UKH

I’m sure that once the headlines have moved on you’ll replace Le Tricolor with a Yemeni, Afghan, Iraqi, Kurdish or Libyan flag. In those countries thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered in very similar circumstances in the last ten years and more. They were out shopping, having a cup of tea, attending a wedding or generally just minding their own business when they were blown to pieces, often by weapons & militias directly or indirectly supplied & equipped by the UK, France and the US in what George Bush once described in a biblical fashion as "the war that can never end".

Of course you won’t do that because those poor sods in South Sudan, Eritrea, Syria and the Palestinian territories are poverty stricken brown people who, we are led to believe, are our enemies.

Changing your profile picture to a French flag shows a high degree of ignorance, prejudice and sheer gullibility.

Discuss.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I've noticed a few posts like that on Facebook complaining about the proliferation of tricolors.

I generally ignore them as I tend to do with all whiny, moralising posts attempting to judge others on the basis of no knowledge whatsover, except for a steadfast belief in their own higher principles.

It's social media, not a UN declaration.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I haven't. I'm sad for the world, for all those people.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Am sure yours facts are totally correct and wont question them at all. Alot of people who use social media are have to the conclusion basically.........Stupid. No other word for it.

Ive put a thread up called 'Paris,,,, its kicked off' in the pub saying its an extremely difficult situation and part of it is our own doing. Also at what point do we trace back to the start point of all this? 15,20, 40 or 50 years??

We have had our hands in the Middle East for a long time and at times got burnt. Is it right to impose Western values in that region?

Very very difficult situation.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Hi Martin

Generally people are not changing their profile picture because they believe that the events you describe in other parts of the World are any less awful .

Nor are they doing it because they approve of the West selling or giving arms to regimes and factions bent on murder and mayhem

They are doing it because the French live in a secular democracy where freedom of expression and liberty are core values and because they understand that the people who attacked Paris despise these ideas.

Demonstrating our solidarity with the French people and our support for those values is therefore a progressive thing to do.

It is a long long way from being 'ignorant, prejudiced or gullible' - although the rather feeble cultural relativism you have adopted to make your point does strike me as being, if not gullible, at least a little naive.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I haven't done the tricolor thingy but understand why people have. All those other tragedies are exactly that, but the difference with Paris is the proximity more than anything - it's right THERE. I know people from Paris, my Mum lived in Paris, I've been to Paris many times and probably will again. Paris is familiar to us as a Western European city and reminds many of us of where we and our loved ones live, so it's naturally going to be more affecting, isn't it?

I think it's right to remind people of the other attacks going on around the world, but I can't criticise people for showing solidarity with others who have gone through hell.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I didn't change my photo because I feel uncomfortable about the double standard but.... Your last two paragraphs are offensive to lots of nice people that don't think brown people are the enemy and are neither ignorant, prejudice or gullible.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Did you put 'discuss' on the end of your post so that you could claim to be playing devils advocate?

In reply to thewho:

>Alot of people who use social media are have to the conclusion basically.........Stupid. No other word for it.

You know that this is social media too?

I find the overall knee-jerk reactions as gobsmacking as they were in January when Charlie Hebdo was besieged. It's incredible how superficial people are and how they can't be bothered to try and move beyond their initial impulse reactions and think about the bigger picture. What's the point of changing your profile picture if, like most of my contacts who did, you never bothered to explore why has France been targeted and you won't either when things have gone sort of back to normal in two weeks? How many of these people will read analyses on the French involvement in the Middle East and Africa? How many will question the fact that we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia or Qatar while singling out Iran, which is probably the staunchest opponent to Daesh (and which we've screwed over in the past by removing their democratically-elected, left-leaning president)? How many of them will now think "so maybe that's why so many refugees are coming to Europe?" rather than "it's because of those damn refugees"? How many of them remember that Sarkozy invited Bashar al Assad for the 14th of July celebrations in 2008 (or that Gaddafi pitched his tent in the Elysée courtyard)?

Like virtually everything Facebook, it is (most of the time) just a way of showing off and pretending that you're an activist, that you have well-founded ideas... even though you've never cared about (geo)politics and openly admit you don't when the situation is normal.

Sure, it's nice to see that other countries are showing signs of solidarity with us, but it would've been even better if they (and us) had done the same when a university was attacked in Kenya in April, or when a 100 people died in Ankara just last month. Who needs more support, us French or the Lebanese who've experienced troubled times for the past 30 years?

"I think it's right to remind people of the other attacks going on around the world, but I can't criticise people for showing solidarity with others who have gone through hell."

Yes, you can, solidarity shouldn't come in limited quantities. If you're intent on overtly showing your rejection of terrorism, then you should empathise with everyone, not just when it's the city of love (and urine and petrol smells) that's been attacked.

(This is all very jumbled but let's say it suits the complexity of the situation...)

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Having thought about it a bit...

I think you're reading too much into a FB post. Many people see social media as like having a chat with all your friends at once. If you were chatting to your friends you might express sympathy with the people of Paris, the flag is just the online equivalent. Neither is meant to be exclusive of other suffering groups or a denial of the complexity of the issue. If a mate verbally expressed sympathy with the victims would you also censure them as ignorant, prejudiced and gullible?

Exactly. I've just had a look, prompted by Martin 's post. One friend who has done this lived in Paris and used to go to the Bataclan. I wouldn't describe that person as prejudiced, or particularly naive or gullible in this sense. They wouldn't be where I'd go for commentary on world events, but that goes for most fb friends including Martin.

In reply to Adrien:


Of course it can. It is entirely natural to be more concerned about people closer to you, as the French are in all senses, than those who are further. Culturally, historically, socially and politically France is much more similar to the UK than Kenya or Yemen. Also this is an attack on democracy, and freedom generally as much as simply killing people so it is natural to be more concerned about it than attacks which aren't.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I just hadn't seen the option to change my profile photo before. I saw the gay rights ones, but never saw anything before that, so just judge it new tech/fashion? Your question is a bit like asking why someone didn't drive to work before the car was invented. You failed to have a rant about many of the public buildings in UK going red, white and blue, when they didn't change colour for the other attacks you mention.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

It's pretty low anyway, people trying to express sympathy for a terrible event, then some holier than thou idiot telling them to feel guilty for not expressing more sympathy! First world problems and all that...

In reply to DaveHK:



About as much as he understands grammar usage and spelling I should imagine.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Agreed. There was a brilliant interview some French professor on Broadcasting House yesterday about the tactics of ISIS and what possible positive outcomes for this would be for them. He stated two outcomes that would favour ISIS

1. Islamaphobia and increased patriotism with the division of people into us and them. This would help IS to recruit more people.
2. Knee jerk reactions based on emotions. Again, playing into the hands of IS and those who quite frankly don't feel much egality in France and the like.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Aren't we all Hamas, now?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

It appears you are a cold emotionless unthinking person with not an ounce of empathy within you. You come across as a person of dubious morals with a false sense of superiority a limited understanding of how your friends are feeling right now, and a level of intolerance that verges on bigotry. You don't sound like a nice person to know.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Bit harsh that last sentence but I see where you're coming from...

Most people who have changed their pic will be ignorant of the bigger picture and of the irony at play....that by showing solidarity and picking a side they are doing exactly what ISIS want them to do.

Most people will not be prejudiced...but again are missing the fact that by changing thier pic they can and will be perceived as prejudiced.

Most people are gullible on fb...cos they don't think with their brain when on-line...they think with their persona. It's very gullible to change your pic just cos someone else did, without properly understanding the deeper cultural divisions it causes.

