Why I Oppose to the Syrian Airstrikes

If you live in the UK – or just about anywhere else in the world – at the moment, then you should be entirely aware that yesterday the British Prime Minister, among other MPs, voted for military airstrikes in Syria.

Even with the lack of a convincing case on behalf of David Cameron, MPs voted 397 to 223 in favour of sending RAF Tornados into the skies over Syria.

Across the web, thousands of people – who David Cameron has labelled “terrorist sympathisers” – are speaking against the decision. Myself, likewise.

It is no secret that in this country there is a great deal of Islamaphobia. It is almost common knowledge that “all Muslims are terrorists”, despite this being an outright lie. Action such as this is only going to add fuel to this particular fire because Britain have now joined the coalition of people who are bombing an innocent country in order to tackle a terrorist group that is based worldwide. ISIS – or whatever you choose to refer to them as – is a terrorist group. It is not a nation, and it is not a country, so how is bombing a country where the majority of people will be innocent going to solve anything at all?

In a nation that widely opposes war, we have just made situations far worse for ourselves. ISIS – or Syria, or both – will retaliate. We cannot willingly murder hundreds and thousands of innocent people without suffering the consequences and people may consider us to be at war already, but there is now no denying that we are delving into dangerous territory. We – our nation, and our government – are promoting war.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. – Gandhi

In response to Cameron’s labelling of all those opposed to these Syrian airstrikes as “terrorist sympathisers”, I am appalled by all acts of terrorism. I believe that there is no excuse for the massacre of innocent people and I believe that it is fundamentally wrong for a group of people to have such control over the globe because they possess the power to evoke fear into a nation. I am entirely against terrorism. But I am also against willingly fueling a war with the knowledge that more destruction and more casualties will occur.

Jeremy Corbyn has also spoken of his decision to vote against this action:

Parliament has just voted to launch airstrikes in Syria. I am reminded of the messages I have received in recent days from my constituents who have expressed deep concern for family in Syria. I also think of our armed forces whose lives will be put in danger.

The fact of the matter is, David Cameron’s case was not convincing, lacking either credible ground troops or a plan for a diplomatic settlement. Since he first made his case for airstrikes in Syria, last Thursday, opposition has mounted; in the country, in parliament and in the Labour Party.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister realised opposition to his ill thought-out rush to war was growing – and he needed to hold the vote before it slipped from his hands. I have argued, and will continue to do so, that we should re-double our efforts to secure a diplomatic and political end to the conflict in Syria.

British service men and women will now be in harm’s way and the loss of innocent lives is sadly almost inevitable.

This decision is adding fuel to a fire that is already raging and I am appalled.

As ever, I’m interested to know your opinion on this recent news. Do you believe that fighting back is the answer to our problems, or are you in agreement that we are only adding salt to these wounds? Let me know in the comments.


Published by


Blogging since '12.

6 thoughts on “Why I Oppose to the Syrian Airstrikes”

  1. I actually think the air strikes are the correct solution. Although I think you make some very good points and violence against violence isn’t a remedy.

    But I also want to ask what you see as an alternative to the air strikes? ISIS as a group are non-negotiable; they are ideologically committed to our eradication which drives their movement. If we take no form of action, I firmly believe the problem will escalate – if they have no territory to operate from, they are easier to defeat.

    But again, I respect the argument that impeccable intelligence is required otherwise innocent civilians will die. There will certainly be a financial cost for the UK and developing the regions affected by the air strikes.

    Enjoyed your argument.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I completely understand and respect your views, although I stick to my views that leaving the lives of over 22 million individuals to risk for the sake of removing 70,000 – or are likely to move – is not the moral thing to do. However, I do agree that they should be removed and so should their bases, I just don’t agree in the way that the government are choosing to tackle this.

      Thank you for stopping by. 🙂


  2. Thank you SJ. As always, a very respectful and well rounded post.

    The eyes of the world are now gazing upon Syria. A useful distraction. Meanwhile the power hungry, war mongers continue their petty squabble to see who will lead the New World Order.

    ‘The art of war is distraction’.

    The TTIP is an abomination that is being pushed through while we stand by helplessly watching innocents die in Middle East.
    If you have not heard of the TTIP – look it up. This is the industrialisation of government – the commercialisation of the public sector. TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.

    All these things are happening together not by coincidence. This is the culmination of years of strategy to move us closer to a NWO. The middle east conflict will escalate – see Russia vs Turkey. N Korea stepping in. China using its land strategies to mobilise. The G7 responding combatively. Meanwhile – TTIP pushes through. ACTA re-emerges. Trapwire develops. False Flag ops continue.

    The system is broken, it is no longer relevant. As Einstein said “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. The only option is to create something new outside of the current system – as Buckminster Fuller said ““You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

    I oppose the Syrian airstrikes.
    I oppose the death of liberty.
    I oppose war.
    I ‘oppose’ those that seek to ‘impose’ oppressive restrictions on our behaviour/s or political view/s.

    Vive la Revolution

    keep golden


    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m in complete agreement. As ever, thank you for commenting.

      I can’t say I’ve heard much about the TTIP but I’ll be sure to look into it.

      I completely agree with your selection of quotes, especially the Einstein one. Similarly, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind”. But I also like the Fuller quote because I believe that the Government we abide by is outdated and the “democracy” we live in is less of a democracy and more of a manipulation.


      1. Thanks SJ. Sorry to hijack your blog narrative but I really see all this (Syria et al) as convenient distraction.

        You do a great job. Keep it up.

        Love to discuss in more detail one day. Love n light as always

        Liked by 1 person

Share your thoughts, or just say hi!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s