It's pretty clear that the assassins were Al-Qaeda affiliates. One of them trained in Yemen. Both shouted Muslim slogans, as "Allahu Ackbar", and "The Prophet has been avenged!" during their murdering.
George Will makes the insightful point that the killers were not terrorists in any serious sense, but assassins. Terrorists engage in random violence as a form of coercion and intimidation. This attack was carefully selected, timed and committed at specific people. This is how assassins operate. Labels matter, and we can't dilute words to the point where they simply mean "good" or "bad".
What's really scary is that there are Kalashnikovs in Paris. It isn't likely that the supply was totally consumed in the attack. After all, somebody got these military weapons in, it's unlikely that is all there are, or that it's limited simply to automatic assault weapons.
France is so heavy on gun control that some of the police patrols are unarmed. That decision delayed reinforcements and provided no protections to anyone involved. Except, you know, the attackers.
Dan Bongino writes that the only real answer is to get a concealed carry permit. I came to a similar conclusion separately; the Israelis don't have a problem with these kinds of attacks. The few times gun attacks have been tried, the response, immediate and lethal. Attackers don't get many kills, and they don't escape. The only solution to random, un-targeted terrorism, or tactical attacks on public, nonmilitary targets is widespread gun ownership. But our new governor doesn't think this is important issue.
If I was a Jew in France, I would be stopping by the Israeli embassy and inquiring about emigration. Actually, given the circumstances, I would probably call instead. Someone is probably outside the embassy taking notes.
"The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet." - President Obama, 2012. Well, the future can not belong to those who honor or submit to Muhammad, as the only path with those people leads back to the 7th century.
Incidentally, Muhammad was no prophet. He was cynical manipulator who built himself an army by promising his soldiers an afterlife of sex slaves and wealth. Of course, he didn't wait that long. After all, what's the point of being a warlord if you can't rape a few children? At least Genghis Khan was honest.
Islam is less a religion and more of a political, conqueror's movement with religious trappings.
A lot of news media and commentators have suggested that primary responsibility lies with the newspaper. As if Muslims are sub-human monsters incapable of accepting criticism. They can accept it fine, they choose not to.
Suggesting that the response should be "don't provoke them" gives a veto over speech to anyone willing to kill over that speech. But the principle of speech exists to avoid settling disputes by cavemen violence or heresy accusations.
You'd think that people who make their living on free speech would be more protective of it. It looks a lot like some pundits are content to assume that the freedom won't fall before they're done with it. But Churchill's line about appeasement and the crocodile still has merit.
There are still many areas in France that have already been conquered by Muslims. This is true for all of Europe - areas in many countries are controlled by Muslims gangs, and the police won't even engage them. At this point, it may require the military to reclaim the territories.
It's a good thing the United States has the Second Amendment. We may need it soon.