Commisérations

[Serial_Apologist]

... perhaps I'm tying myself in knots here. Perhaps the two events are not dissimilar. We express our solidarity with France by illuminating the colours of the tricolor on the London Eye and Sydney Opera House, lay flowers outside the embassy and sign a book of condolence - we feel France the country,its people, has been attacked by outsiders (whom we fear ourselves).

After the 'Baga massacre' did similar gestures take place ? .... or not - because it was seen as part of a Nigerian against Nigerian conflict.

I think this may be turning into a pedantic argument of my own making.

Were France to be engaged in civil war one might have to decide which if any side to declare solidarity with. So the two situations are not comparable.

[Anastasius]

How depressing.

It doesn't take long for a thread to degenerate into bringing in politics or taking an irrelevant and unfocussed side-swipe at the security services.

The events in Paris are tragic enough without us airing our own little canards and getting on our soapboxes.

[ahinton]

How depressing.

With that much at least I agree.

It doesn't take long for a thread to degenerate into bringing in politics or taking an irrelevant and unfocussed side-swipe at the security services.

OK, so are you assuming - and trying to persuade the membership here - that what happened in Paris two evenings ago has nothing to do with and is wholly unaffected by any kind of politics? And do you think that the competence and efficiency of those security services for which many Western nations' citizens pay through their taxes must go unchallenged irrespective of circumstance? By asking that second question, I stress that I am not seeking to lay blame at the doors of the French security services or its police for incompetence but to clarify that they should not be regarded as flawless or their conduct as inviolable and beyond all possible criticism.

The events in Paris are tragic enough without us airing our own little canards and getting on our soapboxes.

So would you seek to advocate that this tragedy - which we all agree is just that - is of such magnitude and of such a nature that everyone other than senior politicians, security services personnel and police officers, both in France and elsewhere should keep their mouths firmly shut at all times and decline to express any views about either the atrocities themselves or how they were enabled and handled by the authorities and responded to by the public at large? If so, you would presumably expect a nanny-state type response from all and sundry which would be possible only if the general public view had first been neutered to the point that France would even have been perceived as representing no threat at all.

Your response is, I fear, as deeply ill-considered as it is unrealistic.

At least canard is French, but ducking the issues as you would appear to prefer would be bad news from whatever sources it might emerge.

What would you have done/said in response to it and how would you expect the French government, security services, police and public - and those of neighbouring nations - to respond?

[Serial_Apologist]

At least canard is French, but ducking the issues as you would appear to prefer would be bad news from whatever sources it might emerge.

Indeed, "Cherchez l'elephant dans la salle" would come to mind as one possible response!

Well spoken, ahinton.

[Lat-Literal]

The world is complex and there are not always easy answers. There is a need for a separation of dialogues. Jaunty or cocky bandwagon terrorists have no message to convey beyond age old lack of development. Their parallel "oppos" are 24 hour new media whose so-called freedom of expression should be questioned on the grounds of needed balance in all senses of that word. I think there could be atrocities committed based on deep thinking and rationality. They would be distinct from movements of mass hysteria. Obviously they would be extremely inappropriate in whatever circumstances. And then there is a quieter set of people who may say things and just keep banging their heads on brick walls.

No. This sort of thing is for western nations to debate with less prejudice and a hell of a lot more cultural learning. It should spin not from punk rock with guns but the excellent advice of - he is actually a Conservative - the ex Chair of the Defence Select Committee. Unfortunately, being in character and knowledge head and shoulders above any of his colleagues he is too challenging generally to be heard nationally, let alone internationally. I would imagine many in western politics find his breadth and vision too strong to handle. That in itself says huge amounts. The great Ismael Lo links on the WM board demonstrate the natural militarism in permanent poverty and the overpowering impact of shared song.

Replicated:

Ismael Lo - Tajabone -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhIFtUxHVUM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i83zdkQ7fkQ

I don't have the direct translation but it essentially means "the joy of living"!

Thanks!

I have edited it - Didn't realise he had been "demoted" to PUSS for the Environment. How totally predictable!

http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/

Ismael Lo - L'Amour a Tous Les Droits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bwRCOljgU

[Nick Armstrong]

There are not the words.

No, indeed there are not

.

