Taranto: "Kerry rationalizes the assassination of journalists"
Why the Bicyclists?
“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 one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”
Those words were spoken yesterday by Secretary of State John Kerry. The reference to “legitimacy” calls to mind the remark that ended the political career of Todd Akin. But although Kerry’s statement was every bit as stupid as Akin’s, it was far more evil. Not only does he rationalize the mass murder of journalists; that rationalization is a fallback from his initial, impulsive though impolitic position that those murders had “legitimacy.”
The most charitable way to sum up Kerry’s view is that he believes discrimination is a mitigating factor when it comes to terrorist attacks—that murder isn’t as bad when the victim is someone who has publicly espoused views the killer finds abhorrent. The word for a murder carried out with this sort of extreme prejudice is assassination, and it is ordinarily considered even worse than murdering at random.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo, no less than the attacks last week, were intended “to terrorize people.” But the Charlie Hebdo attacks were also intended to terrorize people into silence. It was an attack on free speech as well as on freedom and Western civilization more generally. Kerry’s rationalizing of it is arguably the most un-American thing he has ever said in public—and that’s saying a lot, given that he made a name for himself slandering American military servicemen.
31 comments:
My summation of Kerry: "Hebdo was asking for it, just like the girl in the low cut dress. When the Bataclan shooters targeted those in wheelchairs first; well that just was senseless."
Going back to the Facebook grab; ISIS's rational for the attack is France's involvement in Syria. In Kerry's mind, ISIS shouldn't be angry about France trying to stop them in Syria, but he understands when they are angry about a cartoon.
Kerry can rationalize anything the suits his image (as he sees it)...which I don't quite understand as my image of him is as a piece of sh*t. Never, on his best day, anything more. "Winter Soldier" my arse...he never walked a day in any jungle, but he gathered remote hearsay very well.
Kerry is a dhimmi.
In Kerry's mind, ISIS shouldn't be angry about France trying to stop them in Syria, but he understands when they are angry about a cartoon.
Is little wander why we have made so little progress against them.
I'm no John Kerry fan, but I give him a pass. He was thinking aloud and put his foot in his mouth. I know what he meant, and this seems a lot of faux outrage to me.
Yea, I don't know why he felt the need to say anything.
I'm with you Deb. This is just a dummy trying to say something when he should left it alone. Been there - done that.
BUT, I do think he feels Hebdo asked for it. A lot of people think that way. Like I said, dummy, but he makes an adorable giant bunny.
This seems related to the whole university insanity that has decided that offending someone deserves severe punishment. I don't know when that started, but it came on suddenly in the culture. Maybe a virus that mutated inside Charley Sheen after an African Safari - tiger's blood, patient zero.
It was if the Boston marathon bombing was wiped away clean from his memory, a la Hillary emails.
And the guy is from Massachusetts!
I tweeted 'Somebody please slap his wooden face around.'
Maybe inappropriate...
I do have some sympathy. It must be exhausting to be constantly expected to express everyone's outrage in just the right way, and at the same time being asked to be jerk so that your boss looks less like one. Then again, some people just have a talent for certain things.
Bago, I don't think he thought Hebdo deserved it. He was using the logic that someone is more likely to deck you if you insult their mother, rather than deck an innocent bystander.
He's just reporting for duty.
Whose side he's reporting to, is anybody's question.
Old American proverb:
Never pick a fight with somebody who buys in by the barrel. (unless, of course, you're prepared to horsewhip him in the town square)
And Lurch was toying with another run for the roses when Hillary imploded, too.
Nothing like telling people it's excusable if terrorists murder journolists.
(well, it is, kinda...)
I said he thinks "Hebdo asked for it", which is less blaming than "deserved".
Okay, sorry. It could be said Hebdo drew a line in the sand, but I don't think Kerry was going there or 'asked for it.'
Freud explains the slip well. "Legitimacy" is how the Obama team saw the murders of Charlie Hebdo people. They besmirched the prophet. Remember, all nations leaders went to the memorial, except Obama. He sent the flunky Kerry and James Taylor.
He was thinking aloud
That's the whole point, this is what Kerry thinks. He thinks mockery from a cartoon is rationale for violence.
It could be said Hebdo drew a line in the sand,
They drew a cartoon. They weren't William Barrett Travis at the Alamo.
He was using the logic that someone is more likely to deck you if you insult their mother, rather than deck an innocent bystander.
ISIS says they attacked because France is involved in Syria. Do you think France was in Syria insulting their momma?
