Terrorism

John Kerry Suggests Killing Cartoonists Is Less Appalling Than Killing Concertgoers

The secretary of state says there was "perhaps even a legitimacy" to the Charlie Hebdo massacre-no, strike that.

|

France 24

Today in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry contrasted the terrorist attacks that took 129 lives in that city on Friday night with the terrorist attack that took 11 lives at the Paris headquarters of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January:

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, "OK, they're really angry because of this and that." This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn't to aggrieve [sic] 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. 

Kerry quickly backtracked from saying the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate and ended up saying it was understandable, which is bad enough. After all, Kerry seemed to be saying, the paper had published pictures that offended Muslims, so it makes sense that some of them decided to express their displeasure with bullets instead of sharply worded letters to the editor. Similarly, Pope Francis, who expressed incomprehension at Friday's attacks, was more empathetic after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, saying it's only human to respond with violence when someone insults your religion.

No, it is not understandable, and it is not only human, which implies that it's natural and expected. Beating someone for disrespecting your deity, let alone killing him, is immoral, illiberal, uncivilized, and barbaric. If any act of violence is an attack on "everything that we do stand for," surely a murderous assault aimed at punishing and deterring heresy qualifies. Pace Kerry, the point of Al Qaeda's attack on Charlie Hebdo's offices was precisely "to terrorize people," to make them think twice about expressing opinions that might rub religious fanatics with guns the wrong way. The freedom to say what you think without fear of death is surely more important than the "sense of nationhood and nation-state" that Kerry fetishizes.  

Nor is Kerry right to say that there was no discernible grievance underlying last week's attacks. The gunmen themselves proclaimed that they were retaliating for France's attacks on ISIS in Syria. In other words, they were "really angry because of this and that." Yet in Kerry's view, that is not "a rationale that you could attach yourself to."

Needless to say, no matter what you may think about France's intervention in Syria's civil war, indiscriminate attacks on diners and concertgoers are not an appropriate reaction to decisions made by politicians and carried out by soldiers. Last week terrorists responded to violence with violence, recognizing no moral distinction between combatants and civilians. Last January terrorists responded to cartoons with violence, recognizing no moral distinction between speech and assault. When Kerry implies that the latter conflation is less troubling, he does no service to the Enlightenment values he is ostensibly defending. 

NEXT: Ben Carson's Own Advisers Admit He Doesn't Have a Clue About Foreign Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Secretary of State John Kerry

    … I’m starting to think they aren’t going to pull a Punk’d on us with this one.

  2. Reporting for duty.

    Gad, the blue team put him up against the Bush and are suprised they lost.

    1. Everyone knows that Busch-lite is shittier than the already shitty Busch.

  3. blah blah blah blah blah blah

  4. Maybe he would think this was understandable, as well.

    1. “How was your honeymoon?”
      “We both had a ball.”

      1. That was… great.

        1. I LIKE this guy!

      2. You win a 100 internets, even though it was…

        …low-hanging fruit.

        Also, because of this story I learned that Sumo trick.

  5. Last January terrorists responded to cartoons with violence, recognizing no moral distinction between speech and assault. When Kerry implies that the latter conflation is less troubling, he does no service to the Enlightenment values he is ostensibly defending.

    At this point they aren’t even ostensibly defending Enlightenment values.

    1. He kind of is, in a twisted way. One Enlightenment value is “freedom of religion,” and Kerry is kinda-sorta defending that. Unfortunately, when one religion believes it is destined to rule the world, by force if necessary, it’s hard for Enlightenment value types to deal with it.

    2. Grand,

      This is well worth reporting, and emphasized by many for those who don’t immediately see it. This clown actually defends, clearly without realizing it, the first murder attack. He wouldn’t admit it, but it must be made clear in this case and as often as we get a slow pitch across the plate, because these clowns are much worse than the Repubs, and as bad as Hillary is, she might beat whoever wins the Repub roundup. Surprisingly, Trump appears to have gone from “nah,no way, he’s a joke” to “aaaaa! He might win!” in some conservo sites it read).

  6. i think kerry is a fool, but i also think people are making too much of this. however, since he’s a fool…please proceed.

    1. I know the quote is not exactly correct but how is it possible to make too much out of the ‘let them eat cake’ attitude that the political class in the west is displaying? If anything it is being downplayed.

