Nope

I think I have a better explanation for Paris attrocities which is much more direct rather than statistics about religious movements. I'd like to use legalese-way of proving things, for which I need to show: 1) that some entity has a capability and possibility (to commit a crime) 2) that the same entity had a motive (to commit a crime). I cannot show the concrete chain of events (I am not omnitient), but lawyers usually don't need that, i.e. these two are enough and the rest is complementary. I found these sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_of_Saudi_Arabia#Al-Qaeda A quick overview: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9735102/syria-isis-history-video This is not new, but this shows that Saudi Arabia is capable of recruiting, arming and directing rebels and in particular jihadists (salafi, wahhabists etc) i.e. religiously motivated martyrs in foreign countries (they are sophisticated enough that they can do it even via proxy states like Turkey). Of cause, Saudis are not alone here: they do it through Turkey, they themselves are armed by U.S. and maybe even France itself -- so our list of suspects is a bit too large now. ISIS alone are quite localized in Iraq and Syria (they don't have electronic banking system and thus rely on cash transactions) and are plain stupid bunch of thugs: constructing and smugling a bomb or a big bag of money is a complex task, doing it in an orchestrated way in a foreign country while being raised in Iraq/Syria without raising alarms is even more difficult -- I think that's next to impossible. One could bring an already trained martyr dressed as a refugee, but one still needs to arm him somehow (bring cash and buy some?). Getting arms in EU is not impossible: given enough cash one can get, but then one needs to find a trained martyr who would be capable of sustaining 10min fire at civilians -- this one is difficult within EU, hence doing both at the same time is next to impossible for ISIS alone. If we inspect the motives, our usual suspects (Turkey, U.S. and France) may have some business in Middle East, but they are not interested in terror acts in Paris, especially religiously-motivated attacks like the ones against Charlie Hebdo due to their mostly secular way of living. We can argue about Turkey, but the situation is not that bad as in Saudi Arabia. And Saudis do have a direct interest in wiping outlets like Charlie Hebdo: their judicial system is not standardized, i.e. they do not have code/law regulating justice system (formally they have, but the judges mostly ignore it leading to the worst track record of human right violations: accused ones don't even get a chance to know the accusations, nor evidence etc), consequently their ruling system relies directly on Q'uran. In a globalised setting their population reached high human development index and thus their ways of ruling (hence their existence) is in direct conflict with minor pundits like Charlie Hebdo. We can inspect the motives of other islamic states, like Iran, but they have much more refined and even westernized judicial systems and thus less abuse of power, moreover they have treaties with EU and other countries. In contrast Saudis are quite isolated. US and Europe are involved in oil and weapon trade with Saudis, but they don't have civil treaties and hence any westerner in trouble relies on all kinds of exceptions through political negotiations involving top governors.