china and boycotts?

Sometimes it is tempting to boycott china’s products. The chinese state is authoritarian, capitalist, exploitative, and enslaving. The chinese regime is, in my opinion, an expression of how fascism is alive today. (together with the russian state..) Am using the term fascism in the sense that these regimes unify senses of nationalism, authoritarianism, and capitalist systems entwined with the state and its powers.

However, china is everywhere when you are poor. Being free of chinese made stuff is expensive. What should a person try to do?

Here are links around these questions:

Starve The Machine – Boycott Chinese Slave Goods

dave cam as a cultural critic in-spite of his best efforts?

OK.. I don’t like the personal oriented heading for this post. (alternative suggestions are welcome!)

According to the guardian’s heading, a focus on prime-ministerial xmass message is the outrage of reminding us that in a defunct UK democracy, when inclusiveness is being forgotten in the burning altar of periodically convenient majoritarian approach, david’s focus on Christianity and jeremys attention to self-rightehous “solidarity”* – appear perfectly normal as they seek to entertain their respective power bases.

However, beyond power and politics of the convenient, I this the guardian report serves to remind an artistic and cultural complicitness within the deplorably of jeremy and dave’s messages.
Am going to focus on dave’s example, as it is a simple one, and seems ripe for blue-printing similar readings from other similar occurrences and occasions.

The focus on cultural and artistic questions from dave’s statement comes, in my mind, from:
“…his birth represents: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope. ”
Check the term *represent*.

What is the cultural and artistic ontology of representation? In other words, how representations come about and how to Be a representation?
artistic culturally? (sorta)

I think that one of the common elements that the operation of representing seems to have in various endeavours and orientations, is that of Being Not What it is a subject of.
If my cinnamon represents me, to be able Being that sign of me – it can never Be me.
The Picture is Not a tree, the Painting is not a Pipe, the lawyer is Not the defendant, etc..
In what might be some other terms, psycho-philosophically (?), I think it can be argues that a representation is an “other”. Am not sure whether Big or Small – with some Lacanian reference there – and perhaps here indeed, size does not matter. I think the interesting focus is on how representation can be conjured culturally because it seems like containing an inherent hypocrisy, or self righteousness – perhaps both?

Lets try?
In my mind, it seems that when I focus on attempting to represent some other being than me, an interval opens up between myself and that other being.
When a friend asks me to get them a drink, I become their representative at the bar. How can I get a drink for them, as if I was them – while clearly being Not them?
Sure there can be various ways to approach that interval – however it exists.
If we keep with that drink at the bar example, I might find myself representing a person at the bar, so they Do Not Have to do that. Might be worth mentioning that for being represented – at the bar or other occasions – the subject being represented supports the representation by Being something and some Other than the representation.
In other words:
To be represented, one has to be Not what ever it is that represents.
If I went to get a friend a drink while actually Being my friend?

In a sense, I think it can be argued here that to make me representing my friend at the bar possible, my Friend has to be Not me at the bar. To be Not me at the bar, my friend might possible tell themselves that they are kind of satisfied with me going to get the drink instead of them.

Now, going back to the assertion of “…his birth represents: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope. ”
What might happen when a group of people cultivates the Being of being represented as peaceful, merciful, having goodwill and hopefulness? Perhaps am missing one thing or another, however, in my mind, it seems that to cultivate that sense of Other which represents a group as having certain elements the social body rather fancies – the being of that culture has to be something Other than its representation.