Way back in the aftermath of 9/11 someone said that the best response would be to do nothing. They were right. All the warring, bombing and killing the west has done over there has simply created a generation of martyrs and expedited our current situation.

It's time to ground the warplanes, take stock, and just for a second, see the world through different eyes. That's not going to happen though and therefore these atrocities will repeat ad infinitum until someone in the west uses their brains to think with rather than their political agendas.

In my view (a strong one), we're (The West) as equally to blame as ISIS for the horrors we witnessed this weekend.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


In my view (a strong one) there is a group of religious nutters that have somehow managed to grab some territory, have brought back slavery, have committed genocide, have annihilated equal rights amongst men and women, amongst different religions, don't abide by the Geneva convention on treatment of prisoners of war, let alone aid workers and journalists. These people have now started training groups to go overseas, kill as many innocents as they can, then kill themselves. And they are the only ones to blame for the attack at the weekend.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I understand why you feel that way. ISIS are evil...not disputing that. But by reacting to them in the way we do we're only widening divisions, pedalling fear, feeding ignorance and fulfilling the role of Chief Recruitment Officer for ISIS.

Who was it that said 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results'?

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:



Well yes of course they are picking a side! The side that is against all the horrors of ISIS. You have a problem with that?

In reply to Orgsm:


Sadly, you couldn't further from the truth. My Husky (and his dog) is a genuine bloke and all round good-guy. I find it disappointing that you judge his character based on the fact that he questions the action of people who do something because they think it is the right thing to do. Presumably, you feel Corbyn is also of questionable character because he didn't bow enough or questioned the concept of kneeling before the queen.

Right now, the world needs folks like Husky to question the status quo because if there is one thing that is a fact, it is that we must be p1ssing some people right off right now. Standing united is all good an well but I don't see white middle class Parisan's standing arm in arm with Iraqis and Syrian's who also find these attacks abhorrent.

Égalité? Yes, but only if you are one of us and not one of them. We need to take a good long look at ourselves and our discriminating unequal society.

In reply to Orgsm:

I have to say although I'm not totally with Frank on this one I am uneasy changing my background to show support of the french. The way the west has treated the Arab world over the last century or so is clearly prejudiced in favor of own greed and creed and not theirs. I do worry how extreme the french response to all this is going to be and how many more innocent people will die.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Spare a thought for those people whose FB profile photo was already the French tricolour. How are they supposed to express their solidarity?

Discuss.

In reply to DaveHK:
Yes of course it is but am crediting UKC users has having more intelligence than the same number of FB users.

The discussions on here do cover a wide variety of subjects and angles but dare I say it, common sense.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

interesting vid
https://www.facebook.com/cloakedtruth/videos/501139246726445/

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I wasn't going to alter my FB profile until I read your post, I've changed it now to the French Tricolour.

In reply to MG:
Nope...I don't have a problem with it per say. It's just that in this case I don't think picking a side is appropriate or helpful. Especially as its exactly what ISIS want us to do.

I suppose I can see the reasoning behind wanting to pick a side but I wish people were capable of seeing past the immediacy and into the reality of what's at play here.

I also think that sticking a tricolore on your fb profile somewhat belittles the issues at hand. I mean is f*cking Facebook for f*cks sake. Open your eyes people!!

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


I really don't understand what you are on about? We need to create the widest gap possible between the world and people that think it is acceptable to randomly kill people. We're pedaling fear? Don't see that, rather the opposite, in fact. Feeding ignorance? What recruitment poster are you creating? "Join us, you can kill lots of people then blow yourself up?"

In reply to Willi Crater:

Put that post up very late last night, so sorry for any grammar issues.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Really? How do you know this? Isn't it just as likely that the Taliban would have taken it as a signal that they could step up their terrorist campaign either devoid of consequences ?

Are you not missing the possibility that the jihadists have both a deep seated hatred of non islamic values (or actually even other islamic values) , believe that they have to be attacked at every opportunity, and aim to provoke the "infidel" endlessly until the infidel invades their land (again).

In reply to jonnie3430:


There's an argument that says ISIS are using exactly the same sentiment.

The West have implemented a campaign over there that has been (and will continue to be) perceived as randomly killing people.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Really? You don't think choosing sides between the manic murderers set on world domination and the rest of the world is appropriate?


You reckon. Their plan is to get us to hate them? What's the next stage? Start a world charity to show what a mistake we made? You don't think it is about killing or controlling everybody who doesn't believe their religion? Hmm.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Well I'd say its entirely appropriate to take sides here. In fact I find it difficult to think of situation where being on the opposing side could be more appropriate than with ISIS. What they want is irrelevant.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


I give up. You're a loony.

In reply to ByEek:


You do get the irony in Frank the Husky's character being judged by his post - when his post consists of judging others by what they post?
Particularly when he goes to some length to justify the position, whilst those he judges have simply put up a picture.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Judge not, lest somebody judges you.

To be honest, I didn't change mine because I figured that probably nobody in France would think to search for me as an English person they've never heard of or met, and that all deaths are tragedies too, the counter attacks in Syria didn't strike me as good when I heard of them on the news.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Good question! I don't know to be fair. But it couldn't have turned out much worse that this could it?


Exactly....so how about trying to stop attacking, stop giving them things to hate and refuse to be cajoled into bombing fk of of somewhere....then they'll have nowt to put on their posters will they?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What terrorist campaign would that be?

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Well that means converting our society to something like ISIS have in Iraq/Syria. No, I think I'll not take you up on that. But thanks for the idea.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I know there is an element of peer group pressure and herd mentality about it but i know that some of the people affected derive some comfort from feeling supported by others so it *feels* a worthwhile thing to do without overthinking it.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I don't think I'm a loony but you're entitled to your opinion.

I'm afraid that if people can't understand the 'perception issue' then in my opinion they have limited grasp of reality.

In reply to off-duty:

But I think that is the point of this discussion. Have those who put up a picture put it up because they have thought about what it means with regards to the wider implications, or, as I suspect, because everyone else on Facebook is doing it and in order to be accepted as one of the crowd, simply follow without question?

He raises a fair question. Why are so many Tricolours flying now when terrorists attacks elsewhere are so common?

"Other major locations of suicide attack are Afghanistan (1059 attacks as of mid-2015)[7] and Pakistan (490 attacks).[7] In the first eight months of 2008, Pakistan overtook Iraq and Afghanistan in suicide bombings, with 28 bombings killing 471 people..... "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack

Just exactly what are we standing up for? Ourselves? The French? Humanity? Peaceful people of the world? Or something more patriotic / tribal? Or are we just doing what we feel we have to do in order not to stand out or put our heads above the parapet?

In reply to Frank the Husky:



I think your proposal that people who show support for the French victims but haven't for "poverty stricken brown people" who have suffered similar fates simply shows that you're either to stupid to have considered the relative closeness of our relationships with other nations or cultures and how that might effect our sympathies or you're just trying to stir up trouble for the sake of it by waving around the racist label for anyone who doesn't support your view point. I see your reaction as no less Knee-jerk that the "kill them all" rants you see on Facebook.

It is not that we view the lives of "brown people" or Muslims or the worlds poor as worth any less than our own. It's that we have a much closer relationship with people from secular Weston European counties than we do with the above and so we can relate to them more, we have a greater connection with them and so resonates with us all the more.