      1. Not to defend Kerry in the slightest but..

        The murders of the Hebdo cartoonists were understandable, the savages responded to an insult with violence out of a sense of revenge and to lessen the likelihood of a repeat of the insult.

        Stating that in no way justifies or minimizes their murderous actions.

        1. The Friday the 13th murders were a tit-for-tat retaliation for all the wedding parties and innocent bystanders killed by drones.

          Is that what you were going to say next, but the squirrels ate it?

          1. Did ISIS say that in their press release?

            1. “Wedding party” is Arabic for “Leadership conclave”, kinda like how “hospital” is the word for “ammunition storage depot”. You can see why there might be confusion.

              1. ‘Baby milk plant.’

        2. Then the recent attacks were just as understandable, the savages responded to the firebombing of their homeland with violence out of a sense of revenge.

        3. And killing people in response to being bombed isn’t understandable?

    2. But it does shine a light on the rampant stupidity that infects this administration. When Obama refers to the Paris attacks as “setbacks” and when he is more concerned about the feelings of Muslims over the victims of the violence we have a feckless little man running our country. A petty man surrounded by sycophants and toadies.

  7. Beating someone for disrespecting your deity, let alone killing him, is immoral, illiberal, uncivilized, and barbaric.

    BLASPHEMY!

    1. True, from a Koranic point of view.

  8. As inelegant as his sentiment was stated, I understand what he was trying to say. The problem with Kerry’s kind is that in the back of their minds grievances like the Hebdo shooters thought they had with those writings actually could be considered in any way a valid reason to respond with anything harsher than more speech.

    1. Like most progressives, Kerry can’t help but empathize with people who want to destroy those who offend them. Disagreeing is not enough.

      1. Maybe, but I think it’s more a case of racism.

        Of course those people responded to violence when insulted. What do you expect? Fro them to act like us?

    2. I understand what he was saying also, but he is being deceitful. He is pretending that the Paris killers had no understandable motive when they did, more understandable than the Hebdo killers. France was in on the bombings in Syria. It was revenge for that. Violence for violence.

      The Hebdo killers were dealing violence for words.

      Lurch has it exactly backwards. Proggie fucks it up again. I am shocked.

      Again, I thank everyone who voted for Fuckwit.

      1. ^^exactly this

        Suthenboy,

        Your hammer vs. nail head percentages are impressive of late.

      2. Deceitful implies intelligent reasoning on Kerry’s part. It is unlikely that he is capable.

    3. I understand it too. Why wouldn’t it be more understandable that someone would murder someone who’d insulted hir than that someone would commit indiscriminate manslaughter? Don’t detectives look for motive when trying to solve crimes?

      1. I think the issue is Kerry like many people believes Islamic terrorism is some form of blowback that can be assuaged with kindness or politeness.

        In either case they were offending. Those people killed don’t support Sharia, they allow apostates, they drink, they don’t pay respect to Mohammad, they dress provocatively. Their existence offends as much as if they drew cartoons of Mohammed.

        The situations are only different when you completely ignore reality.

        1. It is blowback, but you don’t cure it by interacting with these people at all. The only winning move is not to play.

          1. It isn’t blowback. They have been trying to conquer Europe since the 700s.

      2. It is the target that is different. In the Hebdo case they targeted the organization that did the great crime of insulting their prophet. In the latest terrorist attack they didn’t target those who attacked their nascent state. They targeted seemingly random people who were not really connected in any way other than geography.

        I mean, a Cambodian restaurant? Exactly what geopolitical point are you making by attacking a Cambodian restaurant in Paris? It makes you suspect that the mastermind didn’t like the Nom banh chok the last time he was in there.

        None of that really minimizes the “violence is bad, m’kay” point. Nor does it really minimize the fact that we are talking about the Secretary of State, who’s job is in large part to make sure that stupid things are not said. But there certainly is a difference in punching the guy who insulted you and punching someone who happened to be standing near the guy who assaulted you.

  9. Oh, and understandable that from Charlie Hebdo the killers went to murder people at a Jewish supermarket, because, you know, settlements and crusades and stuff.