In a sense, perhaps we have a case here that just like I can be representing a friend at the bar so they can do something else, the representation of certain elements in Xmass is there precisely so that the culture being represented does not have to be.
Peace? Hence in the same message of “peace”, the armed forces can be congratulated? Hence we can be at a time when only a few weeks ago the social body voted for war, yet look in the mirror, say “we are peaceful” and keep a straight face?
Mercy #1? As in helping refugees in their journeys over to a christian europe – or paying turkey to keep them and leaving people to the hands of extortionate smugglers?
Mercy #2? As in evolving NHS into a body that provides better and more inclusive Free treatments to everyone who might be in need? Or developing policies that will shrink NHS’s free provisions so that people’s economic size will determine their health and time-length on the planet, more than it is now..
Goodwill? As in helping people in social and cultural needs by eliminating austerity measures?
Hopefulness? As in offering free education for everyone at all levels and open finance for arts in any shape, form and cpacity it might be?

While reading the suggestions it turned out that its far cheaper to support the representation of such elements precisely because then we do not have to deal with the messiness of Being hopeful, merciful, etc..?

What if this is wrong? What if the idea of being represented is actually a mirage because we are not talking about representation as the Other of what ever is being represented – but of an expression?
What if, keeping with the Xmass analogy, the so called values represented by the xmass narrative are there because they express Being of a goodwill, etc.?
My 2p into that question is that, as a person, if I was practicing goodwill, any representation which is not just a simple expression of that goodwill expression – will seem superfluous. Maybe am too puritan?

Say a person showed some mercy to someone. They might kind of like-appreciate a personal, social and perhaps even cultural acknowledgement of their mercifulness. However, would that acknowledgement, a thanks!, a renumeration, a title, or a story/movie/game/app/etc. – be anything other than part of an expression of exchanges rather than representing something?

What of representing a merciful act as a play/app/etc?
Again, in my mind, the representation, is other than the expression of what the person might have done.
However, there is an argument that such representations, icons, etc., operate to remind people and indeed Inspire people into doing and maybe even Being of certain qualities. Say the merciful one.

Yes. Indeed. However, if a person is inspired to be of a given quality. Will they be inspired if they already were of such quality, or precisely the fact they can be inspired is that they were Not – at least doing – whatever that quality is?

Re jeremy’s don’t do unto others kind of notion. Perhaps am wrong but it seems that it absolves a person from listening to others’ own needs. What happens when the other person needs something I would Not do to myself? Or indeed, what happens when the other person needs something I utterly disapprove of?
Or is it that I am always so correct, wise and intelligent as to embody the right aspirations of everyone else??!!

mines of occupation?

A last coal mine was shut in Britain today.

Why people got upset?

Why people try to keep working in mines, developing a culture of such activities, and are sad when its gone?

Mines killed and are killing people. They kill people via work conditions, and pay that can never compensate for the loss of health and time. Mines kill people because strenuous physical work day in and day out – is neither healthy, nor reduces chances of injuries.

Mines are occupied assets by wealthy people. they fancy the idea of using their financial power to get people working the assets while keeping profits in as few pockets as possible.

In a sense, mines are a visible capitalist occupation that exploits people as much as possible.

Yet, somehow, some people seem to take the occupation for granted, or maybe enjoy the work? Maybe enjoy the sense of being occupied?

a quick search art from various cards?

If a search from:
art +scratch +cards ?
i got:

if art manifesto +loyality cards ?

if art +loyality cards ?

if each card is a sub artists movement?

if each art movement and its subs are power?

if each art movement is a Time-Based set and its sub genres are sort of sub-sets?

Goals as metrification of desires?

Occupied by capitalism? I think I am.
For a while, I have been occupied by the idea of money’s exchange-ability. The numericality of currency, in various forms, which seems to make everything conform to its values, processes, practices, mechanisms, politics and culture.
ie, from the question of people’s choice of university courses based on hoped for specific outcomes which could be converted into jobs – rather than opening up to questions and further inquiries in general and a specific topic in particular. Is this not orienting life on fear for one’s own existence? Or what happens when one expects renumeration for an activity – else they might not do it? (xmass, somehow strangely, is an exception because people seem to do that despite deep anxieties and feelings it doesn’t worth it..)

