...solve the underlying problem. — Benkei

This is a really good idea. Except the underlying problem is humanity, and problems don't generally solve themselves. I rage against the inhumanity of humanity, and the frustration I feel is the same frustration, the disgust is the same disgust, that is vented in this destruction.

It would be nice if it was that kind of cancer that one could cut out by removing a few key figures, but I think it is more the kind that spreads everywhere, so that assassins and their paymasters are part of the problem and not the solution.

But I think even your vote can help; if you vote for honesty, gentleness, and care for others in your politicians, it has an effect, but if you vote for strong decisive leaders, who will do something, that has an effect too.

I'm just amazed at how good we (people in general) are at abstracting away "little" incidents like this. "Ooh, it's his parents fault for staying in Aleppo", "It's the rebels fault for entrenching themselves in Aleppo", "It's the regime's fault for indiscriminately bombing Aleppo", "It's the Russians' fault for supporting the regime", "it's the West's fault for supporting the secular rebels".

They're all missing the fucking point - it's everybody's fault, collectively, and collectively we should be saying "Shit, we've gone too far when we're injuring (and killing) kids".

And I am for strong, decisive leaders. I just have a very different concept of this because I don't agree honesty, care and gentleness are contrary to being strong - in fact, I think they are prerequisites. Being strong to me means going that extra mile for others, even if you're tired as hell yourself. Shouldering the burdens yourself and not depending on others to solve them for you but accepting help (freely given) with grace if it's offered. And decisive, because you are living and acting on these convictions that you don't need to doubt about doing the right thing.

Yes.

I follow a journalist on Twitter that covers the Syrian conflict on the regular. This includes inspiring stories as well as horrible stories. One of the reasons I follow him is because he does a good job of displaying this mixture, and his photography doesn't hold back. It's really horrible sometimes especially, as you mention, when it comes to the killing of children. It happens fairly frequently.

I do not have children, but that doesn't make it less disgusting to me. I usually have the urge to puke whenever something like that is shown.

What frustrates me is exactly what you site here:

I'm just amazed at how good we (people in general) are at abstracting away "little" incidents like this. — Benkei

On the other hand I can understand wanting an explanation which removes culpability so you can get on with your life without much emotional drain when society already taxes you with so much. I also understand that events like this are a part of militant conflict, and that militant conflict was unavoidable in Syria (the government opened fire on those who were peacably assembling). But even though it's understandable it still breaks my heart when it seems like so many people just accept things like the killing of children as if they are part of the natural order of things -- it's like, the one thing that seems to me we should all be able to agree upon regardless of other beliefs.

It will take more boots on the ground in my estimation, or else we will continue to see very slow progress if any at all. The Syrian situation called for humanitarian military intervention years ago, but the West was too cowardly to act due to the perceived failure of Iraq and an increasingly isolationist electorate.

This is what you get with a species of self-deceptive apes for whom the appearance of morality is more important than the reality. Moral hypocrisy is baked right in. I'm not even sure society would function without it.

(Incidentally, I presume this is getting worldwide attention because the Russians or Syrians and not the Americans did the bombing).

+I agree with everything @Benkei said.

I kind of feel angry and hurt and sad at Kafkaeque situations, especially people stuck in bureaucratic loops, or subject to objective violence -- violence that slowly chips away at that soul, Sisyphean grinds in work life that clearly results in a life of meaninglessness, general workplace alienation, or slow descents into madness when clear alternatives could be possible if not for the certain unnecessary and harmful institutions. For example, truck drivers and factory workers here in Thailand almost always being some form of meth addict because their employer demands them do their 36 hour shift, and they pay their entire workday of pay to purchase meth so that they can stay awake. When I see situations like these, and then trace the consequences to whole pockets of society, I feel angry and enraged and my heart is constantly broken. Then, on top of this, the drug war, which makes these drugs more expensive to purchase and also the consequence of getting caught even worse for the families.

All in the name of making sure those stupid twinkies get produced by the sales deadline.

So the only solution I can see to really contribute is to pay an assassin to kill some key figures in that region. Unfortunately, I don't know with 100% certainty who the key figures are. — Benkei

Setting aside the ethics, there are probably quite a few more impracticalities which would render that option unrealistic.

I very much agree with un's reply and with your reply to his reply. What can be done? That is the question - and it's difficult to answer, as well as avoid cynicism. I suppose we just have to keep doing what we can to try to resolve these sorts of catastrophes, even if it seems relatively ineffectual.

It will take more boots on the ground in my estimation, or else we will continue to see very slow progress if any at all. The Syrian situation called for humanitarian military intervention years ago, but the West was too cowardly to act due to the perceived failure of Iraq and an increasingly isolationist electorate. — Thorongil

I'm wary of that proposed solution. What exactly is "humanitarian military intervention"? Military intervention which tries a little harder to avoid killing innocents, but does so nonetheless? Military intervention which kills innocents, but does so conscionabley? These missiles kill this amount of innocents, but these other missiles kill less, so they're alright.

Military intervention which tries a little harder to avoid killing innocents, but does so nonetheless? Military intervention which kills innocents, but does so conscionabley? These missiles kill this amount of innocents, but these other missiles kill less, so they're alright. — Sapientia

So you're capable of flippant mockery. Congratulations.

It's heartbreaking because the kid is cute. Forget about the kid and people you can't help. Find some obnoxious shit who needs to learn some lessons about compassion, like me for instance, who you have a real relationship with, and help him instead.

When I heard Malala Yousafzai's story I was heartbroken.
She is a symbol of triumph too.

It will take more boots on the ground in my estimation, or else we will continue to see very slow progress if any at all. The Syrian situation called for humanitarian military intervention years ago, but the West was too cowardly to act due to the perceived failure of Iraq and an increasingly isolationist electorate.

Boots on the ground will only serve to address the symptoms (and they would have to be left there indefinitely to do that) it would not cure the real issue.
The main problem is an ideological one and the people in certain areas of the world are fighting over theocratic differences.
For these people fighting each other for their very spiritual lives are at stake and they are committed absolutely to insuring they do not die spiritually.

Suggesting that you simply go in an kill the bad guys is a gross misunderstanding of the issue.
To truly effect change would take decades and would require a willingness to change on the part of the inhabitants of the areas we occupy.
Often that willingness to change exists in only a very small minority of the population.

This is why the idea of intervention is unappealing to many in the west...many realize there is not much that can be done and what little can be done requires great sacrifice of lives and is resource intensive.

Boots on the ground is a visceral response sure...it would be satisfying to punish the "bad guys" (often it is not clear just who that it is) but to believe it would fix the issue at hand is just folly.

... but in the end seems like combatting a symptom that doesn't solve the underlying problem. — Benkei

I do understand where your coming from, but one question is still in my mind...

... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process?

As I view it, there is not an "underlying problem", but multiple problems that shift in importance/priority as this situation develops. I've reached the point where I feel that there is no single action or single decision or single solution to this situation. Also, when I look at history, this situation is really nothing new. The situation simply gets a new face or a new set design or a new soundtrack as time passes.

In short... rather than call it "the underlying problem" I refer to it as the situation. (in bold print)

What I can say with some small degree of certainty is that I really have no idea how to rid humanity of this situation, much less identify all the facets of the multiple problems associated with this situation.

Result is me thinking global and acting local.

Indeed I could leave my wife and try to do some active field work in those areas that are mostly effected/affected by this situation, but what sort of problems would that create locally?

One of the problems here is the guilt associated with our moments of joy. Not joy of us being outside of the main core of this situation, but our ability to have joy knowing that such a situation exists. This might well included having joy in life knowing one has no idea how to make a positive effect/affect upon the situation.

Benkei... I have no answer for this situation. I'm not even sure if I can really clearly identify what this situation is without causing the situation to flame. All I feel I can do is act locally, as to perhaps slow the expansion of this situation by fighting elements at the core of the situation... such as racism, xenophobism, jingoism, sexism, homophibia, meritocratic elitism, and other poles of moral/ethical idealistic absolutes founded upon connotative baggage and false premises.

This won't make you laugh, but it's worth it, as it honestly captures a lot of what I'm not doing a very good job of writing about... it probably isn't good either, but anyway:



Meow!

GREG

often it is not clear just who that it is — m-theory

No, it's very clear in the present case.

but to believe it would fix the issue at hand is just folly — m-theory

No one ever said, or ought to say, that military intervention would solve the crisis within Islam at the moment. It's merely a method of ending the immediate and horrific violence, just as the West did in Bosnia, for example. That intervention never pretended to make relations between Serbian Christians and Bosnian Muslims perfect, but it did end what was escalating into a genocide and brought to justice those responsible for it.

It is not clear to me who the bad guys are in this case.
Who do you think ought to be held responsible?

Islam itself is not the problem as far as I am concerned.
The problem is the idea that society should be governed in accordance with religious beliefs as in theocracy.

I believe the west has the right idea about separation of church and state but sadly many middle eastern nations do not hold those values.

It is not clear to me who the bad guys are in this case. — m-theory

Then you're blind.

Who do you think ought to be held responsible? — m-theory

Assad, ISIS, and Al-Nusra.

Islam itself is not the problem as far as I am concerned. — m-theory

It is the internally fractured nature of Islam at present that is the problem.

The problem is the idea that society should be governed in accordance with religious beliefs. — m-theory

Indeed.

I believe the west has the right idea about separation of church and state but sadly many middle eastern nations do not hold those values. — m-theory

Indeed.

You do realize that during war US forces and our allies have also had collateral damage that injured, and even killed, innocent civilians?

Does that make the US a bad guy as well?

Never mind, no need to answer those questions.

Let me ask another instead...

