Last update: 2022-04-22 09:24:33
Clear, impacting, sensational. So must be in terrorist’s mind the message connected to his actions. He/she has no time to lose, he/she must obtain the most spectacular effect reaching as many targets as possible: hit the enemy, obtain a victory and this way glorify God. He/she wants to reach heaven, the reward for his/her courage. What about the collateral damage, the innocent victims left on the ground? They're not a problem, because, above all, it is the intention of the action of the Jihadist that wins: affirm the truth of God eliminating the unfaithful. In this project the ‘communicative’ question is of the maximum importance for the global radical Islamic terrorists. This is demonstrated by their online magazines, websites, videos-releases which they spread, their skill in the use of social media, ideal places for recruiting new militants.
And perhaps, with this ‘media sensitivity’ view, you can also understand the target chosen last 7 January, a target capable of provoking a global reaction like the one recorded by the principal Western newspapers: break into the newsroom of a weekly, when the editorial meeting is taking place and everybody is present and make a killing. Killing the signatures of a newspaper well-known (and even threatened) for its corrosive, controversial and debated satire in France, but also defended as a symbol of freedom of expression, the pride of French
laicité.
And that this was a great target has been confirmed by the oceanic event on Sunday 1/11 along the boulevards of Paris: its extent and its transversality, the presence of dozens of heads of government (including those of a number of countries where dissident journalists are rotting in jail), has made it unique in the history of Europe, a textbook turning point. Millions of people from every social class and cultural and religious backgrounds together to say “I'm Charlie.” The hashtag
#jesuisCharlie is the quintessence of the universal desire of being-there to raise ones voice and shout in unison, “I too am one of those who were killed.” A perfect slogan, which refers to collective identification with the victims of a barbaric attack, which some would now raise among the heroes of the homeland of the Pantheon in Paris. But there's something more: a reaction well beyond our standards has confirmed that,
hitting that paper (before the tragedy, poorly tolerated by various French society circles),
was more outrageous and unacceptable to the majority of European media than the attack on the twin towers or the destruction of sixteen Nigerian villages where two thousand people, of which we may never even know the name, were killed (the African 11 September only deserved a few lines in our mainstream media).
So maybe it's true that newspapers have become untouchable for Western society, sacred temples of civil religion, freedom of expression, the foundation of our democracies? The Kouachi brothers have really scored a masterstroke ‘on the road to God’ as required by jihadist martyrology. In December 2001, Osama Bin Laden said about the attacks on New York and Washington: “These young people have said it with facts, overshadowing any other speech made in any part of the world. Speeches understood by Arabs and non-Arabs ... They have spoken above all the media (...) this incident has led to reflect (...) something that has been of great use to Islam.”
“Above all the media,” even the Paris attack did not need mediation or translation to outrage the whole world virally. But it also simultaneously injected into Western society a new restlessness, a radical question: what are these values of Western society, now considered more than ever under attack? We speak very heatedly about these values these days, with the risk of rhetoric between the fascinating and boring: what are we thinking when we talk about them? They resonate and crowd the streets, but what do they consist of? Which substance and limits can we concede, for example, to the so much evoked freedom of expression? Does it have only a personal meaning or also a social one? Satire is a ‘humanity trench,’ a reality intelligence inherited from great classic Greek and Latin authors. But who establishes the border today, in a multicultural society, between satire, bias and hate speech? Not the Kalashnikov, not terror, that's for sure. But along this trench there is an urgent need of loyalty of Europeans towards their traditions and their present. From the Paris event we should learn to reflect on the consistency of freedom of expression, on the roots of terrorism and its relationship with what Pope Francis has called a “third world war.” But especially on Islam. Islam has many faces, it repeats itself. But this can't become an excuse for not knowing anyone of them. Also opposite diminishments are worn out:
like identifying Islam with violent demonstrations, on the one hand, and diminishing those who argue that Islam is peace, and that the jihadist attacks (from Isis to Boko Haram and others) have nothing to do with Islam. Those who have studied jihad sources from the origins to the present day, like David Cook, document that there is written evidence that justifies, if not the current practice, at least the pricnciple of violent action.
The outrage and the cry “not in my name” may offer immediate collective satisfaction, but don't gratify. Instead they introduce the hour of loyalty, the awakening of our inner self that can no longer accept the agenda dictated by the media nor settle for easy explanations: just what does the Muslim who came into my story say about me and to me, by shaking my identity and my reference values? What does the presence of this neighbour mean to me and what steps must be taken now? Answering these questions can be an interesting job to do together. Like when you march in a square, but decide to go beyond the ‘glue’ provided by slogan.