This sort of turning everything into numerical exchange-ability seem to be one element of capitalism. Another, in my view, is the hold of desires.
Nothing new here? Well.. Lets check, we know adverts, for example, are direct ways in which capitalists attempt to tell people what they ought to get.
I want a green shoe.
I want a drone.
I rather fancy having a holiday in iceland.
I fancy being without adverts.
I want to get a capitalist free life.
I want anarchy.
I just wish for a bottle of spook.
I just want to vote kons.
I will get myself an etc..

Seems to me that such wants, and fancies are goals. They are stuff to get. Stuff to be able to clearly say: I have that, or not. Hence, they are metrifications. They can be expressed by numerical values that can be compared and compartmentalised.

However, goals are not desires. To desire, in my mind, is to practice stuff from the sense of being fascinated. In that way, to be fascinated by, for example, a car, or some lipstick colouring, etc. – is to never be able to actually “get” these. Getting in terms of sensations rather than owning the objects. By desiring a given plant, I open a connection with it. Maybe I will buy a certain plant, maybe not – that is a contingent element in a range of stuff that constitutes the desire. In that sense, a desire is linking with, being with, getting on with, both that specific desire and its processes, as much as elements that come within the desire’s range and evolving sensations.

Achieving a desire is in a way the simple practice of desiring. That is, how I might have a clue whether I desire a person or not – if I want them, then being together feels wrong unless it is in the way I want. When desiring someone, there is no general “way I want” – it is being with them. Sure, there are wants during the time, but they are contingent rather than exact.
That way, its the ability to cultivate, to practice the desire of desitring freely, without fear and sense of imposed limits with – say another person – that is which fulfills that particular desiring. The denial of that ability, when a person tells me they rather I did not desire them, ie I need to have imposed limits, that Hurts!

OK.. Get off the psychobulls.. What are you trying to say?
I think its interesting that even while getting stuff, people feel something “missing”. You got that object you worked hard for – and its not enough. There is a sense of missing?
That is a sense of desire. Perhaps a meta sensation of missing the missing desire. Through the metrification of desire, turning the idea of desiring rather than sensing it, into a goal – having goals became a culture, a desire in itself.

However, I think the energy of capitalism comes from the imagination link of desire. The cultivation of desires as goals. It is not so much controlling desires, but the cultivation of desires. The cultural exachnge ways of what we call “desire”.

Sounds like it, but I think its not.
Lets call desire, shooshyoo. Now what is shooshyoo? That is the sensation of needing to do stuff, that is simultaneously being fulfilled by doing and yet, containing something else which keeps you wondering and evolving whatever you happen to do for practicing the desire.
Now, lets say I am telling a person – or they tell themselves, that they shooshyoo a car. However, to shooshyoo a car, what they do, is setting a goal to get the vehicle. Work. Get the car. Then they feel kind of “soooo.. what’s now??” sort of emptiness.
Am I saying that the empty uselessness sense is because they called something shooshyoo while that thing was goal getting?
Its not the semantic naming. In a sense, what we have is shooshyoo replacing goal. However, perhaps there are certain operations we Need to acknowledge correctly for moving on swiftly. Am suggesting that shooshyoo/desire is one of them.
Well, lets seem what might happen to the character that just got a car. They feel a bit Meehhh and 😐 despite getting their goal. To “correct” that, they are likely to set another goal called desire – say a new oven.
Now if we take the meta operation, getting a car, then getting an oven, etc. we get something that Looks like desire operation. That points towards a possible emergent quality of desire. Shooshyoo/desire in that sense, describe operations we might do anyway.

If we do it anyway, why acknowledge?

Are you a donkey?

Are you abusing me?

Well.. Human, donkey.. Its all semantics, no?

philosophy and mathematics in a historical sporting arena?

A note re
The book is too expensive, and the review mentions philosophers in general – ones that are out to reconfirm aristotle.
If reconfirming aristotle – then perhaps the very philosophy talked about as losing in some historical game – is not entirely the kind we recognise contemporarily?