OK, so are you assuming - and trying to persuade the membership here - that what happened in Paris two evenings ago has nothing to do with and is wholly unaffected by any kind of politics? And do you think that the competence and efficiency of those security services for which many Western nations' citizens pay through their taxes must go unchallenged irrespective of circumstance? By asking that second question, I stress that I am not seeking to lay blame at the doors of the French security services or its police for incompetence but to clarify that they should not be regarded as flawless or their conduct as inviolable and beyond all possible criticism.


So would you seek to advocate that this tragedy - which we all agree is just that - is of such magnitude and of such a nature that everyone other than senior politicians, security services personnel and police officers, both in France and elsewhere should keep their mouths firmly shut at all times and decline to express any views about either the atrocities themselves or how they were enabled and handled by the authorities and responded to by the public at large? If so, you would presumably expect a nanny-state type response from all and sundry which would be possible only if the general public view had first been neutered to the point that France would even have been perceived as representing no threat at all.

Your response is, I fear, as deeply ill-considered as it is unrealistic.

At least canard is French, but ducking the issues as you would appear to prefer would be bad news from whatever sources it might emerge.

What would you have done/said in response to it and how would you expect the French government, security services, police and public - and those of neighbouring nations - to respond?

...

[Flosshilde]

Western European governments are deeply complicit in the development of the violent chaos in the middle east.

Well, yes and no. I think we have to look at Saudi Arabia as the birthplace & incubator of the ideas behind Islamic State and the conflict between Shia & Sunni Moslems (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-9602312.html). This is the state that the UK government is desperate to sell arms to.

[ahinton]

Well, yes and no. I think we have to look at Saudi Arabia as the birthplace & incubator of the ideas behind Islamic State and the conflict between Shia & Sunni Moslems (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-9602312.html). This is the state that the UK government is desperate to sell arms to.

Indeed (although it's not the only one); would you not therefore accept that, if Saudi is indeed, as you assert, "the birthplace & incubator of the ideas behind Islamic State and the conflict between Shia & Sunni Moslems[sic]" and the British and other "Western" governments have helped to sponsor it and sell arms to it tht it follows that the British and other governments are in part responsible for creating the climate in which what has happened two nights ago in Paris has become possible and indeed even likely?

From what I have heard today from a number of sources, there are people whose level of fear has increased because of the events in Paris but, in so saying, I'm not just referring to those in Western European countries but also people in Myanmar, Mongolia, Japan, Australia, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, none of which (apart, perhaps, from the first-named which has its own particular problems with its Muslim community) is in any obvious sense directly connected with or involved in the assumed sources of the problems that have recently beset Paris...

[Flosshilde]

Indeed (although it's not the only one); would you not therefore accept that, if Saudi is indeed, as you assert, "the birthplace & incubator of the ideas behind Islamic State and the conflict between Shia & Sunni Moslems[sic]" and the British and other "Western" governments have helped to sponsor it and sell arms to it tht it follows that the British and other governments are in part responsible for creating the climate in which what has happened two nights ago in Paris has become possible and indeed even likely?

You could say that by selling arms to the Saudi government the British government has helped them suppress dissent (although there is a convention, I think, that arms sold to a regime shouldn't be used against its own citizens) & helped support a regime that gives support to IS, but I think that would be rather simplistic & draw attention from the Saudi state which has a huge responsibility for creating IS.
Where I think British governments (& to a lesser extent other western European governments) are totally culpable is in the partition of the Middle East, Africa & the Indian sub-continent (if that term is still used) over the past century. Lines drawn on a map have resulted in continuing conflict, & recent interventions have exacerbated them.

[ahinton]

You could say that by selling arms to the Saudi government the British government has helped them suppress dissent (although there is a convention, I think, that arms sold to a regime shouldn't be used against its own citizens) & helped support a regime that gives support to IS, but I think that would be rather simplistic & draw attention from the Saudi state which has a huge responsibility for creating IS.
Where I think British governments (& to a lesser extent other western European governments) are totally culpable is in the partition of the Middle East, Africa & the Indian sub-continent (if that term is still used) over the past century. Lines drawn on a map have resulted in continuing conflict, & recent interventions have exacerbated them.

Well, if certain Western governments have provided support to Saudi (or indeed any other Middle Eastern country) in the form of weaponry, what other outcome could therre possibly be but the risk of exacerbated conflict?