    1. And 9/11/. And Woody Allen.

      1. To be fair, Woody Allen does cause violent impulses

  10. John Kerry Suggests Killing Cartoonists Is Less Appalling Than Killing Concertgoers

    Hate to sound crass and all but, wheren’t the concert-goers killed partially as a result of the cartoonists?

    One got into it for the politics and at this point is aware that their lives are in danger for the Jihadists.
    The concert goer had nothing to do with it.

    1. Kulaks and wreckers get what they deserve, amirite?

  11. I didn’t read closely but is the takeaway that if we kill cartoonists we’ll achieve enlightenment?

    1. I skimmed and read it first as “Carsonists”.

      1. Whatever makes me one with the universe!

        1. We can’t make them one with the universe but we can make them one with the landscape. Close enough?

  12. Reason headline writers tip number one: Only characterize Republicans as bat shit crazy, Democrats merely misspeak.

    1. No shit.

      Ben Carson, who at this point is merely a GOP possible candidate (thus no hands even near the levers of power just yet), gets painted as coocoo for cocoa puffs due to his light-weight foreign policy ideas but the freaking current SoS shows his ass and it is alluded to as a mere mis-statement.

      WTF Reason?

      1. Oh, its more than his light-weight foreign policy ideas. Carson is certifiable.

        This in no way invalidates your point, especially about Lurch.

      2. Progs defend their own.

    2. Awwww. Are da poor wepubwicanz butthurt cuz da nasty libertarians said mean things about them?

      Day say moar mean tings about wepubwicanz dan da democwats. *stomps feet* /Hit&Republican;

      1. I could not care less about Reason explaining how Carson is a wing-nut, becasue, well, he’s a wing-nut. But he has very little chance of making it to the white house so the issue ia a minor one to me.

        But when the current secretary or state publicly steps on his crank and basically says that terrorists killing cartoonists has validity on any level that, to me, shows something about his moral corruption which needs to be highlighted.

        1. Oh, I’m sorry. Were you reading a Reason article that was portraying Kerry in a good light? Could you link it, because obviously you are not reading the same article I did.

          Kerry quickly backtracked from saying the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate and ended up saying it was understandable, which is bad enough.

          No, it is not understandable, and it is not only human, which implies that it’s natural and expected. Beating someone for disrespecting your deity, let alone killing him, is immoral, illiberal, uncivilized, and barbaric. If any act of violence is an attack on “everything that we do stand for,” surely a murderous assault aimed at punishing and deterring heresy qualifies.

          When Kerry implies that the latter conflation is less troubling, he does no service to the Enlightenment values he is ostensibly defending.

          Are you, honest to Christ, claiming Sullum is backing Kerry here?

          1. I just disagreed with the way he seemed to back away with the “well, the pope did it too…” line in the discussion.

            Kerry deserves to be roasted for this statement without reserve without introducing an “out” for him as possibly little more than a mere gaffe – which is the take-away I got from Sullum’s piece here.

            1. without introducing an “out” for him

              What, you mean where Sullum calls out the Pope as just as much of a dumb fuck as Kerry?

              Similarly, Pope Francis, who expressed incomprehension at Friday’s attacks, was more empathetic after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, saying it’s only human to respond with violence when someone insults your religion.

              No, it is not understandable, and it is not only human, which implies that it’s natural and expected. Beating someone for disrespecting your deity, let alone killing him, is immoral, illiberal, uncivilized, and barbaric. If any act of violence is an attack on “everything that we do stand for,” surely a murderous assault aimed at punishing and deterring heresy qualifies.

              So, the complaint here is that this libertarian didn’t berate a Democrat as harshly as another, totally different, libertarian berated a Republican?

              See my original comment.

              1. “Are you, honest to Christ, claiming Sullum is backing Kerry here?”

                Going soft on him isn’t the same as backing him. I just wondered why the article brought in the pope and other side issues when what I would have prefered to see was “WTF is this dope doing as Sec-o-State?”

                Call it a gaffe or mis-statement, whatever. This POS isn’t some city councilman from some metro area in fly-over country. He is supposed to be the top diplomat representing the nation. This kind of statement comes from disorganized thought and speaking. And the issue – terrorism – is pretty much a first-line issue for his job.

                1. This site leans left. Somehow the past two days it became imperative to take tax dollars to ship in refugees without so much a hint at trying to explain how something so anti-libertarian is the cause du jour on a libertarian site.

