John Kerry Justifies Charlie Hebdo Slaughter

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: IAMTAT

I think John Kerry is pretty genuine myself, his words
are taken out of context by you..
he's obviously try to say that the cartoons of Mohammed in the eyes of some Muslims was something
to get upset about, but these attacks on Friday were completely uncalled for.

But you knew that already.

So the Hebdo attacks WERE 'Called For'? Because that's what you're implying he meant!

You KNOW that is not what that means. You are being deliberately obtuse.

You think John Kerry thinks the attacks at Charlie Hebdo were justified? This thread is junk, unless you just mean he used poor wording.

And are there French people protesting his wording?

I just don't see that. This did have a reason.

"this is for Syria, this is Hollandes fault"

I'm not saying its a valid reason for murdering people, just as cartoons aren't a reason. But they threatened, then promised, then followed through.

At the end of the day, foreign policy has consequences whether or not we pay for, support, and agree with it. Unfortunately for them (ISIS) they didn't take the pages of history seriously. Just as Japan realized that bombing Pearl Harbor would "awaken a sleeping giant", eventually they will push the envelope to the point of no return. Who knows if this was it, but considering Raqqa is still standing I would vote no.

The day somebody fighting ISIS watches McNamara's "Fog of War" and goes"I have an idea", say goodnight...

a reply to: reldra

originally posted by: reldra

No. he points out that this was worse. It was much worse. Not that the other was not bad, but that this was worse and people try to look for reasons in tragedy and this had none.

None...except of course the justification that ISIS broadly communicated...that this slaughter of innocents was in response to France's role in the air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

So, what is your point again?

I fail to see what is so idiotic and nebulous about this statement. It's not. It's clear, and true.

This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.

..John Kerry from the OP's source.

originally posted by: DuckforcoveR
I just don't see that. This did have a reason.

"this is for Syria, this is Hollandes fault"

I'm not saying its a valid reason for murdering people, just as cartoons aren't a reason. But they threatened, then promised, then followed through.

At the end of the day, foreign policy has consequences whether or not we pay for, support, and agree with it. Unfortunately for them (ISIS) they didn't take the pages of history seriously. Just as Japan realized that bombing Pearl Harbor would "awaken a sleeping giant", eventually they will push the envelope to the point of no return. Who knows if this was it, but considering Raqqa is still standing I would vote no.

The day somebody fighting ISIS watches McNamara's "Fog of War" and goes"I have an idea", say goodnight...

a reply to: reldra

True, it may have been a direct reaction to that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Never, ever do anything to provoke ISIS. Start converting to their brand of Islam, cover your women, stop free expression, kill all non believers.

THAT'S what I got from Kerry.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: rigel4

Even Kerry has ONE fan who thinks he walks on water. You've just identified him/her for us.

I'm sure there are quite a few adults that would agree with me.

He didn't justify anything at all.
He said, or at least meant, that the Charlie Hebdo attacks had a specific flavor of revenge.
The Muhammed cartoon.
The latest attacks were more broad spectrum, and the victims were random. This can make it more frightening.

I'd also like to point out that Ive never been much of a fan of his, but to say he justified the Hebdo attacks is simply incorrect.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: reldra

No. he points out that this was worse. It was much worse. Not that the other was not bad, but that this was worse and people try to look for reasons in tragedy and this had none.

None...except of course the justification that ISIS broadly communicated...that this slaughter of innocents was in response to France's role in the air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

So, what is your point again?

But other countries had a role in that. Not everyone can understand why ISIS did this right off the bat. Many were confused at senseless violence. John Kerry did make a distinction between a smaller attack and a bigger one. This was like France's 9/11. The OP is about John Kerry. What was your point again?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: IAMTAT

Never, ever do anything to provoke ISIS. Start converting to their brand of Islam, cover your women, stop free expression, kill all non believers.

THAT'S what I got from Kerry.

You certainly read an entirely different speech then, by an entirely different person.

a reply to: rigel4

And millions more who won't.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: reldra

No. he points out that this was worse. It was much worse. Not that the other was not bad, but that this was worse and people try to look for reasons in tragedy and this had none.

None...except of course the justification that ISIS broadly communicated...that this slaughter of innocents was in response to France's role in the air strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

So, what is your point again?

But other countries had a role in that. Not everyone can understand why ISIS did this right off the bat. Many were confused at senseless violence. John Kerry did make a distinction between a smaller attack and a bigger one. This was like France's 9/11. The OP is about John Kerry. What was your point again?

The OP doesn't have any particular point to make, other
than trying to score a cheap political point against Kerry!

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert


C'mon...the moron is the Secretary of State, for God'sake!!! Is he trying out-dumbass Hillary?

Perhaps, but I would hardly say he was trying to justify the Hebdo murders.

originally posted by: rigel4


Yes, that is the point of this thread.

edit on 17-11-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2015 by reldra because: formatting gone awry. wording is mine.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: IAMTAT
He didn't say they the Charlie Hebdo attacks were legitimate. That's ridiculous. He stated that the perpetrators stated a reason and for this they state no reason.

The microscope that has been unboxed today is tiring.

It wasn't unboxed today. We just learned how to use it from you fine folks. You all showed us how it was done with everything Bush said.

originally posted by: spacedoubt
He didn't justify anything at all.
He said, or at least meant, that the Charlie Hebdo attacks had a specific flavor of revenge.
The Muhammed cartoon.
The latest attacks were more broad spectrum, and the victims were random. This can make it more frightening.

I'd also like to point out that Ive never been much of a fan of his, but to say he justified the Hebdo attacks is simply incorrect.

No, it's not what he meant, but he could have said it in a much more tactful manner.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: IAMTAT

Never, ever do anything to provoke ISIS. Start converting to their brand of Islam, cover your women, stop free expression, kill all non believers.

THAT'S what I got from Kerry.

You certainly read an entirely different speech then, by an entirely different person.

I heard a coward saying not to do anything to make ISIS mad.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: IAMTAT
He didn't say they the Charlie Hebdo attacks were legitimate. That's ridiculous. He stated that the perpetrators stated a reason and for this they state no reason.

The microscope that has been unboxed today is tiring.

It wasn't unboxed today. We just learned how to use it from you fine folks. You all showed us how it was done with everything Bush said.

No one could beat out Bush in that

originally posted by: seagull
Obviously, he doesn't think that, or so I surmise, but geez what a stupid way to phrase that.

His speech writer should be fired, and he needs to be told to proof read the speeches before he gives 'em.

That was just too...

If there even was a speech to read. He may have been going by the seat of his pants.

I don't know, but this hardly seems worth half the attention we are giving it.

a reply to: reldra

Oh, I don't know ... You forget about Biden?