only the weak, the old, the children and the women should be granted asylum. The men should fight for their country's freedom just as our ancestors have.Attachment 583430
    A lot of them are anti-government so obviously aren't going to join their national army. A lot of the rebels are Islamist and jihadist. The "moderates" do exist but they are small and almost irrelevant on the battlefield. The YPG are seen as secessionist and are opposed by a lot of rebel groups who claim to value Syria's territorial integrity, so a lot of Syrians will not want to join them. Of course people do willingly join all of these groups but there are many reasons why a huge number of people do not want to fight for any of them.

    This "they should fight for their country" argument is really ****ing stupid, as that just isn't possible given the situation and the number of different factions. And why should civilian refugees be forced into such a fight?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManiaMuse)
    Many reasons:

    1) Thousands of miles away, not our problem, bigger problems closer to home.

    2) War weariness, after Iraq and Afghanistan the British public and government really aren't in the mood for any more boots on the ground intervention.

    3) Boredom with the media banging on about Syrian refugees all the time. Even the Express has to vary its Diana/Maddy McCann/'worst winter in 100 years' stories every now and then.

    4) Boredom with morality warriors telling us that we should all feel guilty for not giving the refugees our clothes, boots and motorcycles.

    5) The emergence of ISIS related terrorism in Europe over the last couple of years really hasn't done the Syrian plight any favours.

    6) It's gone on for 5 years or so now and turned into a stalemate, people are just bored with the whole thing now. It's not NEWs anymore.

    7) It's not like a movie where there are good guys and bad guys, all the sides seem to be bad guys. What kind of plot is that?

    8) Brexit :P
    Bro, sick Terminator reference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    A lot of them are anti-government so obviously aren't going to join their national army. A lot of the rebels are Islamist and jihadist. The "moderates" do exist but they are small and almost irrelevant on the battlefield. The YPG are seen as secessionist and are opposed by a lot of rebel groups who claim to value Syria's territorial integrity, so a lot of Syrians will not want to join them. Of course people do willingly join all of these groups but there are many reasons why a huge number of people do not want to fight for any of them.

    This "they should fight for their country" argument is really ****ing stupid, as that just isn't possible given the situation and the number of different factions. And why should civilian refugees be forced into such a fight?
    Either fight or flight, they would rather see their lands burn. Most leaving their families behind. Once again I'll reference the Polish during WW2, or the French or the Dutch, hell even the Cubans were trained to fight and at least they tried to take back their homeland. To abandon it is to leave it to anarchy and does nothing but stall the time it takes to end this conflict. I don't care if they're anti-government. Their country is splitting apart, join the national army and get stability then a general strike forcing Assad out of power. Replacing with fair elections with Assad on the ballot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yoloinator)
    If killing a few hundred in missile attacks saved tens of thousands from religious persecution then so be it. Build an Anderson shelter and take cover. They have free reign to do what ever because the UN don't have the balls to stop them and we (NATO) don't want a war with 2 states whilst fighting a terrorist group. They will change nothing and no-one will risk elections because of the deaths of hundreds.
    Please enlighten me as to how killing hundreds with save "tens of thousands from religious persecution". The situation is not Assad and Putin vs Da'esh, it's far more complex than that. And even in the case of dropping bombs on Da'esh, with innocent people being caught in the crossfires, whose to say that a similar group will not form in their stead, perhaps driven by resentment and anger? Because that's what killing innocent people and dismissing them as "collateral damage" does.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mkap)
    seriously i look at the news and it just depresses me and upsets me. Syria has been bombed now for the past couple of years and all we see is civilian deaths one after another and once in a blue moon we hear that an ISIS member has been killed.

    is it really worth it i mean why are the russians so dumb bombing the few hospitals that are left (are they really that backwards at dropping missiles) and bombing houses leaving people with no food and water. it just makes me so angry seeing little children left without families and becoming orphans.

    as a society we arnt doing much to help, we are closing our doors to them and saying they dont belong with us. we just close our eyes and just carry on with out individualist lives when these are out brothers and sisters

    just look at these videos, do these people really deserve this? they might be a bit graphic
    Spoiler:
    Show

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJ1Ac66Ru8

    statistics: total death count in Syria:
    450,000 - Children: 50,000 thats like the whole of Liverpool being wiped out
    The situation in Syria is certainly very grave and represents a failure on multiple sides.

    Unfortunately for you though, this is what happens when the left are able to dictate foreign policy. By not annexing Syria and imposing order on the nation we allow the conflict to continue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The situation in Syria is certainly very grave and represents a failure on multiple sides.

    Unfortunately for you though, this is what happens when the left are able to dictate foreign policy. By not annexing Syria and imposing order on the nation we allow the conflict to continue.
    "left is responsible for everything" again, come on, think of something original... it was a Republican president who invaded Iraq, indeed, with Blair's help, but it wasn't exclusively the "lefts fault" if the "left" even exists as a collective
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The UK hasn't been the world's global policeman since the Empire fell apart after the Second World War. The USA took on the role (for better or for worse, you decide) & we tag along when/where possible usually.

    The biggest threat to civilians in Syria is Assad's forces backed by Russia. Da'esh/ISIS are the next biggest threat & are of a far greater threat to international community as demonstrated by the terrorist attacks across Europe. In comparison to this two factions, the amount of collateral damage caused by Western/Coalition air strikes is absolutely minimal due to tactics & precision guided weaponry.

    The reality is that, due to Russian influence, it is impossible to set up a No-Fly-Zone over Syria. Coalition aircraft would effectively have to shoot down Russian jets which would certainly cause some kind of retaliation from Putin's regime in the Kremlin.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eulers_)
    "left is responsible for everything" again, come on, think of something original... it was a Republican president who invaded Iraq, indeed, with Blair's help, but it wasn't exclusively the "lefts fault" if the "left" even exists as a collective
    I'm not talking about Iraq. Those who think that Saddam being in power and the ensuing genocide would have been a good thing are aburd.

    I'm talking about the fact that since Iraq the west as a whole (primarily due to the left) have been far too wary of military intervention and this has meant that the war has not been stopped by us.

    People don't like the west acting as the worlds police force.. but the world damn well needs it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People do care, it''s just that we can't do much about it. It'd be completely impractical to take them all in. If you're warm hearted you see abandoned animals in rescue centres and homeless people genuinely living hard, you'd ideally love to take them all home and give them a place and treat them well, but you wouldn't because you know it's entirely not practical.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: October 5, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.