UK's recent decision to bomb Syria...

Despite the UK's laws regarding tolerance, anti-racism and so on, could the government's recent decision to bomb Syria be considered 'ethnic cleansing'?

It's a group of people, originating from a different country, with a different culture and a different set of values and beliefs. The majority of people in UK disagree with their values and beliefs (I also believe we should protect human life rather than destroy it) and yet members of our government believe that the destruction of such a group of people is part of their "moral and practical duty" (i newspaper, 3rd December 2015, page 4).

Schoolyard fights are vengeful:
- "Billy took my sandwich, so I'll take his lunchbox."
- "George took my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy took my bag, so I'm gonna punch him."
- "George punched me, so I'm gonna give him a black eye."
- "Billy gave me a black eye, so I'm taking this knife and we'll see what happens!"

Most of us can see how things escalate when we always try to get 'one-up' on the other person. But I find it ironic how, in the adult world, it's gets even more childish:
- "Billy said he'd take my sandwich, so tomorrow I'll get his lunchbox."
- "George says he's gonna take my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy says he's gonna get my bag, so I'll punch him to teach him a lesson."
- "George is gonna punch me, so I'll give him a black eye before he does it."
- "I'm taking this knife to school, just in case Billy even thinks about giving me a black eye!"

I'm not saying any choice is easy. In UK, government laws and policies have got us to a point where (on the surface, at least) we are tolerant of people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. And now the government has condoned an action which is intended to destroy a group who are ehnically and religiously different.

The reality is that essentially we all have intolerance towards people who hold different beliefs to us. Atheists believe Christians (and other religious people) are uneducated; Christians believe atheists need to open their mind to the existence and experience of God; agnostics believe both sides are fools because there's not enough evidence either way; certain Muslim extremists believe any non-Muslim should be killed; Jews believe that accepting Jesus as the Son of God is a step too far; Mormons believe that even Christians need to open their minds to the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith.

But intolerance isn't just limited to religious examples: some people are intolerant of those who use animals for medical testing (before the medicine is tested on humans) to the point where they will vandalise such clinics; some people are intolerant of those who believe climate change is a natural process and not human-induced; some people are intolerant of those who believe that natural relationships should be between two people of opposite sexes.

Let's face it, if we think that another person has a respectable belief, then we'd be foolish not to believe it also. If, however, we choose not to believe as someone else, we either accept that we are foolish for not believing it, or we believe them to be foolish for believing it.

Hence, under the surface, logical people are intolerant, and illogical people are just ignorant.

So, to solve this whole mess, UK's government could simply apologise for forcing the notion of 'tolerance' on their citizens and keep and enforce a standard of British laws that they don't alter, claiming it as 'British culture'. Then, if anyone disagrees, or takes action against those laws, their moral position is clear and the consequences are clear. Although people may disagree with the action, hypocrisy is eradicated.

Now, that was a tangent! Back to the topic of this: with the decision to bomb Syria, UK's government have effectively pinned their colours to the mast that there is a line, that tolerance only goes so far. They have also shown that they will go as far as attacking another country to eradicate those beliefs they find offensive. How do they reconcile that decision with their 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' society they hope to uphold?