Paris attacks will be on top of the agenda for a long time. The statements of world leaders and politicians after the attacks of November 13 were remarkable in every aspect. In addition to the official display of  the “victim” image,  the government tried to respond to the massacre using the usual official rhetoric. 


The most basic, striking, and misleading statement came from French President Francois Hollande: “France is at war.”This statement is not as clear as it sounds. Hasn't France been already at war in the Middle East for a long time? It's been side by side with the US in many operations. Taking on a pioneering role as it happened in Libya, France is already war. A new turn is that ISIL took the war into Paris. The fact that French warplanes kill innocent people in Syria in the name of war on terror, intervene in the Middle East for imperialistic goals can not justify the murder of civilians. However, saying this is "an act of war" is nothing more than justifying the killings of innocent people. Hollande's statement is important only because it is symbolic. Many of the official statements have a similar logic and a double standard discourse. 

People hold candles and a placard reading "I am Charlie" as they gather to commemorate the victims of a terror attack against French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris
© AP Photo/Thibault Camus
Charlie Hebdo and ISIL: Outer Limits of Liberalism and Islam

In such cases, the statements provide important clues in terms of discourse analysis. It is basically reading between the lines. It wasn't hard to predict that refugees and Muslims living in Europe would be blamed. Apart from indication of social discrimination, legal measures supported by persuasive arguments will be adopted. In this sense it is obvious that ISIL massacres result in not only strategic targets, but also justifying reasons for the European social structure. 


Polish FM's words are the summary of the official attitude. You can question how much Poland represents Western Europe. But less political words yet a candid act as a translation of what Paris or London can not say in political language. You might find it more tactless, but who can say that those words are not the manifestation of the subconscious? Polish FM Witold Waszczykowski demanded that Syrian refugees in Europe should be armed and sent to war in their own country. He said they could help them to set up an army. 


This may sound like a wicked idea. But the rest of his words is like 21 century version of 19 century orientalism. He complained that Syrian people who came to Europe with their iPhones in their hands asked weather they could charge their phones before asking for food and water. The idea that White Man undertakes his/her responsibility and arms the refugees and sends them to Syria might sound reasonable. Just like White Man carries all the sources from Burma to England and thinks that this is his/her responsibility as in George Orwell's Burmese Days. White Man can not handle the idea of migrants coming in boats with smart phones in today's world as well. 


A Swedish politician also proposed an 8pm curfew for Muslims. We will understand if this is a sign of a common fear after the state makes its decisions. 


But Danish MP Soren Espersen earns the top prize for his rhetoric: 

“We aren't bombing places where there are civilians, but we need to start doing so. ISIL hides behind women and children in villages and towns and they know that we are gentlemen and won't bomb them. That needs to end. We need to do so if that's where the ISIL fighters are. These women are also to a large extent part of the system. We can no longer have a situation in which ISIL operates  freely knowing fully well that they won't be bombed.”


ISIL thinks the same. They threatened the countries taking part in the US-led coalition's operations in Syria to have the same fate as France. Civilized world's subconscious and the language of the ones attacking this civilized world's system have so much in common. Apart from the attacks' strategical dimension as well as military and political results, the reflection of the consciousness creating the common discourse on politics looks more of two different cultures and is more thought-provoking. Do all these function as a “practical hostility” used for their own citizens, namely Europeans, before implementing marginal policies? 

It is as if ISIL's prompter is calling from Paris and the West's prompter is calling from Palmyra.