Perhaps my personal interest here is in the times science was/is invented and how this practice of invention might be applied to inventing art?

zizek and violence of bone breaking?

Last night on the move, I noticed an article by zizek regarding war, turkey, isis and europe. While I agree the eu deal to pay turkey is both a sad true and shamefull beyond words, was surprised to hear the authoritarian and despicable islamist regime of turkey was supposedly calling for an isis embassy in ankara, among other pro islamic state statements.

Given I noticed a few times that zizek fails to let some facts stand in the path of certain ideas, I though to re-visit that article and check what is he talking about.
By this morning, the editors removed the bits re turkish support to isis.
That stuff was something like the bits in these posts:,-isis-is-a-reality-and-we-are-optimistic-about-the-future

The original zizek text seem to imply there is no other way but death violence – rather than death of violence – to solve isis. An approach that i think places zizek as a bit of a conservative in my mind. It imagines that because violence is the known way for surviving certain situations of being physically attacked, any other approach is both un imaginable and naive – hence impractical.

Hopefully, ways like the ones mentioned here: – will prevail?


** zizek fails to let some facts stand in the path of certain ideas? **
A bit possibly ironic as zizek works so hard to expose ideology in our time, no?
Well.. perhaps this exposition is done from a reactionary conservative mind. It seems that the zizek critique of ideology is to show/expose what and how it is, rather than the radical approach – to search from ways that might render ideological mind a bit archaic?

error in !art as a program?

Following an interview on:
I bumped into –
Clicked refresh.
Something wanted to do one thing or another.
Had a look at the code.
Supposed to pick images from a folder called scrap.


An interesting sensation, no?

My mind is, perhaps too heavily, into questions of performance, action, operation and intervals between these.

Coding in a digital environment, as far as I have experienced, forces* a bit of a distance between the operation and its activities – code in a digital environment, and the performance of the said code.
To read this, we have a code that performs the visualisation of lines in a particular manner. This — are not like drawn 2 lines with a pencil, for example. These are 2 lines that result from a binary operation which Performs, does things that look like but are in fact Not – 2 lines.
This is the kind of interval am considering.

However, what happens when the code does not do its operation?
Sounds like a glitch?
Not so fast, I think.
Well.. A glitch has a code that does its binary operations, but performs differently to what might be “expected”. I wanted the code to do X, but it does an awkward X.
When the code operates only as a code, perhaps it either makes codes, or enable codes – as in interpreters, and errors?

* If there is a certain substance in the line following the “Well..” – then maybe “force” is wrong. Perhaps “being made to” is more accurate.
It seems that if codes do not Have to perform, do not have to produce outcomes other than their operations, then there are other elements that might, at times, make codes be performative?

Hold on Mx..
Look, what we perceive as a – (line) is a confabulation of ours. The code operates a certain binary string. The fact that there is a binary string which produces one line or another, does not mean it performs the line, does it?

I see where this argument comes from. Indeed from the code’s point of view, the fact that it does something which looks one thing or another to a human, is not a performance. True.
However, would that code Be if it didn’t perform a line in humans’ minds?
In a sense, perhaps the very performativity – the very gap/interval – between its Being and its performance, keeps it alive. No?

Its a bit paganistic, isn’t it?

Perhaps.. Maybe even a sort of deism in the sense that a deity is “alive” so long it performs for humans and by the very performance, it has an ontological gap between its operational elements and the performative ones.

Am I saying we should seek some purity of operation?
Am saying that there are these processes, and that having a certain flexibility towards them, perhaps other cultural approaches, other art practices, other wondering ways, might get to live?

Sounds like some catchall phrases bullshit!!

Yes.. I know.. Perhaps checking some of the stuff in this blog might make it sound less so.
However, checking errors, like in might make it sound less so BSHity?

IF citizenship?

Following recent Palestine oriented adventures, and a chat with a friend, am considering to take the wondering from IF citizenship into a possible TV documentary.

