The main indicator of the West moral´s dichotomy can be seen in the outraged reaction to international conflict operations. Last summer in a famous air strike in Mosul, US killed over 150 ISIS fighters; now fundamental components of Al Assad´s chemical weapons warfare facilities were destroyed by US, UK, and France. No civilians affected in any of the attacks, however, the media coverage and public´s opinion strongly disagreed with these operations. What is behind of citizens reaction? Shall we really support this strike in the Middle East?
What Is The Explanation Behind The Reaction?
The strikers clearly stated that the attack was directed to the toxic armory facilities and that the main reason for this specific attack is to punish Al Assad for using chemical weapons and to prevent the Syrian regime, and any other, to do it again. So, in theory, sounds like a deal. An attack with no victims, dangerous weapons destroyed, schooling a dictator on what are human rights and international laws. Why do millennials disagree?
There are several reasons for this:
Pacifism: This political behavior comes with the pre-conception of violence being bad, thus, using violence as an answer for violent acts is still immoral. What pacifist cannot see is that a passive position in a violent act might look more like complicity than hostility...
Argumentum Ad Hominem: Based on the dislike of the politicians leading the act, mainly Donald Trump, dismissing the action based on the idea that this is wrong because the one doing it is not of your preference, is a cognitive reduction. In politics you do not support people, you support ideas and actions separately.
Political Correctnes: With the need to show their moral superiority, based on precepts of colonization and arguments about the weak against the devil, the social justice warriors reject any type of intervention using violence. I just wonder if violence in the Middle East goes out of control, would they rescue everyone with their moral superpower?
Conspiracy Theories: In the world of the "post-truth" where every event has hundreds of different interpretations and information is adapted depending on the bias, the theory of Western nations behind the wars and conflicts in the Middle East taking advantage of these scenarios to greedy for oil and gun sales is the favourite one.
Must The Attack In Syria Be Supported?
People support the attack if they think is the correct thing to do but if it is going to be condemned it should be based on logic arguments. Pacifism, political correctness, and conspiracy theories do not bring changes to the real world. Why should an attack on chemical weapons not be supported? Many pacifists will gladly go around destroying any gun that might damage an innocent, so what is more threatening than a toxic armor facility? Political correctness states the ban on any type of gun for any use as morally superior, so why is so immoral to destroy these warehouses? __People can totally feel free to reject the strike on Syria by using logic arguments with objective information based on facts. A logic thinking is less likely to fail, and the emotional discussions worth nothing if they bring mistaken results; because after the damage is done, there is no point in saying sorry.