                  1. It doesn’t lean left, it leans retarded on issues such as immigration and foreign policy. They don’t even know what they want, they just know what good libertarians are supposed to FEEL about those issues.

                    1. It doesn’t lean left, it leans retarded on issues such as immigration and foreign policy.

                      Yes, Paul, freedom of movement and non-intervention are foreign to libertarian principle.

                      Are you sure you’re in the right place?

                    2. Referring to the taxpayer-funded transportation of tens of thousands of citizens of a hostile nation to America as “freedom of movement” is a bit Orwellian, don’t you think?

                    3. Probably…

                      But we did cause it.

                      Regardless, that comment was defending Reason’s stance on immigration more than its stance on the refugees. Paul’s comment referred to immigration and foreign policy.

                    4. Shut up, toolbag. Go back to The Blaze.

                  2. This site leans left.

                    Well, the US did directly CAUSE the refugee issue with its very UN-libertarian preemptive war. Without the Iraq war, there would be no ISIS. We do carry the responsibility for that. One might argue that our initiation of force requires us to pay damages.

                    1. The Iraq war is obliquely related to ISIS. The direct US/West link to ISIS is the intervention on behalf of Syrian rebels opposed to Assad. (the name ISIS – Islamic State in Syria – should have been your first clue)

                      The whole Arab spring thing was the intended point of the neocon plan to invade Iraq and install a democratically elected government in the first place, so from that point of view it is “responsible”. But the direct progenitor of ISIS is the destabilizing of the Syrian government, not the Iraqi government.

                    2. (the name ISIS – Islamic State in Syria – should have been your first clue)

                      Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
                      ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

                      *Fd’A shakes head*

                      ISIS is nothing more that Al Qaeda Iraq.

                      Where Did ISIS Come From?

                      While extremist groups are generally amorphous organizations, ISIS can trace its history directly back to the Sunni terrorist organization al Qaeda, specifically the Iraq faction, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was responsible for scores of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq following the U.S. invasion there…

                      …AQI saw an opportunity to regain its power and expand its ranks in the Syrian conflict that started in 2011, moving into Syria from Iraq. By 2013, al-Baghdadi had spread his group’s influence back into Iraq and changed the group’s name to ISIS, “reflecting its greater regional ambitions,” according to the U.S. State Department.

                      The Iraqi invasion created a terror group that hadn’t even existed prior (AQI) which morphed into ISIS. No war=no ISIS. This is a perfect example of blowback, which you claim doesn’t exist.

                    3. Oops. Sorry Cyto. Saw Cyto and read Cytotoxic.

                      My apologies for the sarcasm.

                      (I’ll bet that happens a lot?)

                    4. So, you prompted me to check on the origins of the group. Because I get my info from the western press, I probably don’t have a complete picture. We were introduced to the group as a Syrian insurgency with the moniker addressing the Syrian connection. I remember the first time the US press added the “in Iraq” to the name – we all thought it was pretty silly. Kind of an “I’m the emperor of the Universe” sort of pronouncement.”

                      Well, it turns out that Wikipedia thinks that ISIS started out as an Al-Qaeda affiliated group ” Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad “. In Jordan of all places. Now, I get that Jordan, Iraq and Syria are like Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey. Still, it surprised me to learn that this jihadist group moved so widely around the area as the battle against the infidel moved.

                      So I learned something. IS is one of many Al-Qaeda splinter groups and they decided that controlling territory was a faster way to gaining the Caliphate. They started in Jordan in 1999 and moved to Iraq to fight in the insurgency. They didn’t become important internationally until they stepped into the vacuum in Syria. They have always wanted to establish an islamic state, they just have been hunting around for someplace to do it.

                      I also learned that they were basically kicked out of Al-Qaeda in 2014 because they weren’t following orders and were being difficult.

                    5. That’s about it.

                      But while they were AQI, they were essentially “who” we were fighting in Iraq, and they weren’t there prior to the US invasion. Early they were Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. AQI formed an umbrella called Islamic State Iraq (ISI) in 06. It wasn’t until 2011 that they had anything to do with Syria.

                      So really, they originated as ISI and become ISIS(L) much later.

                    6. DAMMIT!

                      There are three different citations in there, despite not looking like it.