Lets question citizenship from ownership point of view. We have net citizenship, state citizenship, digital citizenship, etc. – and a fair few people who need one of these but are being denied.
We have refugees and migrants that risk lives for suitable citizenships, however, IF one gets it, are citizenship owned, or more like an iphone – some rental system? IF rental, are they worth killing and dying for?

So.. I have a citizenship to give away. Give it for love. Give it for life. Give it for suitability. Give it for desire.
Any takers?
Any possibility to give?
Any other adventures?

Which citizenship?
A citizenship that was made via a community of refugees, which creates other refugees, and denies refugees – in a land of in-between that is, in itself, sort of a refugee element. No?

Here are the tv pitching link. Not sure am actually going to do TV as am full of reservations about the commerciality embedded in TV – however, could that not be a part of the story??

MTV Veteran: “My Pitching Secrets. The Top 5 Mistakes Producers Make. And How to Avoid Them!”

Pitch Proper – We’ve Helped Hundreds Reach Millions

a bigotry from Palestine?

On the flight from Kiev to Palestine (aka Israel, the state organisation for zionist and jewish communities of Palestine) I sat next to a couple that told me they are just back from a “roots tour” in the Ukraine.

Roots tour, I asked surprised. What do you mean?

The obliged readily to explain. Explaining is an activity a fair few people seem to do enthusiastically in Palestine – regardless of their sectarian affiliation. ..And so I gathered that the grand parents of the couple sitting next to me in the Boing 747 immigrated before WW2 to Palestine. The couple were born in Palestine, one in Haifa, another in Jerusalem. However they took part in this roots tour to the Ukraine, based on where their grand parents were born.

This tour is an organised trip. ie, they were a part of a group, or groups that travel to countries where parents, grand parents, and even great grand parents, immigrated to Palestine from.

Given the dire social situation and inter sectarian violence that seem to stem from that immigration, I was a bit puzzled.
Hold on, what is meant by “roots” here? Didn’t your grand parents migration to Palestine come because they – and zionist communities – perceive Palestine as their roots? As a place they feel some special connection with in terms of where they actually “come from”?

This prompted smiles, hard to tell whether embarrassed ones or some sense of pity over me, and a further outpour of explanations to do with having to have a state to be safe at, and that the biblical link, in a sense, is rather handy.

I couldn’t believe my ears.
The couple next to me, essentially seem to say that despite being born in Palestine, in spite of the violence that seem to follow their grand parents migration to the middle east while claiming Palestine as their “historical” home from which their ancestors were expelled, and the seemingly civil people next to me accepting a future smeared with human blood to continue that homeland occupation there are these – their identity roots were from the Ukraine?

These people had a “historical home” based on biblical myths, questionable histories, and their dodgy interpretations – for which they are ready to kill, die and send their grand children for similar life ending missions.
Apart from this historical home, I was assured that each jewish and zionist community in Palestine had social, cultural and family roots based on where rather contemporary ancestors immigrated from.
Indeed, as far as life within the zionist and jewish communities in Palestine, these roots affiliations, such as from morocco, from russia, from france, etc. – formed sectarian affiliations. People are called sometimes by where their community immigrated from, moroccans, french, etc..

If they feel so strongly linked with what they call their respective country/area of origin, why do they stay in Palestine while depriving indigenous population of their homes? Indeed, why have their ancestors, parents or grand parents, immigrated to Palestine if they themselves were so eager to keep alive their cultural and social links with home countries – while claiming Palestine as their home?

Here I was surprised again. Rather than claiming some sort of similarity with other migrant populations, eg US based communities that following a fair few generations of being in america still live together based on country of “origin” and perceive that territory as a “root”, I was assured that their experience is very uniquely jewish. Something that only by living in the area/state/organisation called “israel” with a respective jewish community that has “roots” in some other land/country and culture, would I ever have a hope to understand that.

