There was bitter irony to the drawing that appeared a week ago on the cover of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine. "There are still no terror attacks in France," it read in large letters. "Hold on, wait a minute," the caricatured jihadist, who is armed and bearded, says. "There's still time until the end of January to grant your wish." This entire, awful story could be summed up in those two sentences. Who would have believed that the staffers of the satirical magazine would manage to successfully predict the massacre? It is reminiscent of the French author Michel Houellebecq, who this past week published a book, "Soumission" ("Submission"), which predicts that in 2023, France will have a Muslim president. In another of his books, "Plateforme" ("Platform"), he to some extent foreshadowed the attacks of September 11, 2001. What happened on Wednesday in the Paris offices of a newspaper certainly qualifies as France's September 11. It would be difficult to say that the writing wasn't on the wall. Only two weeks ago, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that never in the history of the Fifth Republic had authorities been forced to grapple with such concrete, serious threats from jihadist terror. Two weeks ago, four separate violent incidents -- two car attacks, a stabbing, and a shooting -- occurred all within a span of four days. The authorities were quick to determine that in two of the incidents -- the car attacks in Dijon and Nanet -- the assailants were mentally unstable. People in France didnt really know how to process the news, nor did they know how to respond to the rapid diagnosis of the guilty parties who for some reason chose to yell "Allahu akbar" while committing their murderous deeds. Officially, France did not put two and two together. Perhaps it didn't wish to. There is little doubt that this approach has impacted the overall attitude in the country. While political correctness in France makes it almost impossible to speak openly about Islamist terrorism, one could sense that this was coming. The relatively minor incidents in 2014 were a sort of appetizer before the main course. Now Frenchmen and women are taking stock of the most vicious attack on French soil since the 1961 Vitry-le-Francois train bombing in 1961, which killed 28 people and left over 100 wounded. On Wednesday, the cry of Allahu akbar was heard once again, only this time on the streets of downtown Paris, and it was loud enough for many residents to hear. This time, it is hard to hide behind the "mentally unstable" excuse. This time, it is clear to all that the battle call is fueled by a jihadist, fanatic, violent, and dangerous ideology that wants to overrun France and, by extension, all of Europe. Yes, overrunning France, just as French schoolchildren learn history lessons about Charles Martel, who in 732 successfully stopped the Muslim advance into Europe. Those were the days. These days, the advance is somewhat different. There's no need to travel to Europe at the head of a large army. The only thing that would suffice is to be the son or grandson of immigrants, or to be born in France and to qualify for a French passport, all while not feeling an ounce of loyalty to the sound of La Marseillaise, the French national anthem. Now, all France is paying the price. Even the large number of Muslims who did choose integration and assimilation understand that something in the republic has gone very wrong -- all in the name of political correctness. Expressing religious frustration French President Francois Hollande was quick to arrive at the scene of the attack in Paris' 11th arrondissement, home of the Charlie Hebdo offices. "We are now dealing with this threat," the president said, acknowledging that the authorities had been aware of the possible dangers posed to the newspaper. French security services did manage to thwart a number of attacks, but not on Wednesday. The butchery against Charlie Hebdo was particularly terrifying because of the target, the way in which it was executed, and the overall context. If we look at the target of the attack, we will also realize that a large chunk of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the leaders of France's Muslim community, those same individuals who are now adamantly condemning the violent terrorist assault. Let us recall September 30, 2005, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran a series of cartoons that infuriated Muslims worldwide. The claim at the time was that the cartoons defamed the Prophet Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo, the publication that has spared no criticism of any of the major religions for the four-plus decades of its existence, immediately came to the Danish newspaper's defense. In 2006, they ran some of the controversial cartoons, even adding some of their own. Then-president Jacques Chirac said that the caricatures were offensive, in effect echoing the statements by Muslim community leaders. French Muslim officials even took the magazine to court. Nicolas Sarkozy and Hollande, who would eventually succeed Chirac as occupants of the Elysee Palace, actually threw their support behind the magazine in the name of freedom of speech. The court agreed with them, rendering a verdict that exonerated the newspaper of any criminal intent. Muslims in France were hurt by this. Perhaps the most extreme among them saw the case as a pretext to kill. The verdict and its aftermath should have served as a wake-up call, a reason for authorities to fear that someone would try to vent their rage. As Valls indicated, there are at least 1,000 Frenchmen who are either returning or who intend to return from Iraq and Syria, where they traveled to join the ranks of Islamic State group. These nationals know little else besides killing. France has already witnessed this, in March 2012. On that date, a gunman opened fire on the Ozar Hatorah Jewish day school in Toulouse, killing four Jews, three of them children. He also murdered four French Muslim soldiers. The terrorist, Mohammed Merah, had returned from Afghanistan before carrying out the killings. He barricaded himself in his apartment as security forces sought his arrest. In an exchange of gunfire, he was killed. In May 2014, there was the terrorist attack against the Jewish museum in Brussels. This time, the murderer was known as Mehdi Nemmouche, a French jihadist of Algerian origin. All of a sudden, we had returned to the days of July 1995, the same month in which a particularly bloody attack was perpetrated on French soil, this time against the Saint-Michel subway station. Eight people died and 117 were wounded. Two terrorists were responsible for planting a bomb in the station. One of them, Khaled Kelkal, was also of Algerian extraction. He, too, would die in a clash with police, in the city of Lyon. The Algeria war erupted once again, but this time the combatants were waging it on French soil. Like trained soldiers As for this week's bloodbath, France was stunned by the method of operation used by the assailants. The manner in which the attacks were