John Kerry on the terrorist attacks in Paris

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

I think this is a cogent, sensible analysis. Neither I nor John Kerry would justify Charlie Hebdo on any grounds but that doesn't mean that we can't understand how others would perceive it or that it doesn't matter; these are crucial prudential considerations that ought to inform how we'd respond to a clear moral wrong. It might be useful to avoid showing cartoons of Muhammad on media outlets or uttering the word "Islam" when responding to such violence because it would be imprudent bluster that plays into ISIS' narrative; that doesn't mean that it would be unethical though! That's not the point, the point is that America or "the West" or whatever needs to take care to avoid inflaming the Islamic world. This doesn't mean coddling or respecting people who deserve no respect, it means making prudential decisions that allows us to effectively target and destroy groups like ISIS, laying the blame where it ought to be placed.