Curious, I thought, given the stated attempt and promise to “explain”. Mind, it kind of helped to end what turned to feel as an embarrassing conversation. If I can never understand according to these guys, then might as well read a book? Perhaps I have a better chance of getting to grips with art’s aesthetics according to gianni vatitimo’s art’s claim to truth?

A note
in my opinion, the bigotry displayed in the conversation, the sense of self righteousness whatever the circumstances are and the right to alter stance at will according to self serving circumstances and perceptions – such as the question of roots and their meanings, as well as explaining abilities – is a thread that seem to cross sectarian divides in Palestine.
I wonder whether this bigotry has a link with the brutalisation of people in the area? Also wonder whether there is a term for bigotry in arabic and hebrew. It the hebrew case, I noticed the nearest terms are actually the words for a righteous person and one that keeps with their beliefs, respective friends and communities. Perhaps culturally a “bigot” in that area of the owrld is perceived as someone worth aspiring to be?
Another thing I could not figure out.. 😉

in between, interval and now in suspense? #art,

I have been arguing(?) has some connection or links with being a Being in between. An interval that operates dysfunctionaly towards itself. Hence art objects are not functional in the survival and purposeful sense – they seem to be beyond the mere desire to survive. Artistic practices operate beyond being non-functional, as say do a sport, attempting to learn a dead language, etc. – as these practices either function for what they are not (eg sport), or are not functioning. (eg an unused language.)

The stuff I think we tend to link with art seems neither non functional, nor functional, but in between these – dysfunctional. ie, gaining its life from being able to be neither a tool/object for a purpose, nor a practice that has not purpose what so ever, with a bye-gone purpose or with a purpose that isn’t itself.
Art, in this way seems dysfunctional, and traditionally, by attracting various ideas as to its possible dysfunctional purpose – seem to have gained some extra vitality.
(Perhaps though, this seeming vitality is in effect and fact some sort of mysticism?)

Anyhow, I think that the dysfunctional view of linking stuff with art is slightly out of date as we get into the practices of social and economic values in connection with art. These, I think, collapse the very dysfunctionaly onto itself. The value for society or a person – as a sort of instrument or investment respectively – which relies on the dysfunctionality linked with art, has to become functional. The value attached by monetary or social instrumentalisation ends the dysfunctional life of a given practice, project and object.
Now, this collapse might be the very process that allows – or invokes a desire for new/other stuff of art. It might be the case indeed. However I think its a wishful thought.
Am basing that idea upon the fact – might not be a pivotal one – that as a person, when encountering functionalised art linked stuff, I tend to either have to imagine the time before x linked art was functionaliseed into some sort of cannon, value, etc., or disregard the function question all together.
Hence am asking – is the function question a mere indication for stuff that goes on – or is it indeed constitutive?

Am kind of tilting at the moment towards the possibility of “indication” rather than “constitutive”?

The reasons(?) am tilting towards indicative seem to be:
* the dysfunctional is an element in between the non and fully functional – hence places art linked stuff in an interval/between time and possibly space.
* the dysfunctional in art, despite folding into various functions – does not seem to diminish, in the minds of a fair few people, a vitality of a practice, project or a practice linked with art. Indeed, people seem to be happy lapping functions onto art linked stuff without the need to ask themselves whether or not that very activity folds or unfolds the dysfunctional.

Since I think there is a folding of the dysfunctional and that the dysfunctional is a subset of the being a Being inbetween question – hence the being an interval between the functional and its opposite – I sense there might be some other elements that keep art alive. Other than the dysfunctional question.

This morning, it occurred to me that one of such keeping art alive elements could be the dynamics of being in between, an interval and in suspense. The suspense is a new element in here, but seems that helps differentiate both the other 2 and give all 3 a way that they might operate together to form an artistic link sequence.
The between as the space element. If so, then might be formed by intervals – the time element. The suspense is the environmental element that both questions the interval-inbetween sequence, and allows them to be.
sort of:
if (interval-inbetween) ^ (suspense) ^ ?

