Writing that title seemed a little stupid, and equally a little odd. However, it is pretty needed in context to what has happened recently. Rather than filling you with solely opinions and moaning about what is “morally right” or filling you with leftist propaganda designed to incite fear and panic, I’ll give you the cold hard facts and plenty of citation.
Firstly, in retaliation to the devastating Paris Attacks undertaken by IS terrorists (for those who may not know, or were told differently, ‘IS’ stands for ‘Islamic State’; otherwise known as ISIS/ISIL/those terrorists that behead, drown and burn innocent people), France has began bombing certain sites in Syria, namely Raqqa, an IS stronghold commonly used for recruiting extremists.
Let’s sift through some of the criticisms for this retaliation;
- “Fighting fire with fire is wrong and it never works.” Whilst it is often criticised, regardless of the country, they have no other choice. When a large country like Russia deploys thousands of soldiers ‘on the ground’, you idolise and support those actions. When an airstrike takes place, often on a location under surveillance for many months and the targetting set very meticulously, you disagree. You argue that they should retaliate, but when they do, you get mad. Yes, I agree that it will only end up in a ‘cat and mouse’ tail-chasing scenario, but if they sit back and do nothing, they risk more and more attacks. It is better to solve the problem at the cause rather than doing nothing; it will only get worse.
- “Airstrikes are morally wrong and they shouldn’t take place.” No-one WANTS to airstrike a country or a place, due to costs or the risk of innocent casualties, but it’s a clear and ‘better’ option than soldiers on the ground. Here’s the many problems with deploying troops; A) With ‘boots on the ground’, the risk of internal deaths and injuries is drastically increased. Would you like to hear that your loved one died at the hands of IS abroad? Airstrikes completely wipe out the possibility of that casualty taking place; only those targeted die. B) Soldiers are much more likely to commit war crimes, compared to remote controlled airstriking. There are numerous accounts of soldiers raping, killing and torturing innocent people.
- “But France have bombed innocent people, not IS.” This is categorically not true. Rather than explain how it is not true, I’ll just throw a bunch of citation for you to read through. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Now onto the argument that this retaliation will only fuel the beginning of “World War 3”. Firstly, IS does not, to any knowledge, hold mass nuclear capabilities. It is often stated by many professionals and scholars that a World War 3 would only occur following the launch of a massive nuclear arms. Considering IS only hold a small, toxic amount capable of absolute minimum casualties, is can be stated that this will not trigger a World War 3. Secondly, IS does not have the firepower in comparison to the worlds firearms to defend itself. It does not have anything as complicated at the American air force, it does not have anywhere near enough followers to support a full-scale war and it does not have any direct ally. IS would be on their own, against the world. Even Al Qaeda disagree with IS, now that’s saying something!
Let me give you something to think about. If your loved ones were killed in such an attack, if you’d never meet them again because they were so cruelly stolen from you, what would you say? Would you want the attackers to be defeated, or would you allow them to go on and hurt so many more?
Look, regardless of your stance on airstrikes and retaliation, France cannot just ‘sit back’ and take such horrific attacks as that foregone on the 13th November. In this modern, largely militarized world, retaliation is inevitable and to be expected if you attack a nation. Perhaps there will be civilian casualties, perhaps not. If France follow suite to the Russian bombing scheme, there will be absolute success with multiple IS resources destroyed, preventing further terrorist attacks. As explained before, we live in a world where retaliation is an inevitability and this retaliation is nothing more than expected.
I do not condone killing civilians or starting wars, let’s just hope that there are no civilians injured or killed, and that France – along with any supporting country – can wipe out a majority threat by IS; how can that be a bad thing?
– Benjamin John Wareing
Side note: all citations given in balance from multiple news sources – both ‘left’ and ‘right’, as well as scholar articles and other such sources, including Wikipedia.