              2. But, the Pope IS just as much a dumbfuck as Kerry.

  13. No, it is not understandable, and it is not only human, which implies that it’s natural and expected. Beating someone for disrespecting your deity, let alone killing him, is immoral, illiberal, uncivilized, and barbaric.

    Er, yes. All that stuff is very much a part of being human. I thank John for reminding me of Rebecca West’s quote :

    Only part of us is sane: only part of us loves pleasure and the longer day of happiness, wants to live to our nineties and die in peace, in a house that we built, that shall shelter those who come after us. The other half of us is nearly mad. It prefers the disagreeable to the agreeable, loves pain and its darker night despair, and wants to die in a catastrophe that will set back life to its beginnings and leave nothing of our house save its blackened foundations.

    Humans are not automatons driven purely by reason. Remember your Thucydides: fear, honor, interest. Hebdo attack was what old-school honor demands.

    1. This is a good point. Human nature is not equal to moral. Much of what our instincts drive us toward is immoral and often even heinous.

      Tribalism is a strong human instinct that leads to many horrific acts. Jealousy likewise. Beating your wife because she was talking to another man makes no sense at all from a civilized society point of view. But from an evolutionary biology point of view it is obvious where the imperative to protect breeding rights comes from. Most mammals have some version of this instinct. We don’t overlay a moral component on the alpha male of a lion pride using violence to prevent other males from mating within his pride, any more than we insinuate morality into a pride defending their territory from the encroachment of other lions. Humans have similar instincts. We just attempt to moderate them by overlaying a moral framework onto our instincts.

      An insult to your faith is an insult and assault on the tribe. Therefore there is a natural instinct to defend the tribe using force. I don’t know that acknowledging the nature of the human animal is the same thing as condoning it.

      That whole dichotomy is a part of the Christian ethos. The whole “we are all sinners” thing can be cast as a battle between our instincts and our civilizing philosophy. I have no idea if this is what the Pope had in mind, but he is sort of a flaming pacifist.

  14. And to think of all the minor and major violent impulses I have taught myself to keep in check over all the years, those “feelngs” would have been considered valid in the eyes of world leaders.

    I guess when various forms of military intervention are just tools in your toolbox then murderous violence doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

  15. The political class really is completely out of touch with reality and completely unaccountable and they know it. It has resulted in a display of arrogance and ignorance only some JHS bully punk could show.

    Check this one out:

    “Former EU commissioner Margot Wallstr?m laughed at Swedish female and child rape victims subject to brutal Muslim assault in a Swedish radio interview. Wallstr?m opines that Muslim rape, or as she calls it ‘Arab Spring rape in the Middle East’, is a male tool to create dominion by fear and intimidation.”

    https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com /2014/04/14/muslim-rapists-in-sweden-enjoy- impunity-amnesty-international/

    two breaks there. Damn you Reason.

    These people must love them some woodchippers.

    1. But Cytotoxic assures us that the Muslim rape issue in Sweden is merely an artifact of their redefinition of rape of 10 years ago! Immigration is always and forever a good thing!!!

  16. Obama called the slaughter in Paris a “setback.”

    1. That too.

      What we are looking at is a pack of sociopaths.

      1. Are you talking about the terrorists or the Obama admin? I’m thinking in both cases you would be correct.

    2. Was he referring to the fact that so many of the jihadists were killed?

      /leaps deftly to a secondary VPN

  17. I think Lurch meant that the Charlie Hebdo attack was on the particular people who had offended the terrorists, but the latest attack was simply aimed at the general populace since the military was beyond their reach.

    But Lurch is so confused and ineloquent he made another gaffe.

    1. Such a great diplomat

    2. That is obvious. And while nobody thinks Kerry is a bigger idiot than I do, that obviousness is what makes this article stupid and a non-story. But hey, money for nothing and your chicks for free. Who can argue with that.

      1. Wrong.

        The attack on Charlie Hebdo is by far the more sinister because it was an attack on a first principle of enlightenment, free speech.

        The latest attack was likely aimed at France as a whole due to France’s military actions in the ME. Those are political/military actions that I can kinda sorta get my head around.

        The fact that Kerry’s mind was able take him to this gaffe in the first place speaks volumes.

