They cannot denounce the event. Their condemnation is deemed inadequate. Their efforts to keep away are not deemed appropriate. They cannot convince anyone when they declare the perpetrators outcasts. Their apologies are invalid. Self-criticism does not hold. If they strive to grasp the event, they are told to stay away. If they attempt to engage with the event itself, they simply state that this is no criminal matter. If they try to bring up the event's background, they are accused of making up excuses. If they attempt to look into the socio-economic roots of the problem, they are accused of legitimizing terrorism. If they dare to compare acts of violence, they are lectured about ethics. If they voice doubts, they become the target of the harshest forms of criticism. If they bring up their hatred of what happened, they are faced with phobia. And if they question the reasoning of the perpetrators, they are accused of cooperating with terrorists. A complete vicious cycle indeed.In the face of media- and intellectually-based vandalism, the platform for reasonable debate fast disappears. Questioning, in particular, becomes an impossible effort. The decision to reject the causal approach with regard to the event's background makes it impossible to speak of this concept in its aftermath. This is a phenomenon that we are expected to believe to have suddenly emerged in an amorphous environment, independent of determinism. And they want the entire world, to whom "the Other" belongs, to take accountability instead of the perpetrators.Not only have they failed to draw lessons from the post-9/11 vortex, but also they kept ignoring the fact that strengthening the modern state's security apparatus does little to prevent terrorism. If we are not allowed to approach the events within the context of causality, then they must show us a way out - which, apparently, does not happen. What then?In the last century, the entire world suffered from the West's civil war. And there is little doubt that the West has all the mechanisms and instruments to overly amplify the slightest occurrence of violence inside its borders. If they continue to follow the post-9/11 approach, we will witness a deja vu: first, a European player will enter the stage of an anti-ISIS struggle and then the extreme right, already on the rise, will become more and more prominent.At this point, the neo-9/11 winds will blow and carry Islamophobia along on the breeze. It would be no surprise to encounter repercussions of the latest incidents in the Middle East and, subsequently, in North Africa. After all, we have enough room to stage something akin to Bali's role in the post-9/11 invasion of Iraq.In the short run, neither the West nor the Muslim world has a way out of this crisis. There is, however, a chance to control the crisis. Unless the West engages in an already-too-late confrontation with its dark side, the problem itself will not change - even if public figures associated with the Islamic world voice neo-con arguments. As if that is not enough, the new faces of the Middle Eastern and North African status quo will jump the gun and help build the counter-terrorism axis, i.e. "take precautions against the threat of Islam." It was, in this sense, not at all surprising that General el-Sissi, the murderer of thousands of Egyptians, was the first to frame the incident on behalf of the West. Do not doubt that the list will get longer and longer.In other words, what happened indeed hints at a larger, approaching threat. We must, at the same time, seriously think about this new wave, its actors and its causes. However, if we do not deem this effort worthwhile, then let them drown in the joy of having imprisoned the vast majority of the "Others" in an apologetic universe and reproduce the scenes of post-9/11 intoxication.