The fact is, on a national or global population scale, the objective value of individual human lives is tiny. 10,000's of people die every single day across the world from, war, famine, curable illnesses, violence etc. If you wanted to show support for everyone who meets a tragic death in this world then you'd be in a constant state of sorrow.

Allow me to scale it down a bit for you to a scale you might be able to understand. If you read in the news that someone got hit by a car a and killed in the UK, you might think "oh that's a shame" and skip to the next head line. If that person was from the same small town as you then you might bother to the read the story. If that person lived on the same street as you, then you might even mention it at the pub to your friends later that evening. If it was someone you used to know, it might put a slight downer on your morning. If it was a friend, you'd be pretty upset, if it was a close friend you'd be very upset, if it was your spouse you'd be devastated.

But an equally nice and normal people reading the same story in a different town or city would just skip over the headline (if it even made a headline outside of local news) and carry on with his day.

Back to the international level, France could be described as our close friend. If the same had happened here, the sympathy we'd have for the victims would be greater than it is now. It's not that we value French lives as lesser than our own.

In reply to MG:


I don't want to be offensive MG but that's the most stupid thing I've seen posted on here for a while.

There's endless possibilities inbetween what we're doing now and becoming ISIS.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

Are you insane?

ISIS obviously want us to be seen to take sides against Muslims, to increase radicalisation and the feeling of 'us and them' - and doing so is clearly bad, for this reason and because a great many Muslims really are decent and peace-loving (and, for that matter, French).

But when 'us' is people who are horrified by murder, and love freedom, and 'them' is people who wish to slaughter and destroy us (in the name of Islam, or for any other reason), I know what side I'm on, every time.

Flying the Tricolore doesn't have to mean you unconditionally support everything France does and has done, it can be a simple show of solidarity with the people of France.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:



Of course there are but your suggestion was to "...stop giving them things to hate." which implies just that. And if you don't think it does, I don't think you have grasped what they are about.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


No, we're all Palestinians.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


So you think that unconditional surrender to ISIS and to other Islamic extremists is a sensible strategy? That our response should be "submission"? (Dhimmitude in fact). That they will stop murdering us in the streets and putting bombs on aircraft if we timid in the extreme, abandon freedom of speech and thought, and do everything possible to avoid offending them and their medieval death cult? Not that the more we display weakness and fail to defend our polity, the stronger they will be and the more extreme their demands will get as they smell blood and our fear?

"This piece of paper means peace in our time".

Appeasement was for most of the 1930s a very popular policy, it was only when it was seen to have totally and catastrophically failed that it was generally rejected and that total resistance was seen to be the only realistic option for survival. Similarly collaboration was widespread and normal across occupied Europe. Under the pretence of wisdom and restraint, you seem to be advocating the same, failed, policy of Chamberlain.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I was curious... if I don't change my profile picture while others do, does that mean that I don't care what's happening in the world? I am sure some people changed the picture just because their friends did.

In reply to ByEek:


Because it's France. They're our neighbours, our allies, our friends; they're people very much like us.

Suicide attacks elsewhere are awful, too, but it's both natural and right to care more about those closer to us - they have more effect on us, and we're more able to do something about them.


In most cases, all or most of the above, I think. That's fine, isn't it?

In reply to Postmanpat:



I could have misinterpreted the articles and informed opinions I have read, but isn't the ultimate end game for IS - according to their perverted interpretation of Islam - nothing less than armaggedon.

They're not fighting for any 'brave new Islamic world', they just want to watch the world burn.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane: What about the morality of arming the various groups persecuted by ISIS, such as the Kurds ethnically, or Shia and Yadizi religiously?

In reply to jonnie3430:

You're completely missing the big picture. As long as the Western world doesn't acknowledge that it's at least partly responsible for the situation, we can expect more atrocities like the ones we've seen on Thursday and Friday.

Consider this: Daesh has its headquarters in Iraq and Syria, two countries whose administration has been dislocated or shattered. In one case at least (Iraq) it is because of decades of meddling with their affairs: first we supported Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 80's, then we bombed him, bombed him again in 2003 and fueled the tensions between Sunnia and Shia, turned the country into a big mess, just like Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda was/is. By dismantling what little held those states together and failing to re-establish a viable administration, we've left a vacuum that was filled by none other than extremist organizations like Daesh. And this is just one way in which we meddle with local affairs. So how are we (by we I mean our governments) not to blame? Admitting it doesn't mean agreeing with the terrorists, I think that goes without saying.


" Of course it can. It is entirely natural to be more concerned about people closer to you, as the French are in all senses, than those who are further. Culturally, historically, socially and politically France is much more similar to the UK than Kenya or Yemen. Also this is an attack on democracy, and freedom generally as much as simply killing people so it is natural to be more concerned about it than attacks which aren't. "

I'm completely sure there wouldn't be as much support if it were, say, Portugal or Poland that had been hit by terrorists, despite the fact that we share a lot culturally, historically, socially and politically. Also, if by democracy you mean a country where the people have the power through voting, then Kenya, Lebanon and Turkey are all democracies. (You could argue that ours are more meaningful but to give a recent example, the French government held a consultation on wolves a few months ago to see how the population felt about them. Something like 90% of all responses were in favour of wolves. A few weeks later the government decided to increase the number of wolves to be shot). Anyway in this case I don't really see the killings as an attack on democracy. Daesh know very well that they can't topple the French government, what they want is a backlash against Muslims which will legitimize their discourse, so that they can get new recruits.

About the flag, it's a bit like when the US sort of decriminalized same-sex marriage and everyone put a rainbow flag on their profile picture. Why did nobody do the same when France, Spain or New Zealand made same-sex marriage legal?

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


You don't seem to grasp what they are about. To coin a phrase borrowed by Bin Laden"You are either for us against us" which means that simply trying to ignore then means we are "against them".
I am not suggesting that we should therefore reaction to their deliberate provocations by stepping up force. My point is that that neither is not using force going to make them magically disappear.

In reply to KevinD:


The one that Al Quaeda lauunched from within the Taliban State.

In reply to ByEek:

Well a reasonable point "might" be to ask why a specific person has put a flag up.

A generalised whine about herd mentality, lack of understanding of the geo-politics of terror, lack of empathy with other victims etc, is insulting, patronising, judgemental and self righteous.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Tough one. I personally don't stand behind anything involving arming anyone. It's arming people that has got us here in the first place

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


So best to let ISIS exterminate the Kurds ?

In reply to Adrien:


I think there's many instances where we could question why these things go viral on Facebook... but at the end of the day it's best to just remember that it is a US owned social media channel with commercial concerns.

In reply to Postmanpat:



You're probably right.

I believe that as this stage it really doesn't matter what we (the west) think. Equally it doesn't matter what the hard-core of ISIS thinks. All the media reports, forum posts, hyperbole...it's all unimportant.

What is profoundly important is what a potential ISIS recruitee thinks. If we can put all our rhetoric, hysteria, us vs them bullshit on one side and really, properly, intelligently see the world through their eyes...we have a chance of finding a lasting resolution.

Until we stop sticking a pigs head on a stick we're doomed to sufferer years and years of attacks and counter attacks.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Are you being deliberately obstuse?

I suggest we explore alternative means. Have you not worked it out yet?...fighting fire with fire has never and will never solve anything.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So not the Taliban then.
There are various leaked documents showing the Taliban were willing to work with the USA with regards to Al Qaeeda prior to 911. The one thing they werent willing to do is hand him over to the USA for trial there but would have gone for a third party country.
The yanks refused to negotiate and so it all ended in tears.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:



On occasion it clearly has. Anyway, assuming you have backed away from complete capitulation and adoption of ISIS rules, what exactly are you suggesting happens?

