I hadn’t meant to return to this subject but today’s G2 in The Guardian had an article by Paul Mason which more or less articulated my views. Except he put it better than I could.

Any action that does not take account of what the world – and especially the Middle East – will look like after the resolution of the conflict (and it is undoubtedly a conflict) is worse than useless, may in fact only stir up more trouble.

My posts of the past two days were scheduled in advance and so had no possibility of taking account of the events in Paris.

My sympathies and condolences are with the families and friends of the dead and injured.

It’s difficult to comprehend why people would commit such acts – or to see what utility they might have in the perpetrators’ own eyes. Do they really think it will change the policies of European governments, or that of the US? If they were under the influence – or part – of Daesh (as that organisation doesn’t like to be called) surely the motivation can not be desperation. As I understand it, despite some successes against them by Kurdish forces, their territorial gains have not been badly reversed so far.

I greatly fear that the intent was to provoke us into over-reaction – something that worked very well when Al Qaida flew those aeroplanes into the twin towers.

There is an undercurrent in the British news that the question of bombing targets in Syria will come before Parliament again. Mr Irresponsible is reported to be all in favour of this. All I would say to this is that – with one possible exception (and even that is by no means a given) bombing has never resolved a conflict. All that what we in Britain called the Blitz accomplished was to stiffen the resolve of the British public not to give in to Germany. Bomber Command’s operations over Germany similarly failed to affect civilian morale to any great extent. Or to bring about an end to that war. Only boots on the ground did that.

Is the British public (is David Cameron/) prepared to send troops to Syria? More importantly; if they are, is there a plan to hand over to someone (or group) competent as soon as possible after a successful end? Is there someone competent to hand over to?

I am sure there will be calls for greater powers to monitor personal communications over and above the ones recently promulgated – already increased recruitment to the security services and GCHQ has been announced. Might it just be possible this is one of the things the Paris attacks were planned to accomplish?

If our governments become more authoritarian as a result of wanting to be seen to be doing something then what precisely would we be defending ourselves against? Would we not then have become what we are fighting, if a bit more woolly around the edges.

Short of supplying those troops on the ground and an effective plan for post-conflict resolution in Syria – plus something along the lines of the Marshall Plan for economic regeneration – it is probably too late now for a similar endeavour in Iraq to bear much fruit – I do not think Britain can do anything to affect the situation in Syria materially.

The best thing may be to do nothing. Continue on our daily business. Go to gigs. Go to football matches. Go to restaurants. Do not change our actions in any way at all.

As those never issued WW2 posters had it, Keep Calm and Carry On.

At the local “Art Cinema”, the Adam Smith Theatre. Whoopee! No round trip to Dunfermline just to see a film. (Still on tonight, 14/2/12, if anyone wants to go.)

This is a Woody Allen film and many of his tropes are present. The lead character, Gil, is typically Allenish with his verbal mannerisms, we have the fascination with the past (Zelig; Broadway Danny Rose) and an intrusion of the fantastic (Play It Again, Sam; Broadway Danny Rose.)

Gil is a writer on a trip to Paris with his fiancee and her awful parents; a moneyed couple, snobbish and intolerant, with no redeeming features. But none of these four are really sympathetic. There is a fine cameo by Michael Sheen as a friend of the fiancee, with just the right degree of irritating know-allness.

To escape this lot, Gil walks through Paris and gets lost. At midnight he is invited into an old car cruising the streets. He is taken to a party where he encounters Cole Porter, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. On subsequent nights he meets Gertrude Stein (Alice B Toklas has a small name check,) Pablo Picasso and his mistress, Salvador Dali, Louis Buňuel and Man Ray. Gil is delighted as he is fascinated by the 1920s, his perfect time. He is also much taken with Picasso’s mistress who thinks the Belle Époque was the best era to be alive.

If at times this all seemed a bit too overloaded it is the sort of stuff with which Allen can have a bit of fun, as when Gil suggests a film scenario to Buňuel.

Stein agrees to read Gil’s novel manuscript. At one point she describes it as Science Fiction (it is set in her future.) I was dubious at this usage and checked; the term apparently wasn’t in common use until 1929.

Gil is drawn more and more into the 1920s milieu and strolling with Picasso’s mistress one night they are invited into a horse-drawn cab and end up in the Belle Époque. Cue Toulouse Lautrec, Degas and Gauguin. Here Gil realises that no-one likes their own time and the past isn’t necessarily a better place.

But he determines to stay in (present day) Paris and chucks his girlfriend.

It was the fantastic element that I found most satisfying, the going into the past aspect is the sort of thing that makes Altered History (or Alternative/Alternate History if you must) so intriguing, but the present day characters were just so crass; apart from Carla Bruni as a tour guide and a female seller of old records Gil bumps into on a shopping trip.

This was minor Allen but entertaining enough, with quite a few laughs. I enjoyed it.