        1. His point was that the cartoonist insulted them and they struck out at the cartoonist. Whereas the people of Paris did nothing. NEITHER ATTACK IS JUSTIFIED. NEITHER ATTACK IS JUSTIFIED. I’m sure he didn’t mean they were. He should have thought before he spoke but this is making a mountain out of a molehill. And I hate Kerry. I think he’s an elitist ignorant ass. But Christ not every gaff needs to be turned into ideological warfare. This is why Valium should be available OTC.

          1. Sorry JB, but I disagree.

            Lurch is able to to assign some “rationale” to the Hebdo attacks (as we all can) but as SoS he can’t see the rationale in these latest attacks?

            I’ve had an assfull of this administration’s refusal to defend free speech but empathize with murderers who feel “insulted”.

            There is only one reply to the Hebdo attacks and that is: Fuck you and the camel you rode in on.

            There is a ready-made quote that is perfect for any of these fuckwits:
            “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

            Has anybody heard it used lately?

            1. It would make sense from a standpoint of a politician who finds free speech distasteful but has no problem with profligate military intervention.

          2. Heroin was over the counter before Dec. 1914.

            1. Se what happened after they outlawed it.

    3. Yes, you are correct. Kerry’s point was that the people at Hebdo should not have worn such a short skirt. Especially around those easily incited swarthy types.

      Practically begging for it they were.

  18. Woman fights for the right to wear a colander on her head in her drivers license photo

    http://www.aol.com/article/201…..cmp=hplnws

    1. I dunno, she might straining the limits of free speech.

      1. Nice:) That thing is straining the definition of a colander as well.

      2. Finally saw it.

        *lights Swiss signal*

      3. I can see a few holes in her plan

      4. I know the thread is long dead but I hereby declare Quincy the winner.

    2. She must be pissed that she won. Now she is going ton have to go the next 10 years with a license photo that makes her look like a retard.

      1. Every cop that pulls her over and sees that is gonna want to search her car for weed

      2. She is an American hero.

    3. I don’t like this precedent.

      Sieve-eral others might follow suit.

      *just in case Swiss didn’t see the first signal

      1. I really can’t see how it could have got pasta him

  19. I suggest that Lurch go to hell.

  20. Similarly, Pope Francis, who expressed incomprehension at Friday’s attacks, was more empathetic after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, saying it’s only human to respond with violence when someone insults your religion.

    The Pope is just remembering the good old days of the auto-da-fe, when Christians vigorously defended their religious beliefs from outside attack.

    1. I suggest that the Pope go to Hell.

      1. I suggest we strap Lurch, the Goracle, and the Pope together on a rocket and shoot it straight into the sun, for the planet, and the children.

      2. Plenty of precedent for that.

    2. Well, it might be “human” on some level of humanity about where cro-magnon and neanderthal divereged but most of human society has been trying to evolve past “Gorg angry! Gorg smash!” for a number of generations.

      1. One branch of humanity has evolved from that to ‘Gorg offended! Gorg to to safe place, ask government to make you shut up!’.

        1. I thought the word in this case would be “devolved”

          1. I won’t argue against that logic.

      2. Neanderthals were the nice ones, Homo sapiens were the superior head bashers.

        1. You probably like Betamax too.

        2. All Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal genes. Take care unless you insult your ancestors.

        3. Clan of the Cave Bear was not a documentary.

  21. I also suggest that our next Secretary of State be a randomly selected circus clown, complete with clown makeup and apparel, and they have to dress like that for work. That way maybe other countries will start taking us more seriously again.

    1. They can wear this

      http://shop.fxnetworks.com/ame…..rror-story

      1. Huge upgrade in good looks over Lurch and Hillary.

      2. Maybe a mashup of your two links and we can have a Killer Kolander Klown (from Outer Space).

    2. Definitely. As long as we are condemed to live in this Idiocracy we may as well get the best entertainment vaule out of it.

  22. Say what you will about the tenants of cartoonist murder, at least it’s an ethos.

    1. -1 security deposit

    2. That prayer rug really tied the room together.

  23. so, did he understand the motives before he didn’t, or not understand them before he did?

  24. He is an utter fucking scumbag.

    1. You don’t think he would be in the Obama admin if he wasn’t, do you? Scumbag is a job requirement.

  25. His comment reveals a great deal about his thought process and belief system. To him, the Charlie Hebdo employees in some way deserved their fate for offending Muslims. Fuck Lurch.

