Do you think the just-concluded G7 summit in Hiroshima achieved anything substantial?

If yes there would have been a sensational announcement and reporting by the news.

Unity shown on Ukraine and it sounds like mostly unity on China.

result is zero.

next question from here-how much all of unecessary event costs japanese tax payers?

i dont mention carbon print of their planes at all just pure costs in Japan.

No, of course not. But now we can positively say that it completely met all expectations, which also were none. lol

I have no idea, lots of headlines in newspapers were swarmed by G7 news for weeks and yet nothing significant was announced.

Too much grandstanding and too few (if any) practical ideas.

Useless event, nothing but politicians payed by taxes, pitching businesses to each other for their corporations overlords. It will "trickle down", lol, yeah.

The only "policies" that normal people can actually feel are tax raises.

Well, we have lots of photos of people lined up in front of (_fill_in_theblank).

I’ve been printing and framing them to hang on my walls. How about you?

The Summit was nothing but another dog-and-pony show in which our so-called leaders could pose for the cameras, make pointless speeches, and avoid doing their jobs at home.

Just a decadent circUS..

I don't think they had a substantial conclusion for the meeting since Japanese and international media have not pick up the topic about the results of the summit so much.

Just a good opportunity for Kishida to feel bigger and more significant than he actually is.

The Zoom era has taught me that 80% of matters can be effectively dealt with by video conference, but that face-to-face meetings are indeed much better for relationship building. Even if the G7 summit didn't yield any major announcements of tangible achievements, I'm perfectly fine with sporadic gatherings like this to foster cooperation and understanding between powerful nations in the world. As in the business world, sometimes in the long run beers around a table can accomplish more than suits in a meeting room.

pure waste of taxpayers money for...what?

Does wasting tax payers money, polluting the air with their private jets and taking tourist pictures count?

Didn't think so.

It was all about as useless as Kishida is. Almost……..

Internationally? not at all, just repeat what was already said by the different countries.

Nationally? yes, since Kishida is already using the political funds obtained from the summit to strengthen the position of the LDP

I called it earlier this week. The sale of kabukiglasses skyrocketed. - The only thing achieved with the summit.

Unity shown on Ukraine and it sounds like mostly unity on China.

Yeah, but perhaps not a good thing. Recall when Japan showed unity with two other countries around 1940...

Sure, Biden impressed the whole world.

Just more free lunches and wasted tax payers money to support the cronyism!

These meetings are useless, a waste of time, and the host countries tax payers money.

The circus was back in town, and as per usual, lots of freshly baked loaves of bread were handed out. Everybody was happy. So that would be a solid, "Yes".

Hard to say since I couldn't attend.

As I predicted this would go off without any security incidents, a result of increased police protection in Japan overall, which has been responsible for a decrease in domestic incidents too.

As I predicted this would go off without any security incidents, a result of increased police protection in Japan overall, which has been responsible for a decrease in domestic incidents too.

what decrease in domestic incidents are you talking about? any source to prove that two consecutive years with attempts made on political figures (with one tragic success) means a decrease?

what decrease in domestic incidents are you talking about?

Well, let's focus on the them of the question being asked:

Do you think the just-concluded G7 summit in Hiroshima achieved anything substantial?

Ok, so we got Hiroshima. A city in Japan.

Hence, domestic.

Well, let's focus on the them of the question being asked:

Yes, the question that I asked. You claimed there was a decrease of domestic incidents, even when two consecutive years had attempts on important public figures and one was successful.

Do your lack of response means you accept this claim is mistaken?

As I predicted this would go off without any security incidents, a result of increased police protection in Japan overall, which has been responsible for a decrease in domestic incidents too.

Absolute fact.

Is there anyone here really trying to claim there were terrorist incidents at the G7?

Yes, the question that I asked.

Yes or no to the above question.

Absolute fact.

How do two consecutive years of attempts to the life of important political figures a "decrease" of incidents? do you believe this represents a lower number compared with previous years?

How do two consecutive years of attempts to the life of important political figures a "decrease" of incidents? do you believe this represents a lower number compared with previous years?

What country are you referring, because your statement does not apply to Japan.

What country are you referring, because your statement does not apply to Japan.

Anybody following the news would know it is actually referring to Japan. The attempt made on Shinzo Abe happened in 2022, while the one on PM Kishida in 2023, that obviously means two consecutive years where this happened, how do this constitute a decrease according to you?

Anybody following the news would know it is actually referring to Japan.

You speak for "anybody"?

If so, they would know the Abe and Kishida incidents occurred in less than 11 months of each other.

Not even 1 year, never mind 2, as your personal opinion based claim tries to assert.

And there was no "attempt" on Kishida,

Abe was shot and killed.

Someone ignited a smoke bomb that did not even touch Kishida.

Well done Japan security in quickly control and ensuring no one was injured.

If so, they would know the Abe and Kishida incidents occurred in less than 11 months of each other.

How does that contradict the fact that the incidents happened in two consecutive years? Your own comment support the claim, does this means you are indirectly recognizing as wrong when you said this do not apply to UJapan?

Someone ignited a smoke bomb that did not even touch Kishida.

That is still an attempt that should have been prevented by security measures.

So once again the question that you have not yet answered, how do two consecutive years of attempts on the life of important political figures mean a decrease? how many similar incidents happened in the previous years that you think two consecutive years of this happening is less?

How does that contradict the fact that the incidents happened in two consecutive years?

Who is trying to contradict something that is not a fact, other than you???

Your own comment support the claim, does this means you are indirectly recognizing as wrong when you said this do not apply to UJapan?

Wrong, So the fact no attack was made on Kishida means you accept that the police security was strengthened so that there is a noticeable decrease in terrorist incidents such as was also proved at the G7.

Obviously you agree there were no terrorist attacks at the G7, so you don't even need to comment. That means you accept that the heightened security had a positive effect.

Who is trying to contradict something that is not a fact, other than you???

So you accept that things happening in consecutive years are not a decrease.

Wrong, So the fact no attack was made on Kishida means you accept that the police security was strengthened so that there is a noticeable decrease in terrorist incidents such as was also proved at the G7.

The attack was made, there is no point in pretending to ignore something so widely reported, specially because you already described the attack in your previous comment. Are you trying to be purposefully obtuse to get your comments deleted again? It would be much more productive if you just recognized when you are mistaken instead of taunting the moderation to erase something you regret commenting.

Obviously you agree there were no terrorist attacks at the G7, so you don't even need to comment. That means you accept that the heightened security had a positive effect.

Again, my point is that the claim that the incidents decreased is wrong, because two attempts made in consecutive years prove the opposite. You said this was not the case in Japan, so how is this supposedly a decrease? how many attempts were made to important political figures in the previous years that for you the latest two are a lower number?