John Kerry's take is pretty straightforward: what distinguishes the attack in Paris from the Charlie Hebdo attack is that the Charlie Hebdo attack could be made to seem legitimate, whereas this one cannot. He's not saying that the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate, he's saying that it could be perceived to be legitimate because it was rooted in a rationale that makes sense to some members of Muslim communities and discrimination. The recent attacks on Paris had no such rationale, they were indiscriminate, targeting Muslims, foreigners and average French citizens alike, regardless of their affiliations. As a result, it's terrorism in the purest sense possible and can't be perceived otherwise, it can have no rationale for anyone.
Well, sorry, but, no, there is a rationale here too, it's been longly discussed in the French media, and even claimed on IS in its communicate.
They targeted special stuffs:
Stade de France, sports and leisures. Moreover with 2 teams representing 2 'crusader' nations according to their terminology.
Bars and restaurants, and overall terrasses, which are some other places of fun, pleasure, physical exposition, and, eventually, cruising, so many things those guys enjoy (or, from an other point of view have been frustrated about,obviously leads to an other debate...).
A concert hall, which obviously is a place of depravation especially when a band called 'Eagles of Death Metal' plays in, which would be a kind of Satanist idolatry or something...
The most pitiful is that not at all, that sounds like some average southern American rock, and the name of the band would have precisely been made about something like that, and, lol, the singer would be a kind of good old American southerner guy, who have been kinda far-right at one point at least, then maybe not thàaaaat far from the guys who did that. Lol, what happened would have turned them into a famous band about which I had no clue before personally, they should try to plan a tour in France, might work. But all of this, the guys who did that wouldn't know or wouldn't care.
Bataclan was, well still is so far, a famous côncert hall in which, eventually, the police had organized a tribute ceremony after Charlie attacks, and which is accused for a while by some zealots to have been led by a Jew...
But anyhow on this very night it was full of young French, eventually 'gentrified', people that came to have fun and listen music, this only is enough to make those people nervous.
A Libération cover might have summed it up accurately enough:
Though, it's not 'a generation' that has been targeted, it's 'the dominating part of a generation' that has been striken by 'the frustrated other part of the same generation', the people that stroke have the same age than the people striken.
In short they targeted fun and youth here, it's something presice.
When some others wanted to make undifferent victims alll over they just bombed several times the Parisian subway in 1995, or Madrid trains in 2004, or London buses in 2005. Unless they wanted to protest against transportation means? They oppose Global warming?Hey would have beeen fitting to do that before COP 21 rather.
So, people should stop to go watch sports, cruise on terrasse, go to concert because it could annoy some Muslims?
After the attack there was a big hashtag which was #TousAuBistrot (all at bar!), drinking alcohol at bar isnt't very popular amongst thé traditional Muslim community so maybe people should stop it, it would avoid tensions...
So what to do of that kind of things that Kerry and some others here and there can say?
First would be unaccurate, those guys are...rational.
Speaking about 'who they/we are' and 'what they believe' without any much discrimination is almost like summing it to an ethnical and/or confessional conflict and anyways an identitary question, which really isn't what this world needs but which is terribly 'trendy' though...
Second, it's hard not to read it at best like 'we should accept their censorship, otherwise those inherently stupid Muslims gonna get nervous', instead of trying to make freedom of speech grow...
And, again, it's not easy not to read it like 'well, maybe Charlie Hebdo people brought it a bit upon themselves...'
If ever he wanted to make it clear, the slightest thing to do was not to use the word...'legitimacy'.
It's not as if this (or, well, lol, any?) Kerry statement would have an impact on anything, but it might be telling ôf what might think a good enough part of Western populations, even here, but eventually still more in the Anglosphere.
Once again, when you saw the...surrendering? (oh, isn't that amusing?)...of the Anglophone media after Charlie while it was displàyed all over here, it's puzzling...
