Note: I didn't planed to publish this article. I wrote it only for myself on Day One. But I couldn't repress the need to publish it.
Yesterday morning, Charlie Hebdo was attacked by two heavily armed people. They killed 12 persons, including 2 policemen and a lot of cartoonists, including Charb,.... I loved these guys and their work. Charb's cartoons, mostly those on Sarkozy, were hilarious. We're gonna fucking miss them.
I learned the event by my brother, who told it to me when he got back from high school. A couple of hours ago, I received a notification from the Twitter app about @Maitre_Eolas and some people tweeting about #CharlieHebdo. After seeing a picture of a Police Car riddled with bullets, I thought that someone tried to attack the newspaper, since it wasn't the first time it happened, but with little consequences. The picture was pretty explicit, though. The bullet impacts were extremely well targeted, and would have killed the passenger if there was one. But I had a lot to catch up on my RSS feed, so I moved on quickly.
The reaction on my Twitter feed was unanimous. There was a lot of sadness, because we were losing talented people; and incomprehension (Why were they killed? They were only people who drew things on paper, not assassins; and it's not like they hated Islam in particular, they were satirical about anything, included every other religions.) But, after the sadness comes the anger, and all those people made me remember that this was the work of a handful of people, not the work of Muslims. And it made me realize that this act, which was supposed to avenge all the Muslims who were offended by the Mahomet's caricature, put them in danger of a (unfounded and stupid) retaliation for something that they didn't do and don't approve.
What I can't understand is the motive behind those killings. If those morons can't grasp or handle that a society can be made with people with opposite ideas who can freely and openly discuss about them; and that disturbs them so much that they have to kill those people, well they have a long way to go, and I don't think that all the ammunition in the world would be enough to eradicate the free world (who greatly outnumbers them). The most effective way of killing this liberty is to prove to us that this liberty is useless, or that it can greatly harm us. If you want to win us over, you have to make your ideas attractive. If you are offended by the publication of Mahomet's caricatures instead of crying foul about them, just make the publisher irrelevant to the society by proving that you seriously don't give a shit about it. Magazines like Charlie Hebdo lives from the public debate that they create. If there's none, there is no interest in publishing them. If you make their work pointless, what they could do doesn't matter at all, because no one cares.
Seriously, if someone who is writing all of this on a little Field Notes during his job as a cashier, while waiting for his next customer on a very calm evening; you would think that an entire organization could have thought about it. Because, to quote the West Wing : "Terrorism is 100% failure rate. Not only terrorist always fail at what they're after, they pretty much always succeed in strengthening whatever it is they're against". Today, France and the French just come out more united than ever, just because of this.
Also, this proves that making ultra-repressive laws  in Parliament is useless. Because if today, with all the legal (and illegal -see the NSA) means that the Secret Services possess, you can't track people who are carrying automatic weapons to kill people who are under constant protection from the Police, passing harsher laws doesn't gonna improve the situation. They're just gonna put civil rights, the one who are put in danger by those terrorist you are fighting against, under more and more pressure.
“Données de connexion et Renseignement, Valls attendu pour explication” about 2014's French military planning law (in French). ↩︎