    1. he’s hardly the first leftist to say this. His fellow moron Gary Trudeau said much the same thing.

      1. When they say stuff like this, they are secretly thinking of themselves. They want it to be against the law to offend politicians and want death for those who do so. They are so fucking dumb that they think they are some sort of enlightened royalty.

  26. It certainly can be both understandable (from an intellectual view at least) and an act of evil. That being said, the latest attacks are not less understandable than the Charlie Hebo attacks unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple of decades.

  27. He seems shocked at the indiscriminate nature of this method which means the sad fuck hasn’t a clue how to probe the simple riddle of Islamic blood-letters.

    It seems the knuckle-biting circle of tender-loving friends in the socialist rags have a lovely game going that plays pamphlet politics at the front gates of the jihadi blood circus. Eventually, you fucking addled scribbling schleps, the screams of the bleeding and moaning have no labels and your own goddamn ideology that sucks the cock of world religion will writhe on the streets alongside the rest of those under the chiseled stone which is the riddle of the Islamic blood-letters come full circle.

    The rattling battle-cry of a world religion hosting unchecked dramatic fringes exploding with a violent lust for relevancy is nothing to play kitten tickles and Granny Smith fucking patty-cake with.

  28. 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, “OK, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

    This dude’s a fucking creep. Say what you will about the Paris attacks of last week, or Charlie Hebdo, or 9/11 or the London bus bombing, or the Madrid train bombing (should I go on) but in the eyes of your committed Jihadi, there’s a legitimacy– a rationale to ALL of it.

    This guy is our fucking Secretary of state? Can we PLEASE get SOMEONE who knows at least as much as I do about foreign policy, preferably more?

    1. As stupid as Lurch is, there’s no way he doesn’t know the rationale behind these latest Paris attacks.

      This is pure obfuscation.

      1. I don’t think anyone who has a rational mind can understand the rationale behind the middle-eastern brand of terrorism.

        I get the IRA terrorist mindset. Leave our country or we will attack you where you go about your daily life and kill you. That sorta makes sense.

        Terrorism as practiced in Iraq is “we are going to blow up people at the market so you will lose faith in the government and we can take power”. That’s just crazy. And for some reason it seems to work.

        I kinda get the ISIS barbarism in the territory they control. They roll up on a town and brutally, publicly murder people who might oppose them. It is so horrific that everyone else falls in line. Kinda old school, but effective.

        But poking your half-hearted enemy in the eye? Don’t they understand psychology? Unless you can significantly threaten the people of a nation like France or the US, a terrorist attack is only going to serve to piss them off and make them support the most interventionist government. Really counterproductive as a strategy, given the overwhelming military might that could be brought to bear if you sufficiently piss them off.

        But then there’s the apocalyptic theory of the islamist movement that holds that they want an all-out war between a united islamic caliphate and the western enemy. Again, not that well thought out and not much of a strategic possibility. But I suppose it is explanatory.

        1. You’re not allowing for the difference between the origins of the Islamists. Your approaching it with the assumption that they’re from the ME. Many Islamists are Western; they’ve grown up in Western nations and speak the language and are fully French or British. They’re very much invested in poking their enemy in the eye. This illustrates their effectiveness – that they’re in the game – that they have the capability of attacking from within. These Islamists are in effect conducting an Intifada and it’s goal is to inspire, to make other French muslims believe they’re part of revolution and can affect change. And they’ve succeeded when the Turkish crowd chants ‘Allah Akbar’ at a soccer game during a moment of silence.

  29. He’s really struggling to hold his human form

  30. Ketchup Gigolo’s putting some serious effort into making himself look as bad as possible, isn’t he?

    I wonder if it’s so that Hillary’s minions can point to him and pretend that she wasn’t all that bad as Secretary of State.

    -jcr

  31. John F’ing Kerry is just plain awful.

  32. “These assholes killed innocent people in both incidents.”

    How hard is it to say that without ambiguity?

  33. Come on, he didn’t really say that, did he? Is this The Onion?

  34. The country’s in the very best of hands.

  35. Hollande said the same thing. “This time it means war” (roughly).

    And the last time? Well Jews… I mean you can’t go to war over Jews. What would the Palestinians think of us?