Who do you think the good guys are in syria?
If the US did invade and occupy syria who would we place in charge that was not a bad guy?

I guess I should've have said it is not really clear who the good guys are.

I don't think we can just kill the problems away in syria and of course I don't agree that the US or west should intervene in syrai with military force.
That is obviously not going to happen and it is an unrealistic expectation.

I can understand being upset that innocents are caught in the cross fire...but when violence offers no solution to the problems faced in syria, simply being outraged about the tragedies is not a good reason for a military invasion and occupation.
Even if it would make you feel better.

The world is over-stuffed with 360 degrees of tragedy. Pick a place, any place, and there is a ghastly tragedy of some kind unfolding. Go out and look for one, up close and personal, and it will fill your field of vision.

It isn't going to get better, not because people are inherently wicked and spawn evil over and over again. It isn't going to get better because, in the aggregate, we can't do better. Compassion is always an individual option. It isn't a collective choice. Likewise with the other virtues. You can practice them, we cannot.

Prescient insight would inform us which babies should be smothered in their cribs so they wouldn't become future tyrants. Too bad our preferred intelligence agencies don't have that skill. Too bad we can't even tell exactly when, how, and by whom a known adult tyrant should be shot / bombed / poisoned. Maybe the whole al-Assad clan should have been taken out decades ago. Who was in charge of that?

We are, as Baden noted, self-deceived apes. We got clever but we didn't get wise.

Life probably will have as many, or more tragedies in the future because we are neither clever nor wise enough to avoid them. It's who we are. It's what we do.

So you're capable of flippant mockery. Congratulations. — Thorongil

You haven't answered the question.

Steven Pinker has written on the subject of human violence and I take solace in fact that over the course of history violence seems to be trending towards the decline.

It is a small comfort perhaps...but it suits me better than these bitter words of yours.

Well said by the way.

"They only show a small part, and call that "the world."" Link

Who do you think the good guys are in syria? — m-theory

Women, children, the Syrian rebels (some of them), the Kurds, and the Iraqis.

If the US did invade and occupy syria who would we place in charge that was not a bad guy? — m-theory

The idea would be to let the Syrians decide by implementing a democracy with the secular rule of law. Before that, the military would have to stabilize the country.

I don't think we can just kill the problems away in syria — m-theory

Nor do I. But killing does go a long way in this instance.

of course I don't agree that the US or west should intervene in syrai with military force. — m-theory

"Of course."

simply being outraged about the tragedies is not a good reason for a military invasion and occupation. — m-theory

There is historical precedent for humanitarian intervention, and I've already given you one example. You may not know much about these things, and I suspect you don't given the content of your posts, but international law mandates that certain action, including military actions, be taken to stop crimes against humanity.

I would, were it a serious one.

There is historical precedent for humanitarian intervention, and I've already given you one example. You may not know much about these things, and I suspect you don't given the content of your posts, but international law mandates that certain action, including military actions, be taken to stop crimes against humanity.

There is a historical precedent demonstrating that simply installing a democracy in the middle of war is not mission accomplished as well.

You may not realize engaging in conflict for the "right" reasons does not insure that your goal will be accomplished...and seeking revenge for the innocents sounds like a great story to tell yourself...but it is not a military strategy

I am curious how long do you think it would take to "fix" syria if the west did invade?

And why you believe that the people there would be eager for the west to come in and "fix" it?

I think the only things to do are to fund the Red Cross/Crescent and Medecins sans Frontieres, and to accept that intervention in a faraway conflict that you have little understanding of would be worse than inaction. Doing good by killing people is rarely right.

I would, were it a serious one. — Thorongil

It is a serious question. I enquired what "humanitarian military intervention" entailed. You're just choosing to overlook that fact and focus instead on the way in which I phrased it... as if you've never used sarcasm to make a serious point.

Then you're blind. — Thorongil

It was you who made this comment on the previous page, wasn't it? I'm not just imaging that, am I?

I don't think it's unfair to be a bit suspicious of the term "humanitarian military intervention" @Thorongil. Would you consider the Gulf and / or Iraq wars to fall under the definition as you understand it, for example?

Intervention in Bosnia.... that sort of thing. You have to have cojones to engage in humanitarian military intervention.

I saw the Bosnia example mentioned and it fits for me. It's one of those terms though that could be subject to, shall we say, strategic deployment.

Would you consider the Gulf and Iraq wars to fall under the definition as you understand it, for example? — Baden

Absolutely.

I am curious how long do you think it would take to "fix" syria if the west did invade? — m-theory

I don't know.

And why you believe that the people there would be eager for the west to come in and "fix" it? — m-theory

They already are. People in the region have demanded military assistance to drive out ISIS and Assad for a long time now.

Doing good by killing people is rarely right. — mcdoodle

So... just continue with the status quo of genocide and let ISIS have their "Islamic State," then? Mmk.

I enquired what "humanitarian military intervention" entailed. — Sapientia

Why would this not already be obvious?