My opinion, for whats its worth, is you may be at crossed purposes.
I refute the idea there are, or were, any French troops in Mali - unless the odd Foreign Legion runaway ends up there!
And if you think that any actual bladed article attack took place in Woolwich, then I can only with all sincerity wish you all the best, but cannot see how we could discuss 'what happened', as I believe nothing happened; therefore even if the French Army were pillaging their way across Africa, the motivations for something that did not happen cannot by definition exist.
I often over-elaborate so I hope I am explaining myself in some semi-coherent way. To claim 'xxxxx' made him do it is only relevant if an actual person actually did something.
If you were meaning that the long-term narrative may include false stories of the motivation being (to me also false) Military activity in Mali, and there has already been clear, false, claims of the 'beef' being that there are troops in 'our lands' then i agree;they may as well be referring to Mali as to anywhere, and it is I who misunderstood in the first place.
If the J.France quote predates the French invent then it did indeed foretell of the 'french connection', but in my mind only as a debatable, as to intentional or not, sign among many that the fix is in.
Either the inventor of the 'J.France' persona and it's words used it on purpose, as a jape or mocking type of thing, or more likely just lacked the brain or wit to think of anything not directly in front of it - just last night the Family Guy episode was shown where the 4 main men (or 3 + dog) all lose their memories and Quagmire names himself Shirt-Pants - for example. (I wish I had never seen McFarlanes stupid fat face, my enjoyment of FG, AD and such is so diminished!)
Do you view this J.France as a person? I assumed not, like I assume you don't see France as a French persons name!
Forgive me if I am not giving you correct credit or such, but being new I know not what the various people here hold dear as reality.
May I ask what area/s of London you live/work/recreate in?
To say stabbings are common in Woolwich, or indeed even in the far rougher areas that exist, is not I would say, strictly accurate.
The 'common' tag attached to shootings is to suggest they are, well, commonplace. They are not; the numbers that are thrown around for 'knife crime' or 'armed response call-outs' are not indicative of people stabbing, or shooting, each other.
Did I read before you work with some of these papier-mache villians? Could I respectfully suggest that if you base your perception of 'street-life' on the version presented by those who crave nothing more than to exude (having realised they are not actually) 'bad' is to disregard centuries of the tradition of compulsive bullshitting by default, by people who see themselves at least as less they would like to be.
If you are saying you witness people firing bullets at other people, or people embedding pointy and bladed articles into other people, on anything resembling a regular basis, then I guess we will just carry on living in different cities, while living in the same city!
No doubt an ill-advised late night sojourn into the bowels of Londinium, especially if looking lost or swaggering overtly, could well find bad times ahead - but that I suspect is, and has always been, the case in every large city in the world.
And honestly, do wannabe gangsters really don Warner Brothers clothing, unless having to rely on their mother to buy their clothes!
The rag tag codes waned in their places of origin long ago, but I know I have seen a few examples of some retro-rag adornment, I usually put it down to the (although not decipherable, I am aware of its use) colour coded cloth shown by homosexuals of varying preferences; all the more so when their lower garments are already at a state of high readiness for 'action'!
I do not mean to mock your concerns or observations of life as you see it, but would hope to lighten your grim and grimy perception of what most of the time is nothing to worry about.
It is definitely an opposing view we have of the last two points you make, but interestingly in reverse!
Do you see the internet as some bastion of free men and women, beyond the reach of the murderous minded government and it's arraigned forces of oppression? I can only say I disagree, I think it is representative of the world at large - almost entirely owned by retarded and scared old men that use tricks and toys to assuage the pain of impending death.
But unfortunately for us there is waiting in the wings a queue of slightly younger, comparably stupid and - if not already so - then soon-to-be-as-scared-as the previous, men. (or women)
You see by my understanding the whole 'for the people, and the freedom' crap that is spun around the Internets creation, is about as believable as the 'by the people, for the people' or 'government in service of the population' nonsense spun around governments.
People talk in hushed whispers of an 'internet kill-switch', either in existence or coming soon. I ask of those who worry about such, do you think the internet exists in its own realm? Turning off your, or my, or everyone's internet is nothing other than a keystroke. If you doubt it, stop paying, and you will have evidence soon enough of a kill switch, and it's ease of use.
The internet was phased in, toes dipped, temperature perfect; It works perfectly (or as close as could be hoped for): To the establishments almost exclusive benefit, otherwise its fanatical installation would not be the goal of nearly every 'country' on earth.
Sorry, I have significantly rambled, but on that last point; in a situation where the police want to come into your home, they will come in. I do not personally, nor do I recommend, speaking to costumed filth - there is no benefit to it.
Imagine the costumed con-stubble's are pursuing a violent criminal, the only type of task they are of any use for, and they believe with all certainty he (or she) to have entered what in fact is your abode, containing only you.
There would be no request, nor chance to acquiesce, the entry will be made and necessary amends made afterward. An understanding and essentially humble resident might get an apology, and a new door. Explain their evident stupidity and you will simply be either provoked to a point of criminal action, or more likely simply said to have found your way there by yourself.
I am not saying this is S.O.P. for every incident attended, but it is the way of things when necessary. 'They' don't need to invent occurrences, so that new laws can be written, to take away the current right of an inviolate homestead, that doesn't exist.
The feelings and thoughts created by said invents are the control, the majority being the target, so when 'nook' or 'tewwowist' is yelled nearly everyone jumps and does as is instructed.
The tiny of the tiniest minority that has and always will exist, that respond with a simple no, or an even simpler nothing, are only a problem in a world where the letter of the law is adhered to.
And violent conflict, unless of a group and organised nature, will be met with greater violence - whether it be a country of gun owners, or kung-fu experts, or quadriplegics, 'they' do not seek greater control, 'they' already have complete control.
I could be wrong, but until some truly establishment challenging events are afoot - and with no previous examples I'm aware of, I'm not optimistic - it is and can only be speculation.
*Disclaimer: Despite appearances, I do not mean to 'preach' or come across badly, although from experience I know I often do. The above represents of course nothing more than my own thoughts and opinions - but my delivery of them can make me seem very much unlike my actual self.
Like a tit, or a bore, which I am at least fairly sure I'm not.