means "I" (further to previous post).

One of the interesting sidebars to the story of Charlie Hebdo is what mainstream newspapers, like Le Monde, The Guardian and The New York Times are saying and showing. Le Monde (Libération etc.have the whole story. The NYT somewhat self-righteously (I thought) said right after the attacks that they weren't going to print those crude cartoons which, for the newspaper of reference, is quite a statement, as even their own lawyer said, according to an article a day or two after the attacks. I don't know if The Guardian published pictures of the controversial cartoons because I've been in transit, but today there are articles in both papers about this week's cover: The Guardian shows it, The New York Times does not--in a video of today's CH press conference about the new cover, the Times coquettishly shows only a corner of it, like a bit of--not much--leg. But they do pornography different in France too. 

My gut feeling is freedom of speech should be stood up for. Thanks, Guardian, thanks Le Monde, thanks to perhaps the mainstream European press in general. I'd like to hear about the NYT's editorial discussions on the subject.  

Ok, maybe it's fine they aren't getting involved. Probably better they weren't over-present in Paris on Sunday. 

BTW, how--in 50 words--did we get here? It's easy to see what went wrong in the 2000s, but without going back to the beginning of the 20th century, or to the colonial period, or the Bible, what happened in the 90s (Clinton's presidency) to bring on 9/11?