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

'I suggest we explore alternative means. Have you not worked it out yet?...fighting fire with fire has never and will never solve anything.'
^
It sorted Hitler out.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:



My point is that you don't think such people (the Kurds) should be armed. If they were not armed they would already have been wiped out whilst we were all busy "exploring alternative means". What do you think the "alternative" is going to be? All the key players sit down and agree to call up ISIS and tell them to stop?

In reply to Gael Force:
Hitler did not wage a guerilla war, which is pretty much what Daesh is doing, at least in some places. You can't stem guerilla warfare by using conventional means, look at the Vietnam war.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Just had a chat with my British colleage who lives in Nigeria and he tells me that Nigerians are generally quite scathing about the massive outpouring of sympathy for the victims of the Paris events because massacres are happening almost every day in Nigeria thanks to Boko Haram and the "northern" media are not interested at all.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


I think we are morally obliged to help them. I think the pacifist movement in the 30s had the same problem, yes they could rightly argue that previous wars had led to the situation in Europe, but inaction was no longer a realistic option.

In reply to KevinD:



Are you arguing that the Taliban did and does not pursue and support campaigns of terror? I'm happy to to acknowledge my initial usage was imprecise if that is all you are trying to prove.

And ISIS aren't the taliban or Al Queada, which really tells us what we need to know: that even if one element of radical Islam can be neutralised by force or negotiation, the problem is not solved.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Is it safe to assume you have the same issue with Google having a black ribbon on the home page?

In reply to MG:

Wow...deary me...so if I don't subscribe to bombing and warring then I'm capitulating to ISIS. Ok. Your worlds seems very black and white.

I'm not suggesting we capitulate....I'm suggesting we stop using blunt objects to counter blunt objects.

Show me 100 ISIS recruitees and I'll probably be able to show you 95 scared youngsters who wish they were back home, regret massively what they have done and are simply too scared and terrorised to know where to turn. I suggest we leverage that.


(Realise I'm gonna be called a bleeding heart liberal for that last paragraph...so bring it on!)

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I agree that we are obliged to help but suggest that arming them isn't helpful. I also agree that inaction isn't an option...but neither is 'Do more killing with our guns'

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Well look on the bright side Frank - all this death and mayhem gives all kinds of opportunities for disaffected Western intellectuals to be sanctimonious about others whose reaction they deem to be less 'correct' than their own and to award themselves brownie points for being more 'aware' and 'socially conscious' than the common herd.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Not at all, but you need to grasp that "..not giving them things to hate..." corresponds to capitulation. Not following the right strand of Islam, not praying fives times a day, wearing the wrong clothes etc, etc. All are things ISIS hate sufficiently to murder people over



By doing what? Asking them to spy - I would imagine some of that goes on already. Bringing them "home"? Utterly bonkers I would say.

In reply to Postmanpat:


ermmm yes. I know that. All I was commenting on was your apparent inability to understand the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeeda. Different groups with very different aims and beliefs in how to achieve those objectives.


It also tells us that some can be negotiated and worked with and some cant.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:
>
In France there are an estimated 5 million moslems of whom about 2 million describe themselves as "observant". Let us say that 5% of them are sympathetic to radicalism (actually 1 in 4 French 18-24 year olds describe themselves as that).

Anyway, that would be 100,000 potential terrorists. So the authorities have to narrow that down the much smaller number who might translate their sympathies to action (1,000? 5,000? 10,000?) and then have a deradicalisation process that is confident it can stop all of them taking action. Only takes less than a 100 to cause mayhem out of that 100,000.

How do we identify the 100,000 and narrow it down to the few thousand and then to 100?

In reply to KevinD:


Thanks, but I knew that.

In reply to MG:

No, it really doesn't



The hard core of ISIS are using religion as cover I agree. But it's not the hard core we need to win round.


Not asking them to spy, or even bringing them home, just giving them an out if they want one.

Probably not black and white enough for you so please...go ahead and call me mental, or bonkers or some other blunt label

In reply to Postmanpat:


then why confuse the two?

In reply to Postmanpat:



I don't think anybody is suggest it will (make them magically disappear)?

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

I suspect most "new" ISIS recruits that will be attacking us will be at home.

In reply to KevinD:


As I've acknowledged, I was imprecise. Carelessness and hurry and because it didn't change the thrust of the argument probably. I can't remember. But well done for spotting it.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


I'll take it that means you don't actually have any practical proposals.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Have a read about the Yazidis, for example, if you think what I said was wrong.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Are you not keen to understand why 1 in 4 describe themselves as that?

If we properly understood why then we could probably reduce that number significantly.

In reply to MG:

Ok MG...feel free to take it however you wish.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


That, by the way, is i in 4 of all 18-24 year French, not just moslems. What do you suggest personal interviews of all 5 million of them ?

I don't know about France but in the UK there are big efforts made to identify potential radicals and deradicalise them but it is naive to think that this is a solution to the problem. It's one element of lessening the problem.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Do you really not see the irony of you saying this after criticising people for 'picking a side' by displaying the Tricolore in sympathy with French people?

In reply to skog:

Nope...it's gone totally over my head....can you fill me in?

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

Really? OK.

There are not just two 'sides' or positions you can take; it isn't black and white as you suggest.

Sympathising with the victims of this atrocity, or siding against ISIS, do not mean you think everything being done to fight ISIS is right.

In reply to ByEek:


What are people doing? Clicking an "Internet Slacktivist" button.

The issue to me is not that people are clicking a slacktivist button, but that Facebook (an international firm, not French and not based out of a close neighbour to France) have decided that one particular atrocity in one particular nation should be met with a Slacktivist button, against all the other horrors being perpetrated by islamist terrorists.

The media are showing the same blindness, on the radio news they just suggested that France is at the top of the list because of its stance in Syria. That attitude betrays large ignorance of the scale and scope of ongoing attacks. I sadly doubt that France will stay at the end of the list for more than a few days to a few weeks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

In reply to off-duty:



This.

In reply to skog:




I appreciate I may be being dumb...but aren't you saying what I'm saying?

I commented that MG seems to think in a very black and white way. (If I don't agree with a violent response then I'm 'capitulating to ISIS)
I then asked if my opinion was too non black and white to comprehend.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

Why make stuff up? You know very well I never said that. I said clearly, twice, it was your suggestion of "not giving them things to hate" which I took issue with, along with the idea that taking sides was somehow wrong.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I also feel uncomfortable about changing my profile pic. I think it's partly because I know it won't change anything. As other's have said, bad things happen in the world all the time without acknowledgement from Facebook, yes I understand why people are doing it and I'm fine with that. Until now, ISIS have been 'over there' and now they're 'next door' so it's hit people in Europe hard.

To digress slightly, it's difficult to see an end to the situation with ISIS. Normally wars are resolved by the countries involved eventually sitting down together and agreeing a compromise. For starters, ISIS has no well defined territory and how do you compromise with people who believe 100% that their ideology is the only correct one, that they are supported fully by an omnipotent diety and that all who don't obey their rules must die (sounds a bit like the crusades?).

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Bully for you. I was the first person I know that put up a Tricolore on FB feed (I had a Je Suis Charlie as well) and many of my friends have done the same since. And of course many posts have since followed in similar vein to yours and Frank the Husky's (minus the 'discuss' cop-out) about 'Why no Lebanon flag, etc?'

