Paris, anyone?

[ardcarp]

...anyone?

[Nick Armstrong]

It's kind of beyond comment or debate, it seemed to me, other than inadequate sympathies and 'RIP's...

[ardcarp]

It came a bit too close for comfort. I got home from France last Monday night, but more to the point one of my g-daughters had been staying in Paris with friends. She had noticed that there were armed military personnel (not just the usual cops with side-arms) on the streets at the weekend. I wonder if the security services had a tip-off that something might be brewing?

As you say, Calibs, it's almost too awful to discuss, but one cannot help but admire journalists and cartoonists for their continuing refusal to be cowed.

[Richard Barrett]

It's kind of beyond comment or debate, it seemed to me, other than inadequate sympathies and 'RIP's...

On the contrary, Caliban, I think there's a very great deal to be said about this horrific event, although how much would be allowable under the no-politics rule here is another matter.

As context for what comes next, and in the hope of preempting any claims that it "condones terrorism" and suchlike nonsense, I would just like to say that like most people I find this kind of attack catastrophically inhuman, tragic and unjustifiable.

You can imagine the people who carried out this disgusting attack defending it in terms like "This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target." However, these are not the words of an "Islamic extremist" but of Clare Short, minister for international development at the time, defending the bombing of the state broadcasting station in Belgrade in April 1999, in which several journalists were killed. (More here.) My point is that seemingly journalists are sometimes a "legitimate target" and sometimes not, depending on who is targeting them, and what sort of propaganda they are deemed to be promulgating.

I imagine that many people presently making a passionate defence of "freedom of speech" in the context of the terrorist attack in Paris were not so vociferous when it came to the freedom of speech of Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.

[ahinton]

On the contrary, Caliban, I think there's a very great deal to be said about this horrific event, although how much would be allowable under the no-politics rule here is another matter.

I agree, although how much is allowable under that rule might in part be down to whether, to what extent and for how long the current thread on the forthcoming UK General Election is deemed to be acceptable (and FF has not only not closed it but has contributed to it).

As context for what comes next, and in the hope of preempting any claims that it "condones terrorism" and suchlike nonsense, I would just like to say that like most people I find this kind of attack catastrophically inhuman, tragic and unjustifiable.

I'm sure that we all agree with that here.

You can imagine the people who carried out this disgusting attack defending it in terms like "This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target." However, these are not the words of an "Islamic extremist" but of Clare Short, minister for international development at the time, defending the bombing of the state broadcasting station in Belgrade in April 1999, in which several journalists were killed. (More here.) My point is that seemingly journalists are sometimes a "legitimate target" and sometimes not, depending on who is targeting them, and what sort of propaganda they are deemed to be promulgating.

I imagine that many people presently making a passionate defence of "freedom of speech" in the context of the terrorist attack in Paris were not so vociferous when it came to the freedom of speech of Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.

Good points all; let's see how the thread develops.

[jayne lee wilson]

Lucidly & eloquently put Richard... I agree with every word. Thankyou.

I fear that the Front National** (and probably the Faragistes here) will use this horror to justify their politics of hatred (if not, at first, saying so explicitly) when all they ever really do is fan the flames of resentment...

**as Natalie Nougayrede reminds us in the Guardian today, Marine Le Pen has described Muslim Public Prayers in France as "occupation"...

[ardcarp]

A French commentator on TV last night was making a point that France, despite being home to many people of non-Europea origin, is not truly multicultural. He admired the UK for trying to be.

It is interesting BTW to follow news on France-Inter (loosely the equivalent of our Radio4) which can be found either online or at approx 168KHz Long Wave radio.

[Beef Oven!]

On the contrary, Caliban, I think there's a very great deal to be said about this horrific event, although how much would be allowable under the no-politics rule here is another matter.

As context for what comes next, and in the hope of preempting any claims that it "condones terrorism" and suchlike nonsense, I would just like to say that like most people I find this kind of attack catastrophically inhuman, tragic and unjustifiable.

You can imagine the people who carried out this disgusting attack defending it in terms like "This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target." However, these are not the words of an "Islamic extremist" but of Clare Short, minister for international development at the time, defending the bombing of the state broadcasting station in Belgrade in April 1999, in which several journalists were killed. (More here.) My point is that seemingly journalists are sometimes a "legitimate target" and sometimes not, depending on who is targeting them, and what sort of propaganda they are deemed to be promulgating.

I imagine that many people presently making a passionate defence of "freedom of speech" in the context of the terrorist attack in Paris were not so vociferous when it came to the freedom of speech of Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.

I think that what is meant by 'beyond comment or debate' would at least include the making of political or ideological points or instruction from this tragedy - at least for the moment and in a more suitable context.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think that what is meant by 'beyond comment or debate' would at least include the making of political or ideological points or instruction from this tragedy - at least for the moment and in a more suitable context.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

Which is what you just did.

[Beef Oven!]

Which is what you just did.

No I did not. I am not making a political or ideological point.

I'm thinking about having good grace and a more cultured approach about this tragedy, so soon after - and give my view why people may think that it's 'kinda beyond comment or debate'.

[Richard Barrett]

Beef Oven, I don't believe any world event is "beyond comment or debate", nor do I believe that the brutality of a world event somehow removes its political context, even (or especially) just after its occurrence. But I'm not intending to debate this subject with you.

[Nick Armstrong]

I simply have an aversion to hurling around all the obvious rhetoric and polemic, which always just leads to the sort of backbiting already apparent above, when an event is so self-evidently horrific that argumentative words just seem a noisy diversion from what we should be thinking about.

[Beef Oven!]

......... I'm not intending to debate this subject with you.

I was not discussing, I was reprimanding.

[Beef Oven!]

I simply have an aversion to hurling around all the obvious rhetoric and polemic, which always just leads to the sort of backbiting already apparent above, when an event is so self-evidently horrific that argumentative words just seem a noisy diversion from what we should be thinking about.

Sadly, not everyone agrees with you.

[french frank]

I simply have an aversion to hurling around all the obvious rhetoric and polemic, which always just leads to the sort of backbiting already apparent above, when an event is so self-evidently horrific that argumentative words just seem a noisy diversion from what we should be thinking about.

Yes.