That said, terrorist activities committed under the name of IS in any of those Western countries seem to be far more like simple and despicable hate crimes rather than religious warfare per se.

[ardcarp]

Start the Week on Radio 4 was a special 'France edition' recorded hours before the terrorist attack.

Andrew Marr was in Paris on Friday to record a special edition of Start the Week about France. Hours later the Paris attacks happened. This programme is not about these attacks or Islamic State or the French

That's the blurb, but it most emphatically is about 'the French' ! It is a weirdly relevant programme, touching on the French concept of Nationhood, recent French history, ideas of race and much besides. I was bowled over by it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06p7b7l

It's repeated tonight - - Monday - at 9,30

[jean]

There's a lot of it about at the moment - presumably because of the BBC's forthcoming serialisation of Zola. Here's more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06knmy9

[Anastasius]

Well, yes and no. I think we have to look at Saudi Arabia as the birthplace & incubator of the ideas behind Islamic State and the conflict between Shia & Sunni Moslems (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-9602312.html). This is the state that the UK government is desperate to sell arms to.

It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if we stopped selling arms tomorrow. There are enough out there to fuel this.

And it's all very well carping on about 'Nah, nah, nee nah, nah..if Britain hadn't done this, if Britain hadn't done that'. Great to make these sweeping generalisations from the comfort of your armchair but without actually suggesting anyway forward.

What I am still waiting for is for someone to convince me that the muslims are sincere when they say 'We condemn this blah blah blah'. Remember the furore when those Danish cartoons hit the street? Remember the marches? The demonstrations? Right then, mr muslim, if you really believe what you are saying then prove it'. Until then you remain, in my eyes, guilty by association.

[french frank]

I take it that this thread expressing our sympathy for the people of France is now exhausted.

[ahinton]

It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if we stopped selling arms tomorrow. There are enough out there to fuel this.

Whilst that is true insofar as it goes - i.e. in thge short run - the very fact that there are, as you rightly note, "enough (arms and armaments) out there to fuel this", is one reason why it is being fuelled - and why some coutries are more likely victims than others. If we did stop arms dealing tomorrow (yesterday would be better), this would reduce the risk over time.

And it's all very well carping on about 'Nah, nah, nee nah, nah..if Britain hadn't done this, if Britain hadn't done that'. Great to make these sweeping generalisations from the comfort of your armchair but without actually suggesting anyway forward.

Those are not sweeping or indeed any other kinds of generalisation. Britain and others, had they not done what they've done, would likely be considerably less vulnerable to acts of terrorism - I don't of course say exonerated from the risk but well less susceptible to it.

You want suggestions of a way forward? Stop selling arms and armements, for one! No such action would resolve problems tommorrow or next month or next years because until the memory of them is sufficiently dulled there will remain an incentive for terrorism. Britain does have blood on its hands, although it's not alone in that. This is not to imply the slightest excuse for 9/11, 7/7, Beslan, Mumbai, Madrid, the shooting down or bombing of two loaded planes within the past year, this year's two events in Paris or indeed any other act of terrorism for which there can be no possible justification (and, after all, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth arose in times long before eye surgeons and orthdontists).

What I am still waiting for is for someone to convince me that the muslims are sincere when they say 'We condemn this blah blah blah'. Remember the furore when those Danish cartoons hit the street? Remember the marches? The demonstrations? Right then, mr muslim, if you really believe what you are saying then prove it'. Until then you remain, in my eyes, guilty by association.

There can be no comparison between the two, of which one concerns tacky cartoons that upset people with less sense of humour than others have and the other is outright attack on persons and property with no regard for the amount of death and destruction caused, often at the hands of those who've had their minds bent into a belief that their actions are in the name of some god and, as such, are more than willing to take their own lives along with those of others.

Many Muslims - the majority, in all likelihood, including Imams - do indeed condemn the kind of attack that occurred in Paris and, after all, there's a higher proportion of Muslims in the French population than in any other Western European nation - but let's remember that these events are hate crimes on a massive scale, not examples of "religious warfare". We've most of us probably encountered the expression "if your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself"; whilst these killers are indeed willing to take their own lives, one might argue that it's a pity that their timing in so doing does not take due account of such a sentiment...