Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 21, 2019, 04:33:06 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Socialist Mod Stands with ProudWhatsHisName)
  John Kerry on the terrorist attacks in Paris
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: John Kerry on the terrorist attacks in Paris  (Read 837 times)
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33,985
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 18, 2015, 07:35:14 am »

link - The State Department
Quote
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 and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate.
You and the Pope are dumbasses.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2015, 09:22:36 am »

What is your objection?
Logged
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33,985
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2015, 10:13:19 am »

He said that there was a legitimate, nay a rationale for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, but this one was just terrorism.  These terrorists had a rationale, I don't understand how one can be a terrorist and not have a rationale for it.  But even if he's right (he's not) and they didn't have a rationale, why would that make it any worse?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2015, 10:18:16 am »

You are reading too much into the statement. He's not saying the Charlie Hebdo was right. What he's saying is very clear.

In fact, it's actually a swipe, albeit an extremely diplomatic one, at apologists. Basically saying "you can't blame this on a cartoon, can you?"
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,350
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2015, 02:16:35 pm »

Well, is he just trying to prepare American minds to further acts from the US?

He might have received a call from our impressive president...

Well, lots of people make that 'difference', I get the point, but yeah, intellectually this isn't correct, and, yeah, can be a way to say that it's sooooo bad to criticize religion, ' you brought it upon you guys...'

I was so pissed to see all the coward behavior of maybe...all...the media (TV and press for what I saw at least) all over the Anglophone world about the Charlie cover that had been published after the attack in January, proudly continuing the Islamist censorship by refusing to show the cover, while the Anglophone world precisely is so proud about its 'freedom of speech'.

Was an insult to both Charlie, whom lives have been taken for that freedom, and to Muslims that 'couldn't be able to have any distance on anything'...

And yeah, apparently Kerry might not figure out all of this, neither pope did yeah...

Well, the guy seems to be permanently awkward, makes me think to Kouchner without much conviction. It's embarassing for a diplomat eventually...
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,829
Mexico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2015, 07:53:02 pm »

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. 
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2015, 08:01:01 pm »

He corrects himself and says explicitly "not a legitimacy".
Logged
Hugo Award nominee
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,062


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2015, 11:18:36 pm »

Yeah, arguably badly worded but not actually a bad point he's making.
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,350
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2015, 08:01:02 am »
« Edited: November 19, 2015, 08:15:40 am by Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay »

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...

Logged
Perot ‘92.
ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2015, 05:15:08 pm »

If he is saying that Charlie Hedbo is terrible and that their chickens came home to roost, he isn't exactly wrong.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC