The UK ambassador, Karen Pierce, said there were more babies than terrorists in Idlib, and named the Syrian forces preparing to attack the region, promising that they would be held accountable if indiscriminate attacks on civilians went ahead.
This is from the Guardian report on the possible assault on Al-Qaeda positions in Syria’s Idlib province by Syrian government forces supported by Iran and Russia.
This if of course an example of the current wave of babyish (even bestial at times) emotionalism which is sweeping (and swamping) all areas of UK life. To talk about “babies” in this context is an attempt to make some kind of emotional point. To “go for the emotions” – the modern tactic used by therapists, marketeers and now, it seems, UN representatives.
It is almost too obvious to point out but there were babies in Basra, and in Baghdad when the US/UK launched operation “shock and awe”. And there were babies in Libya in 2011 when NATO stretched a UN resolution to the point of absurdity to wipe out the stable government of that country. And there were babies in Raqqa in Syria when the US bombed it to free it from ISIS (see: Guardian report by Amnesty International researchers about the civilian death toll there). But the UK’s UN representative won’t be mentioning those babies.
What can those who don’t buy the government narrative do but continually point out that it is entirely selective in its professed humanitarian concerns? How does Karen Pierce sleep at night?