Personally, I have very deep and long standing connections to France. I am Scottish but France is 'my' country. One of my closest friends lives in Paris, and she was already very affected by the Charlie Hebdo massacre. That's why I put a Tricolore on my FB page and I'm not f*cking apologising for it. The closer a hit is to home, the more we feel it.

I have been resisting having a counter rant at the complainers on my FB, many of whom are people I have a very high regard for. What I have a problem with are people who have never before appeared suffciently outraged to post anything about the horrendous daily news from the middle east (and elsewhere) but seem exercised enough to have a snide pop at people like me for waving a French flag. I think a rant about the lack of press coverage of the Lebanon bombing would be more appropriate for starters.

And don't get me started about the 'Pray for the world' crowd. That's just what the world needs, more religion and everyone bending over with their eyes closed waiting for something to magically happen.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


Not if you're still saying we shouldn't side against ISIS, or show support for the French.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

It's good to know, that should the global intellegence services, the politicians, the military and experts in middle eastern affairs fail to come up with a solution to IS, the collective wisdom and expertise of UKC is on hand to sort it all out, whilst at the same time maintaining the morally superior and intellectual high ground.

And all from the comfort of their keyboards and armchairs.

I must have a different group of friends on FB to the OP.

Many have changed to the tricolour, but it has also started a debate on other atrocities around the world, and various people sharing references to what is happening in Beirut, Nigeria and Iraq.

Most people have not been to the Middle East, do not understand the complexities or dynamics (why should they) so when it hits a secular capital city on their doorstep it is bound to trigger a response.

The activities of ISIS, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are being broadcast in much greater detail after Paris, that's a good thing. It is still possible to change your profile photo to red white and blue and still feel concern and empathy for brown people in other parts of the world.

If nothing else, it keeps the cat videos and "what I had for my dinner" photos off my newsfeed...

In reply to the thread:
This is surely far worse even that the slaughter in Paris:
*Very* disturbing and utterly appalling video of ISIS slaughtering children**.

https://t.co/6tekCx3jIj

[**At least they appear to be teenage boys; I can't read the language it's written in.]

In reply to Goucho:


I think that is rather disingenuous. The thing I take from this thread is that this horrendous event has hit people in a number of different ways. Some feel the need to show solidarity. Others question what that solidarity actually means in a wider context. Both or valid points. Either way, there is clearly a need for people to express themselves and why no do that on UKC? You don't have to read this thread if it isn't to your taste.

In reply to Removed User:


Surely what we do need is more flags to show how proud we are of our virtual borders where we happen to have been born by pure accident?

"I have been resisting having a counter rant at the complainers on my FB, many of whom are people I have a very high regard for. What I have a problem with are people who have never before appeared suffciently outraged to post anything about the horrendous daily news from the middle east (and elsewhere) but seem exercised enough to have a snide pop at people like me for waving a French flag. I think a rant about the lack of press coverage of the Lebanon bombing would be more appropriate for starters."

Don't you realize that those "people who have never before appeared suffciently outraged to post anything about the horrendous daily news from the middle east (and elsewhere)" are very often the same who put a French flag on their Facebook page? You're brandishing the act of painting your profile picture bleu blanc rouge as something noble and strong, but it's actually a very empty gesture if don't try and get educated about the situation (I'm not talking about you here as I don't know you, I'm being general).

It is not so much the changing of one's profile picture that is irritating as the fact that it is very rarely associated with an attempt to look at the big picture. It is just a lazy, convenient way to show you care when you're not willing to question your beliefs by reading analyses that go beyond the "we have to smite Daesh in Syria" statements.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


I think delusional would be the preferred term.

I'm sure how you arrive at some of the claims you've tried to make, that the ebil West is to blame for the problems in the Middle East or that 95% of mujahideen fighters just in it shits and giggles and would rather be at home in Luton.

But they don't stand up to the simplest scrutiny. The ME has problems rooted in 2,000 years of Arab culture, what the influence of George Bush or Messrs Sykes + Picot is on that is moot at best.

Similarly, the mujahideen have been active across different theatres for nearly 40 years, frequently repeatedly, so the idea that they prefer something else doesn't match the evidence.

Why you bury yourself in that sort of self-serving narrative, I would have thought, is driven by a guilt reflex because you lack positive notions of identity.

In reply to Adrien:


Trite. A country is more than just a bit of land within a border, and being part of it is more than just being born there. And there are plenty of people born elsewhere now proud to be French.

I'm proud to be a tiny part of modern European society, and I think, imperfect as it is, that the values embodied in it are just about as good as humanity has ever managed to be.

I'm not French, but I'm pretty sure I'd be proud of it if I was. The French have built a country which has become a better place to live than most of the world, at any point in history.

In reply to ByEek:


True, but let's be blunt here, people are expressing opinions based on nothing more than a few hours of reading articles on Google, and claiming some kind of intellectual insight on a subject which is far more complex than that.

In reply to Goucho:
I think a wide discussion of the claims made by our governments, militaries, and intelligence services is absolutely essential, and should not be dismissed as armchair politics.

In the end the opposition against the second Iraq war did not do any good, but at least people were right in this whole thing was always bound to end in a mess, and it remains important to question the official narrative and ask in whose interest was this war fought.

The same applies now. Of course I cannot offer a solution to the ISIS problem, but I recommend questioning what our governments offer, and to always ask cui bono.

In this spirit, here is my take on the situation. While not taking the ultimate responsibility away from the terrorists, the West overall is reaping what it sowed over the last century. Paying the ISI to fund loads to fundamentalist madrasas to indoctrinate anti Soviet mujahedin turned out to be not such a clever idea after all. Also, letting Israel get away with anything, especially the occupancy and blockade of the West Bank and Gaza strip, while making anybody else stick to UN resolutions, makes us party in this conflict.

I agree with people who argue that bombing ISIS is not the solution in the long term. Unfortunately in the short term I believe that bombing is required to weaken their infrastructure in the foreseeable future, and to safeguard communities like Kurds an Yesidi who are under a direct threat.

To achieve long term stability in the region I believe that the Sykes/Picot agreement must be rewritten. A separate state for the Kurds should be carved out of Northern Iraq and Syria, and that Turkey should be pressured to give the Kurds in the East significant autonomy. Furthermore, I am am afraid that the rest of Iraq and Syria should be split along Sunni/Shia lines. Even many regions of Syria were very diverse, the civil war has probably killed this idea for the next few generations.

Also, Israel must be put under financial and political pressure to finally come to an agreement with the Palestinians that leaves them a viable territory, not one carved up by walls and settlements (as my Israeli friends agree, btw.).

And the most obvious one: Why do we keep selling arms to Saudi Arabia and the other criminal Gulf states? Why do we tolerate Saudi financed schools and mosques with Saudi financed Imams in our countries, even if there is evidence that young men become indoctrinated and radicalized at these institutions? SA should be called out as the source of radical Sunni Islam, and as the main sponsors of AQ and ISIS terror. This is so blatantly obvious, that one again has to ask whose interests prevent our governments from pressuring SA.

CB

In reply to Adrien:


I have no idea what you mean by this. Why would one feel proud about something that had happened by accident? Unless you are being sarcastic, it is not always easy to spot on a forum.


No. I made a reactive and very personal gesture which I never thought was noble or would score me any points, end of. Certainly some of the complainers do have the same wider view and concerns as I, sans pudeur, have. Some of them I am not so sure, but all share a historical silence on social media about the world's troubles (though in some cases skateboarding dogs and ugly cats are popular).

