I share similar views as surmised in the quoted excerpts:
1) On the IS Attacks - Link by Melissa McEwan from Shakesville
// ...The attackers, whomever they may be and whatever their motives, went after the heart of progressive Paris. They did not attack the more touristy Champs-Elysées or Notre Dame, or the more bourgeois and conservative left bank, where most of the government ministries are located."
The reason for that is clear, from IS own literature: They are seeking to "destroy the 'grayzone' of coexistence between Muslims & [non-Muslims in] the West." They want to provoke non-Muslim Westerners into Islamophobia and violent retribution, and force non-radical Muslims to choose sides. //
// My sincerest condolences to those who have lost family, friends, neighbors, and/or colleagues in the IS attacks. I am so sorry. I am so sad and so angry for you. My sympathy to everyone in the communities which have been terrorized and continue to be terrorized, as well as to Muslims—and Sikhs and other people presumed to be Muslim—who will be targeted for violent retribution, for something they did not do. //
Please go through the full article: Link
2) Appropriation of Bihar - Link by Heartranjan from Heartranjan's blog
// Now suddenly, everybody wants to talk about Bihar. People who haven’t been to the state even once, have no idea what it was bifurcated into, or even the names of the parties contesting. Today, everybody wants a piece of Bihar. And the entire discussion is from two view-points.