In the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks which have killed 129 people and injured hundreds of others, John Kerry made outrageous remarks regarding a prior terror attack on the city
In January, radical Islamists stormed the offices of French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, which frequently depicted Muhammad in satirical cartoons and killed 12 people, mainly journalists and cartoonists of the magazine. When discussing this terror attack compared to Friday’s attack on the city, Kerry suggested the Charlie Hebdo attack was somewhat justified.
“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow…” Kerry stated.
Kerry implies the Charlie Hebdo attackers had beliefs that led them to murder innocent civilians, however he forgets that the terrorists behind the most recent Paris attacks also held beliefs that led them to think their actions were justified. When claiming the attacks as their work, ISIS expressed disgust towards the city of Paris for being full of “adulterers” and “obscenity”. Does Kerry think drawing a comical cartoon is more offensive than having secular differences? Or is he just unaware that both groups of terrorists had a clear thought process and rationale for their attacks?
Make no mistake, there is no distinction between the Charlie Hebdo attack and the recent attack on the city of Paris. Both were orchestrated by radical Islamist terrorist groups and intended to kill innocent Parisian civilians. By using the term “legitimacy” to describe the Charlie Hebdo attack, Kerry has suggested the actions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists warranted an aggressive response.
When did it become acceptable for the United States Secretary of State to believe exercising free speech should result in a bloodbath?