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

Don't be childish, and go and read a reputable dictionary:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

"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

The choice isn't about moving; the choice is about them (as a people) implementing a sensible system of government and not acquiescing or conniving in an Islamist, tribal or nationalist one - just as the British and other Europeans did.

They aren't heading for that now, and don't appear to want it, just like all the other countries that wasted the effort of going through the so-called Arab Spring. They want to live under Islam, or a tribal government. But they have to live with the consequences of making that choice. One of those consequences is that they are anathema to westerners who do not wish to import similar instability when their choices result in disaster.