James Taylor? Wasn't Cat Stevens available?
Kerry is a moron so moronic he cannot be trusted to speak for terrorists.
Which begs the question why would anyone want to speak for terrorists.
Why is there a need to compare and contrast "rationales" between one vicious bloodthirsty attack versus another. Obviously he finds the Hebdo attacks somehow more palatable because of the provocative speech. But that should make the Hebdo attack MORE unacceptable - if you believe in free speech - because it was targeted specifically at free speech whereas the more recent Paris attacks were more generic "let's unexpectedly kill many people" style of terrorism.
Resolved: John Kerry should not say words.
I fully expect the hack press to go easy on Kerry. Imagine if ... you know the rest.
Obama - Kerry - Hillary- Reid- Pelosi - get them off the stage and out of our lives. They can all GTH.
Too bad ISIS doesn't have a smart patterned scarf like Palestinians do, then Kerry could wear it to signal. A hat. A belt. A desert watch something to set him apart.
Not just regular apart, polar apart.
But no, all ISIS has are black jumpsuits and shockingly inappropriate white Nike shoes. Nobody asks, "Can we get these Nikes in black?" They could exert their bulk buying leverage, look we're shodding an army out here (with wildly inappropriate smell enhancing materials). And ninja face masks. And guns. Knives. Lots of knives. If only he'd take up the face mask. I could Photoshop him for him to show him what he would look like. It's a service.
As to refugees, the President's plan is foolish, ineffective, self-serving, and despite his moralizing bullshit posing, it's highly immoral.
"A recent analysis finds that admitting 10,000 refugees to the United States presents a net lifetime cost to taxpayers of $6.5 billion, meaning that under the current plan to admit 85,000 refugees this fiscal year, taxpayers will be on the hook for $55 billion. For the cost of resettling one refugee in America, we could successfully resettle 12 refugees in the region. Creating safe-zones in Syria and the region is a vastly more effective and compassionate strategy. Such a proposal recently was put forth by former Secretary of Defense Gates and General Petraeus, among others."
So we bring in 1 refugee who doesn't speak the language, is not familiar with the culture, will be halfway around the world from his home and relatives, will be essentially unemployable and will live on public assistance just so the President can look like a swell guy after being the one who let them become refugees in the first place.
You know how you can tell that he's just posing as giving a shit? Because for the same cost we could support 12 refugees instead of one if they just stayed in the countries of first asylum where they are now, which are already out of the war zone, and where we don't have to worry about them being or becoming terrorist here and killing us here.
Who the hell voted for this guy. Do you still show your face in public?
Freudian slips from Marxists and we all dither. In his attempt to sound and look nuanced he jiffy jammed his clubbed foot into his gob again. These motherfuckers just do not care. Obama can go overseas and bad mouth America, the GOP, Conservatives again with impunity. John Kerry can side with the justification of why terrorists kill and people just jibber jabber on "Oh my God, how can this happen?" and nothing gets done. John Kerry should have his fucking face broken by a thousand baseball bats and then thrown into an open ditch never to be remembered again.
More and more all I want to do is scream at all the morons who voted for this guy. I'd lose my voice in this town.
Who the hell voted for this guy. Do you still show your face in public?
Some of them run popular blogs. That's how I defend my sniping. I aspire to be the Chris Kyle of commenters.
Hey, didn't Spinelli say he voted for him?
C'mon everybody, let's get him. He's not mentally handicapped like Ritmo, so no excuse. He doesn't get the lube.
AprilApple said...
More and more all I want to do is scream at all the morons who voted for this guy. I'd lose my voice in this town.
Just be glad we ducked the bullet on Lurch.
Imagine, if you dare, an Addams Family Administration.
I don't mind one-off Obama voters. It's the ass-holier-than-thou attitude from his stalwarty defenders.
You don't expect neurosurgeons to go "Whoops, butter fingers". In like way, you don't expect the Secretary of State to stumble over a simple formulation of words......Is this some kind of Machiavellian scheme to make his predecessor look good?
On second thought, I had concentrated on the second sentence. Now I catch the first sentence: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that," I have to say, really?
It wouldn't have occurred to me to separate the two. So not 'everybody,' Secretary Kerry.
bagoh20 said...
Hey, didn't Spinelli say he voted for him?
C'mon everybody, let's get him. He's not mentally handicapped like Ritmo, so no excuse. He doesn't get the lube.
I don't think Spinelli has done the appropriate gauntlet of lamentations before us. Once the flagellation is complete, we can forgive him his trespasses.
Post a Comment