Banging on about this while a bunch of people who used to have regular jobs and lives not dissimilar to ours are watching their kids die in the Med while sections of the western media portray them all as will-be terrorists and Daesh continue their quest to be the best thing since Atilla the Hun is dancing on the head of a pin.

In reply to skog:
I'm French and I'm not proud of it, nor am I ashamed of it. It makes no sense to be proud of something you haven't achieved and for which you can't be given credit. But anyway this was just a gibe; my point is that in this situation, flags generally merely serve to hide a lack of willingness to delve into the geopolitics of those attacks. Ultimately it's more the void the flags represent that bugs me rather than the flags themselves.

"The French have built a country which has become a better place to live than most of the world, at any point in history."

So it takes is a bloodshed to get the British to start loving us?


(Edit: sorry about all the typos)

In reply to Removed User:

Just a bit of sarcasm. I don't like flags, never seen the point and am always confused when I travel to the UK or the US and see so many of them (compared to France, although maybe this has changed since the Charlie Hebdo attacks?). I can't help but see a bit of unconscious nationalism behind them. That's probably not always the case, but I don't see the point.

In reply to ByEek:

and Frank couldn't be further from the truth in his statement. But then you knew that!

In reply to Adrien:


No worries, and I share your view of flags in general. I also have that view of anthems, but it's a frigid soul who doesn't well up when Les Marseillaises is sung at a rugby international

In reply to Adrien:


Which is fine (thanks to French values - I'm not sure 'citizens' of ISIS are allowed the same sort of leeway). But that doesn't mean that there's no reason for anyone else to be proud of it.


Have you honestly never done anything for the people around you, played no part, however small, in shaping what sort of country France is?

I can't see any point in being proud of having been -born- in France, sure, but I can see plenty of reasons to be proud of being French.

In reply to Goucho:


True to a point. But are you saying that people shouldn't share their knowledge? I have changed my attitudes throughout the course of this debate and also learned a few things. Is that not a good thing?

You seem to be criticising some for adopting a position of high morality from a different hill.

In reply to Orgsm:


Eh? Frank offered an opinion. One that I happen to kind of agree with. What has opinion got to do with facts and truth?

It is pretty clear to me from this thread that there are two stated positions. Those who choose to fly the Tricolour as a statement of solidarity and those who find it somehow absurd and slightly vulgar. Neither is right or wrong. There is no truth or fact that one is correct and the other wrong. What are you talking about exactly?

In reply to cb294:

So, in summary, because policies imposed by the West in the past century failed so we should impose some new ones?!
Why is this right now if it was wrong then and why might our policies be beter now?

In reply to Removed User:
I have absolutely no idea what comes next after the second verse. I don't know how it is in the UK but since 2011 it is compulsory to teach the Marseillaise to CM1 (9-year old) children, which I find silly. Again, why? It's not like it's shaped our country in any way. Plus having children sing about the blood of our ennemies filling up furrows... Frankly I'd rather have them listen to Debussy's Children's Corner.


In reply to Removed Userskog:


Have you honestly never done anything for the people around you, played no part, however small, in shaping what sort of country France is?

I can't see any point in being proud of having been -born- in France, sure, but I can see plenty of reasons to be proud of being French.


I have volunteered my time in different ways, but I haven't done it specifically because I'm French and with the intention of making my country better, in that I would've done the same elsewhere. I actually do sometimes; for instance everytime I climb in Bleau I pick up litter left by others (and there's a lot of it), but I did the same while hiking in the US two weeks ago. It has more to do with my profound love of nature.

I'm rather happy to be French because we have a welfare state that cares for those who need help, because it has a varied geography or because it is much safer than other places, but I could have all this in Norway. And there's a lot of things past and present that really annoy me about France (the hunting lobby, the reliance on nuclear energy, past wars...). I just happened to be born here, so why should I be proud of it? Maybe it's just a matter of rhetoric, mind you.

In reply to ByEek:

Because if an opinion isn't based on facts or truth then what is it based on? Made up stuff and lies. So Frank expressed an opinion based on no more substance than quicksand. The reasons people do things are many and it's not the black and white picture you and Frank seem to so naively imagine.

In reply to Adrien:

The way I see it, you've made a positive contribution to France, you've been a part of it, so you have every right to be proud of it, if you feel it's a good thing.

You certainly don't -have- to, but it does sound like you're at least a little fond of your country - we may not really be disagreeing!


Of course. Everything I've said about France could be said about Norway, and a few other countries.

I'll even admit to being proud to be British, in this context. And trust me, there's plenty I don't like about the UK!

In reply to Orgsm:

Fair enough. So if this whole sorry mess is simple truth or folly, just what should we do about it? I presume there is only one answer and that is the right one?

Frank's OP wasn't so much a statement as a question. Why are people flying the Tricolour after this attack, but didn't fly the national flag of countries that have been hit previously, like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan? Is that not a reasonable question to ask?

I note there wasn't a similar outpouring of European grief after the Madrid bombings.

In reply to ByEek:

Of course, provided you don't confuse opinions with facts.


Not at all. My knowledge of the whole IS subject is what I've read or heard on the media - I'm including academic papers posted on Google as media too - therefore I recognise that in reality, I know f*ck all about it, and I suspect this is also the case on here?

As this is a climbing website, I'll use a climbing analogy.

Someone could start a thread about whether Midsummer Nights Dream is really E6 or E5, and whether the 1st or 3rd pitch is actually the hardest?

Now in theory everyone is entitled to air their opinion, whether they are based on third hand conversations, articles in magazines, a search on Google or even looking at the grade voting on here

But the reality is, that only the opinions of those people who've actually climbed it/got experience of it, have any real credibility.

In reply to winhill:

Not sure you've properly read any of the posts on here...I've never said the west is evil or that we are entirely responsible for that current state of affairs. What I suppose I'm trying to say is that we ain't gonna get ourselves out of this mess by using the same thinking we used to get ourselves into it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What is your alternative? In a globalized world we are anyway intervening one way or the other, at least economically. Also, mass immigration of civil war refugees affects us directly, so we are involved whether we want to or not. Actually trying to fix some of the ills we (as the West) are responsible for would not go amiss, or would you argue that Sykes/Picot and Bush/Blair interventionisms was a great success? Clearly there are issues that run much deeper, like the Sunni/Shia or Arab/Persian conflicts, but our track record is not great. So, almost anything would be better.

Of course that does not mean that the West should invade and restore order (fighting ISIS in the short term excepted), but I would expect Europe and the US to have a clear strategy and vision.

Israel and the Palestinians definitely need their heads banged together, any moral judgements aside it is completely unacceptable to let the oppression of the Palestinians fester as a handy argument for any AQ/ISIS recruiter. It makes no sense for Europe to give the Israelis a free pass just because of the sensitivities of US internal politics.

Similarly for the Kurds. Again never mind the moral judgement, while far from perfect Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava are the closest to well run states in this whole steaming pile of shite. Why not reward this, recognize and support Kurdish statehood (for once this would be what the locals want anyway), and hope that an independent Kurdistan would be the beacon Bush hoped Iraq would become sans Saddam.

CB

In reply to Removed User:


Bully for you too biped.

Your rightous act of solidarity will, I'm sure, be seen by many as a wonderful thing to do..go soak it up.


To me, and others, it's not an act of solidarity or togetherness at all, it's an act of rubbernecking and self-congratulation. How many people outside of your 'circle of friends' see your selfless gesture? What's it achieving? Will more people need to die in another country before you change your flag??