carried out clearly indicated that these men had undergone military training. At 11:30 a.m., they arrived at the scene. It was evident that they knew what time the editorial staff held their meeting, which included the publication's most senior journalists. An eyewitness at the scene captured the chain of events on camera. It was as if the images were taken from Syria or Iraq, and not on the streets of the French capital. Who would have believed it? Every French citizen who saw the images was mortified and shocked. Even though they were wearing balaclavas, they wanted to make a name for themselves. The murders acted like trained soldiers. They wrote protective vests and armed themselves with M-16 and AK-47 assault rifles. They didn't go there to die. They were there to kill, to take revenge against the journalists on staff. "We killed the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo," one of them screamed. "We avenged the Prophet Muhammad." They also managed to kill two policemen. The worst-case scenario materialized in the span of a few seconds. It wasn't the horrific images alone that explain the level of shock. One must also factor the reverberations. Charlie Hebdo is a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 100,000, no more. In 2006, it broke records when it reprinted the Muhammad cartoons. Despite its modest circulation, the newspaper's cartoonists are well known. In fact, they are some of the best that France has to offer. These are quick-witted, sharp artists, some of whom were assigned bodyguards since the cartoons' publication. On Wednesday, that didn't help much. One of those killed, Jean Cabut, was a week away from celebrating his 76th birthday. Cabut, who was a regular guest on television talk shows, was a member of the staff since the newspaper's founding in 1970. Also amongst those killed in the attack was Georges Wolinski, the son of a Jewish father of Polish origin and a popular personality whom I got to know quite well in Paris. The talented Bernard Verlhac, who was known by the nickname "Tignous," also lost his life. Then there was Stephane Charbonnier, the editor in chief and a talented cartoonist in his own right. "Charb," as he signed his drawings, was also among the victims. In 2011, an unidentified assailant hurled a firebomb at the Charlie Hebdo offices, a chilling foreshadow of what was to come. At the time, Charb said that he would "rather die standing then live on his knees." Indeed, he did die standing. Tens of thousands of French citizens paid their last respects in a number of spontaneous demonstrations that sprung up across the republic. In every demonstration, people carried signs saying "I am Charlie" or "Thank you, Charlie." Democracy in the crosshairs Within 24 hours, the terrorist attack took on huge symbolic importance. The nation's citizens viewed it as a metaphor for a war on freedom of speech, civil liberties, and democracy in a country that proudly boasts of its belief in human rights. That is also how the various media agencies and news organization around Europe have covered the tragedy. These grandiose descriptions, however, are strictly being bandied about in the press. That is because nobody really has the stomach to discuss a war against radical Islam. Just like U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009, the leaders of Europe prefer to refrain from calling a spade a spade -- or, as the French put it, "calling a cat a cat." One leader who didn't shy away from looking the problem straight in the eye was Hollande, who remarked that "our democracy is in the crosshairs." The president, whose approval rating has dipped to a measly 14 percent in polls, called for the country to unite. The parties of the Right and Left did come together, heeding the president's entreaty. This was the front that helped demonstrate unity against this assault on freedom of expression. For a few moments, radical Islam was marginalized and pushed to the side. The names of the three suspects were announced soon afterward -- the brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi and their friend, Khamid Morad, who turned himself in to authorities. If you guessed that these youths are of Algerian descent, you would be correct. Is this the Algerian War, redux- The one who most stands to benefit from this entire ordeal is Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's extreme Right. All of a sudden, Le Pen sees herself as having a realistic chance to make major inroads in the run-up to the upcoming presidential elections, a fitting follow-up to her party's impressive showing in the European parliamentary election. The republic is gradually beginning to realize just how bad the situation has become, as it now finds itself stuck between the rock of radical Islam and the hard place that is the far Right. This is not what the people envisioned. France has raised its security alert level to the highest possible. The authorities also launched an unprecedented manhunt, scouring the country for the killers. There were even reports late Thursday that the two suspects had been spotted. French security forces were said to be closing in on the gunmen in the town of Reims. It seems that we've been here before, and the script just keeps repeating itself. The attack drew sharp condemnations from the White House and 10 Downing Street. That's what happens when the West is reminded that it is vulnerable and exposed. We recently saw in Sydney and Ottawa just how dangerous the world has become, and the endless flow of migrants has made Paris even more dangerous. Not only does a portion of the Muslim community disavow any sense of belonging or empathy to their new home, but it relocates in these places in order to fight it. Nobody harbors any illusions about the fact that these attacks crossed a line. The terrorists were so brazen that they had no qualms about acting in the center of Paris, an indication that the security forces hardly succeeded in deterring them. France showed itself to be more concerned with stories about the president's mistress rather than combating terrorism. Will this attack have far-reaching consequences? That's unclear. The fear of an empowered extreme Right alongside the concern of angering the Muslim community are preventing authorities from doing what needs to be done. The government needs the Muslims themselves -- or at least those amongst the Muslims who are interested in integrating in society -- in order to help. "I'm in shock," said Louis Brogier, a French investigating judge and the country's foremost expert on terrorism. "I know the situation in France quite well. I think that we will have all of the information that we will need." The big question is what the powers that be in the Elysee Palace will do with that information. The bruised and battered republic is trying to unite in the wake of the attack in order to defend itself. "Trying" is the operative word, because in this war, the enemy has home-turf advantage. It doesn't need a visa or a passport. After all, the enemy is French. Who knows the battlefield better than they-