Suspense in art?
Suspending disbelief?
Suspending images?
Suspending a certain flow of life?
Suspending as a way to imagine?
Suspending as a way to keep a tension in a narrative?
Suspending as a social request while interacting with art linked stuff? (eg dress codes, keeping silent, etc.)
Suspending prejudices?
Suspending as a motive in art? From images of suspended stuff, through to operating for social suspense?)


The Art of Self-Culture and the Crucial Difference Between Being Educated and Being Cultured: John Cowper Powys’s Forgotten Wisdom from 1929

a few notes re holes in bombing isis arguments?

Hilary Ben seem to have made a most persuasive speech for uk to join the bombing fest in Syria. (even the telegraph seems impressed by Hillary’s words, declaring him a “true” leader.)

A few thoughts re holes in the arguments he presented:
– Labour has always been happy to join wars for just causes. eg the spanish civil war. True. However that does not mean the acts in the 30’s were the best ones to defeat fascism. The contemporary equivalent might be to suggest people should volunteer to fight for Rojava against ISIS.
The UK official position during the Spanish civil war was neutrality! While its not my preference, I wonder why H Benn did noty mention that?
In spain fascism left huge scars that people still have to deal with. Fascism itself, was more defeated by time as it lingered till the 70’s.
However, if we take fascism as a regime of state authoritarianism which use its powers to crush any possible rivals and to promote state run and/or closely linked capitalist ventures – then fascistic oriented regimes are all around. From the usa, to russia and most tellingly imho, china.
I think that in china today, we have fascism in all but name, and Britain was happy to make business with no longer than a few weeks ago. Ben was rather shtum then – as most of labour party, mind.. no?

At any rate, fascism, be it spanish, italian, communist (as in communist russia) was ended mostly via citizens – not airstrikes nor war.

Wan Benn ignorant or flippant about these histories?

– Going for bombing will not prevent other, more civil, measures to be taken?

Not so. Once we bomb, we become part of the groups in the conflict, no longer able to link honestly among the various factions to help indigenous civil oriented solutions to emerge.
Indeed, once we become part of the brutalisation operation, we will get affected – the only question is how.
Also, already, british violence is being condemned by both asad’s and oposition’s perspectives.

– Going to bomb is something that will support “our friends” – be it france. usa, etc. Actually, what if we are as friends consider the french bombing moves to be wrong? Can it not be that france acts too quick in response to the bombing in paris?

– Bombing is an appropriate action to confront a clear and present danger? I hope this Clear and present danger would be defined sometime. Danger of some nobminds killing people in the uk? Danger of an invasion? Danger of constant violent acts? Danger of losing our democracy? Danger of immanent violence that bombing will clearly resolve?

– Isis has eroded the border between Syria and Iraq, we bomb Iraq – might as well do Syria. Isis has also eroded the border between UK and Syria in the sense of people going from here to fight over there For Isis. Indeed, these are the possibly kind of people who might bomb here in the name of that particular murderous organisation.
However, these people’s desires to operate for Isis is being fed, partially, by the confirmation Isis ideology receives with each and every bomb we drop.

– That bombing in Iraq has halted Isis. Well.. Not entirely true as Isis has continued both expansion and taking deeper hold of the territories it controls. The gains for Kurdish forces are in areas where Kurds – non entirely suni muslims communities – live.
Yes, the strikes coordinated with Kurdish forces on the ground did help them – but that is different from what is suggested in Syria. (..and most of the bombing in Iraq)

Are these all the points covered?
Any missing ones?

Oh.. Yes.. That bombing has to do with defending our values. Well.. I really do think its not a democratic value to inflict – or join – a brutalisation cycle. Once we join the bombing, I think our democracy, as well as our society stands to get brutalised – imagine it Has to live by force – just as any other group of people who take to arms in aggressive ways while telling themselves its defense.