ENGLISH
He even said he had nothing against the Jews, but we were paying our taxes to the French State and thus we condone it. He said he knew the Kouachi brothers, he had been in prison with them
French:
Il nous a même dit qu’il n’avait rien contre les Juifs, mais qu’on payait nos impôts à l’Etat français et donc qu’on le cautionnait. Il a dit qu’il connaissait bien les frères Kouachi, qu’il avait fait de la prison avec eux.
He got upset at one point seeing what was on the internet when a station reported no one had been killed.. He wanted to take credit for the killings, so he told the other hostages to try and get the station on the phone. When he did, he had a brief conversation with them but it was really the police he wanted to speak to. He wanted the news station to change its headlines to show he had killed four people. That is the only conversation about Jews I can find. His demands had nothing to do with Jews: He wanted France to stop attacking the Islamic State.
If the purpose of his acts was to strike out at France, and the market was just a convenient target, the the press should stop over-hyping the anti-Jewish angle. Jews have lived in France for hundreds of years, and they not should feel compelled to leave France. If the Jews were not his primary target, (the police, seem to be a target), the Jews in France should know be made aware of this. It might bring them some solace and relief.
ISIS considers Jews a "people of the book" and has said they can live freely under their control, they would have to pay a tax.
I'm not even convinced he picked the market because it was a kosher market, as it seems many Muslims in the neighborhood shop there, and at least one Muslim worked there. He had plenty of chances to kill some of the other hostages, and he didn't. He told a few he liked them. He let them help him with the computers and phones. I continue to believe his target was France not just the Jews in France. I hope I'm right so many more French Jews can relax a bit. ISIS has not attacked any Western group solely because of religion, and it doesn't seem to be on their radar in the immediate future. They are working on the Kurds, the Iraqis, JaN and other AQ groups that are criticizing Baghdadi and fighting ISIS.
In the past, I've said they seem like a lone wolf group of 3 (or 4 with Boumeddiene.)and I doubt that ISIS or AQ actively participated in or directed either attack. Check out this article at War on the Rocks. He makes several of the points I did here, he just explains them better. Here's the English translation of Coubali's video. And you'll learn a new term: Effective Barriers to Diffusion in Adaptive Networks or "the role of diffusion in the propagation of ideas w/in open networks and what barriers can be set." The word "diffusion" instead of "communication is used because "communication" infers sender/receiver. Spread of ideas w/in a network is more amorphous." It's no simple term, google it. Anyway, WOTR says:
With two competing poles and a spectrum of adherents littered throughout at least five continents, jihadi plots and their perpetrators might best be examined through the blending of three overlapping categories: ‘directed’, ‘networked’ and ‘inspired’. These three labels should not be seen as discrete categories but instead as phases across a spectrum – some plots and their perpetrators will bleed over these boundaries.
It's a bit over my head but I get the gist, and it's what I was trying to say in arguing why it's unlikely ISIS or al Qaida directed the Paris attacks. These three or four people had a kind of network on their own, and they didn't need anyone telling them what to do, and because of their long standing friendship, they could work together even though two had an allegiance to al Qaida and one had an allegiance to ISIS. And the fact that they did, does not mean JaN and ISIS are about to bury their hatchets and team up.
