In Paris, on January 7, two armed men acting with military precision gained entry to Charlie Hebdo magazine’s offices and assassinated the editor and several other employees. Also killed were two police officers and two others, there were eleven wounded. Witnesses said the men moved with thoughtful precision, they were quick, cold and organized. Moving with precision, they quickly located their intended victims and killed them. After the attack a police union spokesman described them as “commandos”. They also spoke perfect French, coolly taking the time and energy to make sure one or more witnesses clearly heard that they were Al Qaeda, Yemen. One witness in an apartment across the street thought they were a highly trained French military unit in action until he saw one of them shoot a police officer. Then they made a clean getaway, unscathed.
That’s when it all changes. From this point forward the gunmen became the Three Stooges version of assassins. They evidently did not plan or prepare for a thing after leaving the scene of the crime. They carelessly left their ID in the alleged getaway car. They robbed a gas station (giving away their position) evidently because this allegedly cool, precisely calculating pair hadn’t planned their escape and laid aside funding. Ultimately they took a hostage, tried to hide, ended up getting trapped and reportedly died in a futile, suicidal charge of the police. There is no chance for questioning, no trial. We do not get to hear their voices, and neither do the witnesses who heard the killers brazenly shout their claimed affiliations.
There is apparently no question that one or both of the alleged assassins was involved in shady dealings involving Al Qaeda, Yemen. These brothers don’t appear to have been upstanding French citizens. However, do all the facts portray them more as the probable Charlie Hebdo assassins or as good fall guys?
What happened in the offices of Charlie Hebdo is far from adequately explained. The inconsistencies are too great. In summary, the successive reports portray the alleged assassins as going from precise, cold, calculating assassins who are very much in control to bumbling, panicky fugitives in a matter of a few minutes and miles. Is that likely or even possible?
As with every criminal event that takes place in the world, when we look for who might be involved, we need to be asking who stands to benefit? In this case who stands to benefit from the public reaction to the shooting?
Update: Since originally publishing this post this news article has appeared, but not widely:
Speak out! However, it is essential to realize life is a dialogue. Share, listen, learn, adjust, refine.