    And offensive cartoonists? Well the less said the better.

  36. See, if the terrorists kill some individuals over their individual expressions, then that makes sense to Kerry.

    But, if you kill some French individuals over French foreign policy, that’s just both indiscriminate and an attack on the entirety of the royal “we”, the people. And he just can’t wrap his brain around that.

    It all makes sense, if you’re a stupid sociopath.

    I think it’s quite telling that he says killing French people over French foreign policy is both “indiscriminate” and an attack on “the nation-state,” etc. I think that’s the terrorists’ intention, so, how off target were the terrorists?

    It’s horrendous, but it’s not mind-be singly impossible to understand the thinking at lay here. Kerry just wants to pretend it’s crazy because he doesn’t like connecting the dots.

    1. Kerry’s just an arsehool.

      That, and the technician in charge of his punch cards was drunk that day.

  37. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000. I did in 2004.

    This is another illustrative example of why. Kerry has the moral intelligence of a pinto bean.

    1. Me too. That guy was a Viet Nam too far. “They will only kill 3,000” he said. It was more like 100,000.

      And you know. Back when he said that I was a communist and thought to myself, “Finally, humane communism.”

      That and the boat people cured me. In ’88 Lynn Tinsely in Chicago convinced me to vote for Ron Paul.

      In ’00 it was Harry Brown. ’04 – Bush. He got Iraq settled and the Dems gave it away. Same thing happened – ‘Nam ’75. I was screaming crazy about withdrawing from Iraq. Saw the movie before.

    2. Last night I dreamt the straungest dream. I dreamt that it was back in Bush Time, and it was like a series of brief interludes from then, but with Bush’s responses tweaked slightly so as to make him seem honorable and wise and endearing. Really, though, all it needed was for somebody to be able to glance a few years into the future, and by comparison it almost turns that way. If nothing else, the jokers today make Bush seems articulate and deliberate in speech, something nobody would have accused him of in Bush Time. Now it’s all Tripp, trapp! Tripp, trapp! and Snip! Snap, Snute!

  38. “Pope Francis…was more empathetic…saying it’s only human to respond with violence when someone insults your religion.”

    NO IT’S FUCKING NOT!!!!

    Thanks for taking off the mask. You are demonstrably IN FAVOR of anti-blasphemy violence, and just completely devoid of standing to make any sort of judgement of morality. Hang it up, you Mafia-don shitstain.

    1. Furthermore, it sort of flies in the face of everything the doctors of the Church had to say about it. And what the fuck is “empathetic”? Something that’s sort of empathic but also pathetic? Reminds me of an early printing of DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP?, in which the word “empathic” is misprinted as “emphatic” every single fucking time.

  39. If it’s “needless to say” then don’t say it.

    1. Okay, Bismarck.

  40. Intellectual fly weights this bunch. Recall Obama isn’t exactly sparkling when he enters the realm of free-form, off the cuff intellectualism.

    A SoS – or any statesmen for that matter – should NOT be making such clunky proclamations. What he said and how he delivered it was beneath proper statesmanship in my view.

    I don’t give a shit some ‘understood’ what he was saying, he’s showing his remedial speaking skills.

    1. Let me amend that to remedial leadership.

  41. One of our mayors once said that he could understand rapists, but not litterers. True story.

  42. Last January terrorists responded to cartoons with violence, recognizing no moral distinction between speech and assault. When Kerry implies that the latter conflation is less troubling, he does no service to the Enlightenment values he is ostensibly defending.

    “Ostensibly” is the right word here. Kerry wants to make us think he is for defending free speech but he, like his Marxian brethren, is not.

    Kerry and the other fellow travelers are very picky and choosy about the speech they want to defend and it will certainly not be the speech that picks on anti-Western sentiments precisely because Kerry and the other fellow travelers ARE anti-Western.

  43. See, this is the kind of bullshit Reason posts every once in a while that I hate. They deliberately parse what he said incorrectly for the byline, and what he was trying to say, poorly mind you, but obviously is that the Hebdo attacks were discriminate, while the Paris attacks were indiscriminate, but the American public isn’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between the verb discriminate (descrimin-8) and the adjective discriminate (descrimin-it). Unless Reason is also too stupid to know the difference, they are no different than Fox News in this case.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.