Paris, anyone?

[Richard Barrett]

Though I'm not clear why people are criticising these people for being there. (...) The question of their presence or non presence seems to me a matter of little importance.

I think it's important to draw attention to the hypocritical motives of these political figures lest it be thought that they have suddenly acquired consciences of their own, and (see my previous post) lest we make the mistake of thinking they "represent" us in any meaningful way. As MrGG says, everything is connected; the killings in Paris didn't occur in a social or political vacuum. I think you devalue some of the considered opinions and analyses here by reducing them to "personal agendas".

[Beef Oven!]

While it's easy to say in two lines what half a lifetime of evidential re-inclusion would be needed to rectify, it beats me how you can say that the role of current world leaders, especially Mr Netanyahu, has no bearing.

It doesn't beat me how you can think that world leaders have played a part in what led to the current situation, because I understand that you have a different perception of the world, to me. I know where you're coming from, I just think you're wrong and I'm not mystified.

[Nick Armstrong]

Indeed, shame on me for the oversight. And thanks for pointing it out, Caliban.

No problem. They seem quite often overlooked of late amid all the 'freedom of expression/tasteless cartoon' debate

[Richard Barrett]

not disconnecting things from the continuum

... for example Cameron returning from Paris to say that in the wake of these events the "intelligence agencies need more access to both communications data - records of phonecalls and online exchanges between individuals - and the contents of communications."

[Don Petter]

... for example Cameron returning from Paris to say that in the wake of these events the "intelligence agencies need more access to both communications data - records of phonecalls and online exchanges between individuals - and the contents of communications."

When did politicians not capitalise on events to further their own ends?

[Serial_Apologist]

It doesn't beat me how you can think that world leaders have played a part in what led to the current situation, because I understand that you have a different perception of the world, to me. I know where you're coming from, I just think you're wrong and I'm not mystified.

We can disagree on how events and actions are interconnected; we can't very well disagree on whether or not they are interconnected in the first place, because nothing ever happens in a vacuum. Scientists, who at one time thought they could take living matter and understand its genesis and behaviour in a test tube, nowdays account for whenever they have to do this by saying why it is that they may have to isolate, while on the whole preferring to conduct research in the real environmental context for its potential effects. I think this principle should apply to anyone and anything evidence-adduced.

[Beef Oven!]

... for example Cameron returning from Paris to say that in the wake of these events the "intelligence agencies need more access to both communications data - records of phonecalls and online exchanges between individuals - and the contents of communications."

Is adjudging others on their record a matter of personal agenda? If so a personal agenda seems not only unavoidable but would seem to me a perfectly valid basis for not disconnecting things from the continuum which they (and especially the characters we're criticising for being there, given their part in what has led to the present situation) represent.

RB has taken Serial_Apologist out of context. S_A was referring to the western leaders' part on what led to the present situation, not its aftermath. Of course following the atrocities, the self righteous leaders will show insincerity and use it as an excuse to further their agendas; the barrack-room Marxists will blame Israel and introduce red-herrings like racism, impoverishment and imperialism; the racists will blame EU foreign policy and will scare monger about Sweden being 40% muslim in 15 years, yada. yada, yada.

Where does a rational person with no agenda stand?

[Anna]

No problem. They seem quite often overlooked of late amid all the 'freedom of expression/tasteless cartoon' debate

Indeed they have rather been seen as incidental, and, in answer to S_A as to why Netanyahu felt he wanted to attend, I think it was important, and a comfort, to the Jews of Paris as they have endured a campaign of hatred over the past few years which some say is akin to how it was in the 30s. And, it would now seem that if Couliblay hadn't encountered a traffic accident and shot the policewoman his target would have been the Jewish school around the corner (instead he chose the Kosher store the next day in order, as he told the tv station he was talking to, that he could kill Jews)

I say the above about those of the Jewish faith with the caveat that not all Jews are Zionists, nor do all Jews support the actions of the Israeli government and with great sadness that nearly 5,000 gendarmes have now had to be deployed to guard Jewish schools and synagogues.

[Richard Barrett]

When did politicians not capitalise on events to further their own ends?

Never, of course, but since 2001 there's been a gradual movement towards a greater degree of surveillance in society and, more generally, an erosion of various liberties, which is taken a little bit further every time something like this happens. It could be viewed either as an agenda which the authorities have had all along, to which attacks like those in Paris give cover for further escalation, and/or as a victory for acts of terrorism, in terms of augmenting a sense of fear and increasing tensions in society, which the terrorists couldn't achieve for themselves but is certainly on their agenda.

[Serial_Apologist]

When did politicians not capitalise on events to further their own ends?

Which of course they (and their excusers!) frequently do by saying, "This event has nothing to do with that, or no connection with it", ridiculing the very idea that it probably does, albeit possibly by way of a long and circuitous historical route that would take longer to explain than the soundbite type of response news programmes only make time for.

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed they have rather been seen as incidental, and, in answer to S_A as to why Netayahu felt he wanted to attend, I think it was important, and a comfort, to the Jews of Paris as they have endured a campaign of hatred over the past few years which some say is akin to how it was in the 30s. And, it would now seem that if Couliblay hadn't encountered a traffic accident and shot the policewoman his target would have been the Jewish school around the corner (instead he chose the Kosher store the next day in order, as he told the tv station he was talking to, that he could kill Jews)

I say the above about those of the Jewish faith with the caveat that not all Jews are Zionists, nor do all Jews support the actions of the Israeli government and with great sadness that nearly 5,000 gendarmes have now had to be deployed to guard Jewish schools and synagogues.

Well said. It's disgraceful how the contemporary rise/return of brazen ante-semitism meets with such ambivalence, especially from the left. It almost feels like a form of collusion. Of course I'm sure it's not intended.

[Serial_Apologist]

RB has taken Serial_Apologist out of context. S_A was referring to the western leaders' part on what led to the present situation, not its aftermath.

Cameron's drawing personal political advantage from the situation may be what you describe as the aftermath, but it's still part of the same mult-branching continuum I would argue.

Of course following the atrocities, the self righteous leaders will show insincerity and use it as an excuse to further their agendas; the barrack-room Marxists will blame Israel and introduce red-herrings like racism, impoverishment and imperialism; the racists will blame EU foreign policy and will scare monger about Sweden being 40% muslim in 15 years, yada. yada, yada.

Where does a rational person with no agenda stand?

Well, this barrack-room Marxist-of-sorts would assume a wider overview than Israel, racism, impoverishment and imperialism, contextualising the global economic system providing the conditions under which all these flourish.

[Richard Barrett]

why Netanyahu felt he wanted to attend

So you don't think it had anything to do with his upcoming general election and the fact that his rivals were there? and why do you think François Hollande advised him against coming? His speech (at the Grande Synagogue in Paris during his visit) contained little "comfort" apart from assuring Jewish people in France that they could move to his country and live there in peace. (How this squares with what he often says about the constant existential threat to that country including from rocket attacks is a little mysterious.) Most of it from what I've seen was the usual rhetoric about how fundamentalist Islam wants to take over the world, attack Western freedoms and values etc. etc. etc.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well said. It's disgraceful how the contemporary rise/return of brazen ante-semitism meets with such ambivalence, especially from the left. It almost feels like a form of collusion. Of course I'm sure it's not intended.

I don't really believe you think that at all.

[Beef Oven!]

I don't really believe you think that at all.

What bit don't you believe? There's a few things in there.