IndexSummary of argumentsAnticipations and rebuttalsPersonal positionSummary of argumentsAn Islamic State is a militia group responsible for the loss of human life and the start of various wars in the Middle East. Propaganda and speculation about who is responsible for the horrors of the nations involved are invalid; rather the question of what should be done has become central. The militia is inspired by the medieval beliefs and political aspirations of war-torn Syria. The effect has gone so far as to destroy cultures that have been present for generations. As evidenced by the team members' destruction of the ancient statues, the world had the ability to stand by and watch whatever was happening. Western nations decided to intervene in an attempt to protect the artifact. The same case had happened before and as witnessed when the Taliban militia descended on the Buddhas of Bamiyan, an aspect that fueled the worldwide turmoil, where most calls were made for the West to preserve the artifacts. Contrary to past actions, the process in Syria is more complicated, knowing which step to take is becoming more painful than it should be. Doing nothing or doing something is considered a crime, so whichever side you choose, you will still be blamed. The crisis in Syria is just one demonstration of what war does to any nation and culture. Taking the example of Adolf Hitler's reign, the works of art destroyed during the world wars are enormous and there is a possibility that the same case will be applied in Syria.[1] Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay For starters, those who propose moving the artifacts argue that looting is occurring in the region.[2] The robbery is a consequence of the proximity of museums and archaeological sites to the war zone. Whether it is Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Egypt, the consequences of war have always led to the looting of museums by individuals. Syria has been a place of exposure for years now. For starters, Syria's battle to defend its past submission took place in November 2016, followed by the Aleppo is our Destination exhibition held in 2016. It is just a small example of the effort artists have made to ensure success in promotion of culture. . According to Westerners, all this art should not be stolen or destroyed just because the nation is at war. It is best to keep them, no matter if they are in another country or not. The claims are well justified and can rarely be argued with. Archaeologists are like leaders in various fields and it is their job to alert the world whenever something is wrong, especially when people's culture is destroyed. Likewise, provenance is important as it gives them an identity, thus protecting the identity of the future generation. Another reason for saving artifacts and transporting them to the West is the lack of a legal, functioning government.[3] During a crisis, the government rarely considers mundane things like art, as it believes there are much more important issues to handle. In this belief, any offer involving art, however scandalous it may be, should be implemented. For citizens, this is an opportunity to go somewhere else away from the war front. The sellers of the artifacts believe they are doing justice to the people who give them the funds, however, they may be better prepared to move. Basic needs are essential wherever you are and, according to shoppers, give people the means to survive. Thisreason is justified considering the fact that the artifacts will be destroyed, so why not give them away before they are destroyed? Another reason given for moving artifacts is a lack of appreciation for archaeological finds. Common knowledge asserts the fact that a prophet is never accepted in their hometown, the same case applies to works of art. While a peaceful nation is home to cultural development, a war-torn state is different in that only outsiders see the beauty in their works of art. As evidenced by the incident, the people interested in purchasing the artifacts are from foreign nations, not from Syria as a nation. Because of the war, most panicked; any work of art is rubbish that would only cost them their lives if they attempted to transport it. For Syrians it is understandable; after all, survival is necessary. Even for Westerners they are right; they are simply bringing what is not considered valuable from a place to where it is considered valuable, something that justifies their actions. As evidenced by the unrest in Greece, you never know where calamity may come from is another reason why buyers are wont to justify their actions.[4] The Middle East has been at war for centuries now with no end in sight. One moment is Iraq, the next is Afghanistan, the next is Libya, to name just a few, and this serves to undermine the belief that the political upheavals will subside. Instead, buyers used it as a reason to take and keep the artifacts. Rarely does a year go by without hearing about a war breaking out in the Middle East. While Syria had destroyed the monumental Neo-Assyrian palace, a similar act would never have been possible in a nation like Great Britain, as evidenced by the presence of the same door in the British Museum. As most people argue, why put something back that you know will be destroyed? Previews and Refutations To begin with, one could argue that this is cultural imperialism rather than cultural internationalism.[5] Being safe is one thing and being accessible is another. It is the case in which another individual, different from the one in the field, decides on an act without consulting him. This case is analogous to the colonization of Africa, where European nations met in Germany to discuss how to divide the continent without the owner's knowledge. To begin with, the assumption is that the Syrians are weak and cannot afford to protect their artifacts. So, some rich individual should do it for them. As if that were not enough, the objects are mostly purchased by private collectors, which makes it certain that the work will disappear from the public for a long time. If so, what is the difference between its destruction and being hidden by a stranger? Furthermore, who decides what to take and what to leave in case of artifacts? Just because someone is powerful doesn't mean they have to create something that a particular community considers valuable. Another reason for this shift is the preference of culture over people. The world is more worried about artifacts. Therefore, the death of people during childbirth does not seem like a big problem. Furthermore, the replacement is more natural. Questions about when society lost its ways serve to elaborate this position. Although it is claimed that communism is not essential, capitalizing on extremes causes individuals to benefit at the expense of others. No one should be against people willing to sacrifice their life for a work of art as it is a personal decision. On the other hand, no one should have to sacrifice others for a bit of creativity they aren't willing to protect. As witnessed in Cairo, Egypt, when a.