Following the recent terror attacks inflicted on Paris many people have been quick to voice their opinions. Just recently, Frankie Boyle became one of those people when his article in The Guardian brought up some relevant points.
The Scottish comedian was typically up front when addressing the fact that we have learnt nothing from our past mistakes in similar situations.
In times of crisis, we are made to feel we should scrutinise our government’s actions less closely, when surely that’s when we should pay closest attention. There’s a feeling that after an atrocity history and context become less relevant, when surely these are actually the worst times for a society to go on psychopathic autopilot. Our attitudes are fostered by a society built on ideas of dominance, where the solution to crises are force and action, rather than reflection and compromise. Frankie Boyle in his article in The Guardian
In a way we’ve become accustomed to with the forty-three-year-old, he makes the point that acting irrationally out of fear to help another country whilst putting our own safety first, means that silly decisions are made.
Imagine a country where the response to Paris involved an urgent debate about how to make public spaces safer and marginalised groups less vulnerable to radicalisation. Do you honestly feel safer with a debate centred around when we can turn some desert town 3,000 miles away into a sheet of glass? Of course, it’s not as if the west hasn’t learned any lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. This time round, no one’s said out loud that we’re going to win. Frankie Boyle
Of course it’s understandable to want to act fast after an atrocity like this but like so many others, the former Mock the Week star is adamant that bombing Syria is far from the best tactic for our safety. His logic is that adding fuel to the fire only makes the flame more dangerous and therefore could create a fearsome backlash for those involved.
Frankie went on to name check Andrew Neil, who you may remember made a speech about ISIS that everyone loved. The controversial comic spoke of how Neil’s eulogy was actually not that of intelligence and reason, but was full of nonsensical inaccuracies.
Andrew Neil went viral with an impassioned eulogy that, like most eulogies, was just inaccurate nonsense in the form of nice memorable words strung together with angry sad words. A speech that would have made those named within it proud, but only because a good few of them were nihilistic absurdists. Listing the great French thinkers in a tribute to nuclear power showcased the worst aspect of historical fame: these were figures Neil could name but appeared to know nothing about. Frankie Boyle
Whatever your opinion of the Glaswegian, after reading his article (which you should), you may find it hard to disagree.