I offer solitary and togetherness to my fellow humans all the time...and I don't need to jump on the back of a terrorist atrocity in order to broadcast it in a plastic and meaningless way.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:


How?

In reply to Frank the Husky:
I haven't but respect the wish of someone to do it (individual).
I hated seeing country leaders known for their countries' lack of human rights sporting "je suis Charlie" placards/ tee-shirt.
I am sure somewhere, some leaders have a team manning their "personal" page for political posturing. I hate when misery is turn into spin ( likely it is the butter in the "bread and butter" of politics- bread being fear).


Actually change some leaders to most leaders.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

Well, at least we've got to the root of the objections, it's: "my expressions of support are more heartfelt, rational and well reasoned than yours. In my opinion. And it's important that I tell you."

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

How intellectually superior of you.

I have the tricolour on my FB profile too.

So does having lived in France for 4 years, and having a number of friends living in Paris - several near the 10th & 11th arrondissements - make my adoption of it plastic and meaningless too?

In reply to DaveHK:

Gulp! Very good question...

I suppose by attempting to see things from different perspectives and try to take a view that is unswayed by popular opinion or peer pressure. I know that's a rubbish answer and ultimately it's ineffectual and irrelevant. But in my opinion, so is posting a tricolore.

In reply to Goucho:


Fair play. But to take your climbing analogy one step further, let us now imagine someone filmed someone climbing said climb and the topic of discussion wasn't whether the climb was E5 or E6, but whether it is cheating for the climber to have pre-placed the first gear placement or if using a bouldering mat to protect the first few moves was fair game or not.

This thread is about people choosing to display the tricolour on their Facebook page, their motivations and how that makes others feel. There are no facts in any of that.

In reply to off-duty:
No...it's not...but I can see why I've come across that way.

My objection is not to the posting of the tricolor in itself...but of the rationale (or lack/flakiness of) behind it. I'm questioning some people's grasp of the issue of perception and how heartfelt their act is....The same people who are mortified when someone doesn't tell them they are wonderful for posting a flag.

I do however beleive that suggesting that we think deeply about how we respond to Friday's atrocities before jumping on any bandwagons or sending the boys round is more rational and well reasoned than sticking a flag on a website.

In reply to ByEek:


Talk about creating a contrived construct to suit a point of view

But the answer is - no they're not cheating, and yes it's fair game if that's the way they want to climb it. But of course, they can't claim the full tick.


No there aren't, so once again it all comes down to personal opinion.

In reply to Willi Crater: Yes, OK you are correct but perhaps you should re-read your"Best Climbing Experience" statement. You cannot become benighted other than overnight so it does not need anything adding to it. Pedantic but true.

Here's an interesting piece in the Independent on this very subject:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/got-a-french-flag-on-your-facebook-prof...

"It’s a dismaying and damaging truth that Westerners care about and empathise with images of white-skinned women grieving in Topshop bobble hats far more than brown-skinned women grieving in niqabs and, when you lend your voice to Euro-centric campaigns such as Facebook’s flag filter, you exacerbate this. When we buy into such easy corporate public mourning, we uphold white supremacy. We’re essentially saying that white, Western lives matter more than others."

"I just hope that you also change your profile picture to a different country’s flag every time people are wrongly killed as the result of international conflicts – for example, during the attack on Beirut in Lebanon just the day before."

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:



Well, question individual people, don't make generalised judgements.

The same people who are mortified when someone doesn't tell them they are wonderful for posting a flag.

But no-one is asking for praise. No-one is even asking for comment. You have decided that, rather than get on with your life, it's important you tell them your opinion.


Suggesting that we think deeply about our response is one thing. Bringing in some moral relativism (and superiority) about your response compared to someone else's response - the rationale for which you don't actually know - is pretty patronising.

In reply to Frank the Husky:





Another fantastic example of someone tell me why I think something, before telling me I shouldn't think it, and telling me what I should think.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Unfortunately, that would be a full time job, as the different factions of Islam and the Middle East as a whole, have been knocking seven bells of shit out of each other for the last 1000+ years.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Jeez, talk about jumping on the bandwagon and sheer gullibility and ignorance.....your post has it all....

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:



I'm sure you must make a world of difference.

In reply to off-duty:


I'm not making generalised judgements I'm questioning rationale and suggesting that posting a flag can be perceived in lots of different ways.


Im telling them my opinion after they have told me theirs. On a discussion forum. Where people share opinions.


No its not. It's condescending if it's anything. But I disagree that by suggesting we have a bit of a think before jumping on a bandwagon and posting a flag* is condescending.


*I belive the overwhelming majority of fb tricolore posters will have given it no more thought than....

'Oh look...Bob's posted a flag...I'll do that.'

And then felt better about themselves

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Yeah, 'cos French people are all white, aren't they?

In reply to Removed User:



Nope. But neither does a flag on a website.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:







Condescending or patronising? How about we just split the difference and go with sanctimonious.

In reply to off-duty:


Well actually it is deliberatel and utterly tasteless provocative clickbait, as one of the comments further down says :

"This article is so idiotic I doubt even The Guardian, at its peak identity politics soaked student blog trawling worst, would give it the time of day. The way I operate my Facebook account is none of your business and it not open to debate."

Not sure they are totally right though, there are NO depths to which the Guardian would not sink in pursuit of clicks and to deliberately denigrate Western societies, on their well established basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend - no matter how despicable and savage they are. Victims must never be blamed - unless they are victims we like to sneer at".

In reply to off-duty:


Hahaha...touche...red handed it's a fair cop...I'll come quietly.

In reply to Rosco P Coltrane:

to put it mildly, however, I will refrain from abuse as I suspect your heart is in the right place.


I'm not mortified. Mortified is what polite ladies in fur coats are when you introduce the topic of bumsex into the conversation at Sunday tea. I'm more exasperated at the irony. However, question away, I'll stick my flag on my FB because I'm very affected about the attack and you can get affected about that, even though you have no idea what I or anyone else thinks or feels about it.


Totally agree, except I don't think there is anything wrong with doing both.

In reply to Simon4:

You mean like ISIS and Israel both being anti Iran/Hezbollah/Assad?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exc...

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I come late to the thread and I guess by now it's descended into the usual UKC vituperation that happens after about 25 posts. But here's what I think, and is more or less what I posted on FB.

Are the people of France going to feel any better about things if you change your profile pic? There's no shortage of these on FB. I give you... "Super excited about today's victory for marriage equality? Now you can easily show your support on Facebook..." and that one is "Add a Rainbow to Your Facebook Profile"

I suspect it's just you that feels better for having changed your profile pic.

Don't get me wrong. I am equally outraged. But I don't want to go along with FB's self congratulatory and glib brand of empathy. It's a superficial, trivial way to show support.
All FB feels is the fears and doubts about its own success. I refuse to take part in it. If you 'feel' then tell people that you feel. We don't need FB to mediate the process. Post that 'this matters', 'this hurts' using your own words. That would count for so much more than an easy click.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Changing your Facebook photo so that it has the French tricolor on it is the most ultra lightweight show of support possible. Utterly and miserably pathetique.

In reply to digby:


Apart from there being a slight risk that Simon and I may have set a derailment in motion by bringing up our respective bogeymen (Guardian, Israel), I think this thread is quite good natured for ukc, especially given it's Monday.

In reply to digby:

Actually, it pretty much started out like that. Much of what followed was better.

