When a government is bad, any Opposition party can get itself elected even if its leader is unpopular (e.g. Abbott). But it is a different story once elected because an unpopular leader becomes the face of the party and makes the party in his likeness i.e. unpopular. This is exactly what happened to the LNP government in its first two years. Within three months of winning power, its 7% election margin had turned into a 7% deficit and largely remained there until the then leader got the 'Martin Place crisis' which almost elevated him to the status of the equally unpopular Labor Party Opposition leader. This was his cue to introduce as much draconian legislation as possible and he was well on his way when he was finally stopped.
Now an extremely unpopular French President has decided he won’t let his present crisis go to waste and appears to be scapegoating the Islamic world in general and Syria in particular (which is itself fighting the Islamists for its very survival). Scaremongering is being applied liberally particularly by the conservative media and their call out boys. State of emergency laws are being invoked and curtailments to liberté and egalité are being pushed onto the French while other equally unpopular Western leaders appear to be in lock step.
Like Turnbull, Obama and the US State Department appear to be wrestling with the Pentagon hawks and their Neocon buddies “itching” for a stand up drag ‘em out war. But these don’t go so well for the US. Not counting WW1 which it was late to; or WW2 which was won with the aid of Germany’s own technology; every other war or invasion the US has instigated could hardly be clocked up as ‘one for the gipper’. These heavy-loss, no win wars have been going on since the Alamo. Even one time Chihuahuan Governor Pancho Villa, held out against US Army raids into Northern Mexico for nine months in 1916 before General pershing was recalled to “assist” in the European war. Then there was Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and on and on. The only winners have been the arms salesmen. Hey! Wait a minute!
My point is that Islam can no more be held accountable for fanatical Islamists than can Christianity for fanatical Christian sects advocating a similar approach to non-believers. All I know is the innocent cop it every time while the demons are allowed to run amok. Isis is a criminal cabal not a sect and not a movement. It is a magnet for every dispossessed adventure seeker in the world and needs to be shut down. Surely the world could handle this if it were serious?
But when your only glimpse of success is enveloped in the smell of gun powder, many opt to close their minds to the consequences for the innocent. A murder in Martin Place by a deranged and delusional individual, who also happened to be a multi-faith Islamist sometimes appearing for the Sunni side and other times on the Shia side of a conflict, and whose background was and still is obviously “protected”, is no basis for holding power in my view.