It seems clear the OP was trolling with a provocative first post and only one other contribution in the form of a similarly provocative quote.

Whilst there has been some interesting discussion I have to question why someone would choose to start it in that way.

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:


What exactly do you think the purpose of Facebook, or indeed most social media, is?
Where did I miss the instruction guide as to how to use it in a socially acceptable manner?
How do I vote for you as arbiter of what does, or doesn't matter?

In reply to off-duty:




As above.

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:



+1

Symbol politics at its very cheapest, or actually nor even that. These days it appears as if an "outrage" was defined as something some tosser complains about in a tweet and creates a corresponding hashtag.

Intellectually poor, but confusing whining on FB or twitter with political or social action is even poorer.

CB

In reply to cb294:





Interesting, because the only "outrage" I'm seeing is people objecting to a facebook profile picture. Though I'd probably agree that they are tossers.

In reply to DaveHK:


Until about now.

In reply to off-duty:


Not worthy of you. And actually very offensive.

I'm as outraged as everyone else at what happened. I object to the FB profile picture empathising for the reasons I stated, and I agree that it's symbol politics at its very cheapest.

The thread is about FB profile pictures not the atrocities.

In reply to digby:


Responding to a post suggesting the only outrage was manufactured response to tweets with accompanying hashtag?


You have put your own opinions and perceptions on to why you think people have posted a profile pic, and you object to that.
As I said on my initial post - it's Facebook. If you don't like it don't use it. Or post on it complaining about other posts.
Just don't expect anyone to listen.


I know, shocking how the meta-outrage about people daring to post in some form of support for an atrocity, can almost overtake the real outrage about the atrocity. That's the internet for you.

In reply to off-duty:
... and the bit about tossers?

And actually the rest of your response is nonsense. But I'm not going to read whatever you dredge up next. I'm off.

In reply to digby:


> Symbol politics at its very cheapest, or actually nor even that. These days it appears as if an "outrage" was defined as something some tosser complains about in a tweet and creates a corresponding hashtag.


I see you've added this paragraph. Did you just re-read the post I've quoted above.

In reply to digby:
bye then.

probably for the best

off-duty- spot on on this. and i note two posters have given clear and compelling reasons for why they displayed the tricolore; these have either been ignored by the vexed sympathy-haters, or waved away so that an imagined slacktivist-bogeyman can be disapproved of instead.

i havent displayed the flag on my facebook page; tbh i rarely visit it. but even if other people doing it did bother me, i'd probably have left it more than a couple of days after the deaths of nearly 130 people before i started moaning about it to strangers on the internet.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Do you think there is too much empathy in the world and you need to stamp down on it? Or do you think its a zero sum game and giving empathy to france takes it away from someone else?
Do you also think that wearing a pink ribbon shows a high degree of ignorance, prejudice and sheer gullibility towards sufferers of other illnesses?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Quality trolling Martin, I kept checking this thread through the day and noted you've stuck to the rule - no replying to your replies. 9.5/10

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Chapeau Sir.

In reply to stevieb:

+1
I can't believe this thread.....I don't have a Facebook so haven't seen who has a French flag on it or not.

I'd imagine this would be in sympathy, respect and acknowledgement for all those who have been involved....can't see anything wrong in that. It's a real shame some people seem to make the assumption that one cannot or does not have equal respect and sympathy for other equally suffering people in further afield countries.

I do find the notion that somehow ones motivation to include a French flag on Facebook can be subject to some of the arrogant and ill informed sentiment on here!

For those on here expressing negativity about this how do you actually know what people think? Without asking them that is....which you clearly cannot!?

In reply to Frank the Husky: As you well know there is no chance of discussion with IS. They have one aim, the radical islamation of the entire planet. They are so far removed from the western point of view, they may as well come from another planet. You cannot persuade them to see something from our point of view. There are two options with ultra radical groups, join them or fight them.

I put the tricoloure on my page, not just to show my support for the French, but also for all those opposed to regimes and ideologies that think throwing gays off buildings and the total subjugation of women to be a perfectly reasonable way of life.

Andy F

In reply to Frank the Husky:

So what is your opinion about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34832114

Presumably you think that the FA and all of the England fans who sing along are band wagon jumpers.

For the record my FB has the tricoloure as has the FB of lots of my French friends. You know virtually nothing about me so I am currently thinking that you are a bit of a prick for making assumptions.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


This just seems daft.

Can you remember the name of the block of flats where the Trotters lived in Only Fools and Horses?

Nelson Mandela House.

That's because even by the 1990s it was a comic cliche that various councils had changed what little they had power over, to reflect the concerns of people at the time (in this case Apartheid and the fall of white rule).

So White people have connected with Black struggles, especially when there is a historic connection.

Similarly there is a long list of White struggles when people haven't connected (Spain, Italy, the Balkans, Russia etc), so playing the race card twice in this thread is just misjudged and inaccurate as a measurement of the cultural temperature.

The British do have a particular relationship with the French and that is the cultural expression. All you can do with this racialising of events is inhibit that cultural expression whilst doing nothing to engender those you may or may not wish to see extended. Essentially it's a purely destructive urge, there's nothing in this to build on.

The White Man's Burden, which we see introduced frequently on here, someone even managed to spill it all over the LGBT thread, has come to mean the inertia, the stasis, that results from people who think being White is the largest factor in cultural expression. But in this case, like so many, it's just misplaced, a meaningless artifact on a large canvas.

In reply to digby:

Some of them at least will most likely, most people like to think people care about them and public expressions of thought in times like these are generally pretty well received. I'm not a facebook person and wouldn't do it personally, but I know people that have and I'm pretty sure I know why they did it. They heard of a terrible thing that happened and wanted to express sympathy, so they did.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

To be honest, it means jack shit whether someone puts a tricolour over their FB photo of them skiing, owlingor worming the dog.

Personally I changed mine to Delacroix's Marianne, but I'm a bit of a tw*t like that.

Time would be better spent trying to understand exactly when and how the Middle East is going to explode. ISIS will not be happy until the house of Saud is left headless in the desert and they have inflicted their 14th century ultra puritan version of Wahabism as far as they can - not the sell out "liberal" stuff they see in Saudi at present. They are going to make the teachings of Taymiyyah read like the Moomins

and we and anyone else, millions of Muslims included, who do not fit their monochromatic and tightly wound world view are open targets.

This Middle Eastern clusterf*ck has been in gestation for nearly 1,000 years, and the West is just the latest interlocutor with a walk on part.....

In reply to off-duty:


Exactly..

They are all as bad as each other.

I didn't change my picture but can understand why it is more shocking whether we have direct connections or not. Attacks like Boston, 7/7, 9/11, this, latest shocks us more because of the random nature and it could have been any of us. I think people dismiss attacks like Beirut as 'it'll never happen here'.. I'm not saying that's right but think it does happen.

But I don't think people should say how we should react.. And yes much is just symbolic, but so is minutes silenced and so many other traditions. They won't actually change anything, that doesn't mean people shouldn't do them.

It is also a case of relativism. The climbing community rallied around Nepal after the earthquake, and quite rightly.

But not after ones in Pakistan or Turkey that also devastated whole regions.

I'm not saying it's a competition, just thay we are more empathetic when we have connection...

In reply to winhill:

I didn't think they did. I saw it as race being used to create an analogy.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: Some thoughts this

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/deaths-paris-beirut-me...

I agree with her, it isn't simple. Good last paragraph for the OP.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

http://newsthump.com/2015/11/18/no-one-picks-on-france-except-us-says-brita...