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.

How to draw Mohammed

If you are a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist.

You start with a CDC (crudely drawn cock) for nose and eyes smack dab in the middle of another CDC for face and turban. You will notice, once you notice, a lot of cartoon faces begin with CDC. Sometimes the nostrils are testicles and other times the chin is drawn as face testicles. Sometimes lashes are pubic hair. Sometimes you can turn them upside down and see something very rude indeed possibly amusing.

You have to start your drawing somewhere. Most cartoonists are acknowledged pervs. Who else is going to tell you these things?

It's what makes religionists so angry. Having what they do returned. They've been doing this same thing for centuries, drawing caricatures of Jews drawn with noses and faces of dicks. It's a thing.     

Al Jazeera Fury over Global Support for Charlie Hebdo

"I am not Charlie" email reveals disagreement about how to handle reporting of Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Massacre too strong? I don't think so. [photo of office after charlie hebdo murders]

Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide email.

“Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended — to make our coverage the best it can be,” the London-based Khadr wrote Thursday, in the first of a series of internal emails leaked to National Review Online. “We are Al Jazeera!”

Well good for you. We all know you are not Charlie Hebdo. Nothing even close.

Khadr sent a list of suggestion on how anchors and correspondents should handle the slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office.

1) Ask if this is really an attack on free speech.

Yes. Next suggestion.

2) Discuss whether "I am Charlie" is an "alienating slogan." 

No. It is an empty slogan. But do, go ahead and be alienated. It is your nature.

3) Caution viewers against making this a free speech European values under attack, rather, portray the attack as "a clash of extremist fringes."

Take your caution about how to frame this and stuff it where the sun does not shine. That would be your butt.  It is not a particularly European value but it most certainly is codified American value. It seems unnatural at first, but it grows on you. It is the imposition of your values that is rejected. You want to live in the West then grow a pair and brace yourself for being offended. 

More blah bhah tautological blabity-blah we've all heard a million times except phrased exactly the same way instead of various ways. 

"A right to free expression in the face of oppression is not the same thing as the right to be obnoxious just because you can is infantile."

Khadr wants the monopoly on being obnoxious and offensive and infantile. Denied. That's the thing; you'll always find something to take offense. You are like little babies who are never happy with anything short of 100% submission and that is not going to happen, so suck it. You are infantile for justifying offense at something that is infantile. 

4) Baiting extremists is not bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well.

Yes it is. Because it shows how perfectly full of poo the whole lot of you are. You are so tender you cannot even take a little joke while simultaneously dishing it out all day long every day of the week, never missing a week in any given year, year in year out over centuries. You are out of your minds. 

5) Within a climate where violent response is a real risk, goading on principle virtually everyone agrees is pointless. It is pointlessly about you. 

Not so, Bozo. Since you are quite mad we must all comply? It is alway a climate where violent response is a real risk. Always! That is the point. You are demanding complete submission to your infantile murderous attitude. Protecting the prophet? He's dead. Knock it off already. 

His attitude did not go over so well with all Al Jazeera employees. 

Tom Ackerman in the U.S. sent his own email in response citing a NYT column stating such cartoons must be published so that radical Islamists must not be allowed to think their strategy can succeed.

No wait. What? Really? The NYT? That was by Ross Douthat. Well, wonders never do cease completely.

And that began an angry response from Qatar-based correspondents revealing a cultural rift at the network.

Qatar guy goes on about insulting 1.5 billion people and the chances of one or two of them moved to murder. And guessing about encouraging people to persist in insulting 1.5 billion people's most sacred icons then you must want more killings because in 1.5 billion there will always be some who do not abide by the laws nor care about free speech.

So? You keep saying 1.5 billion Muslims containing one or two crackpots therefore we must submit to your infantile values of religious sanctimony, imagining your argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad numerum is not fallacious. There are 2 billion Christians in the world and Iran and other insult them daily. And let's only mention the Jews whom your religion makes a religious duty of traducing, a properly sacred tenet as well.  Charlie Hebdo comically insulted all of those Christians and Jews and politicians and celebrities continuously. That is at the core of free speech. American citizens are insulted regularly. Demonized in fact, by your religion. Daily. Take your convoluted fallacies and stuff them.

I don't even know why I'm listening to this. My attitude has calcified. They will never get through to me and my kind. They seek submission and they are not going to have it. In fact, I am tempted to draw Mohammed doing something irreligious right now, but I find him an uninteresting subject. Keep it up and I must start drawing away just to find release from your "infantile" nagging. 

Nothing is sacred. Not even your crackpot prophet. And I don't care how many billions think otherwise.

This is all at National Review, where the author Brendan Bordelon puts [sic] in places where there is no mistake that I see. Maybe Bordelon just does not appreciate the way these guys talk. There are several. One after "making this a free speech 'European Values' under attack binary" 

Maybe he wanted the word "issue" in there. I do not know. 

Another [sic] after, "...where violent response -- however illegitimate -- ..."

Another [sic] after, "fools who don't abide by the laws or know about free speech."

Another [sic] after, "Salem later wrote. "it' snot..." Ha ha ha ha ha. That is my favorite [sic] I thought it was an improperly gooey [sic] but it snot.

I love [sic] it is my all-time favorite editing notation.

The Qatar-based guy continues, "What Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have an look at them!

No. I have no need to go back and try to be offended on your behalf. I have them memorized because they're so cute. It is not abuse of free speech. That is the very essence of free speech. Your opinion, Mr. Qatari, is unAmerican! It is highly offensive to me. This is very dear to me. My religion, as it were. It is enshrined in our national constitution. Our sacred text.  So shut up right now, all of you, forever,  or I might become so enraged that I feel an intense urge to go over there and kill you. 

See how that works?  

The Qatar guys caused the Al Jazeera woman from BBC, now a correspondent in Paris to email a "polite reminder."  *ding ding ding, red clanging railroad signal for something impolite*

#journalismisnotacrime

Ugh.

I want to smack her myself.  Her hashtag triggered a furious reaction from another Arab correspondent Omar Al Saleh.

Of course it did.

 "First I condemn the brutal killing." 

Of course you do. I sense a "but" coming on. Let's  hear the "but."

"But I am not Charlie." 

Well, duh. Charlie is dead. Your infantile touchy guys killed him. And now they are dead too. But your guys did not kill those who will follow Charlie and now their publication will print a million copies instead of the usual sixty thousand. That is an increase of 167%. An immense act of defiance supported by Google, Le Monde, France Télévisions, and Radio France, all urging other media outlets to join in offering humanitarian and financial support. (While support for so-called Palestinians is withdrawn) The Guardian.

This is what happens when you insist in a horrible way then persist in insisting that people shut up. 

National Review.

Jihadis Massacre Writers and Cartoonists at a French Humor Magazine

"The French magazine Charlie Hebdo, targeted on Wednesday by Muslim gunmen, has a long history of mocking religions, including Islam."

Its most recent cover joked about author Michel Houellebecq’s new novel “Submission,” which speculates about a future in which France elects a Muslim president. Since its release, many have called “Submission” Islamophobic, though Houellebecq has said that “an alliance between Catholics and Muslims is possible,” and that “jihadists are bad Muslims.”

The shooters shouted “Allahu akbar” and “The prophet is avenged” while carrying out their attack. Terror analysts also noted that they made a one-finger hand gesture, signifying Islam’s emphasis of God’s oneness, that is often featured in propaganda videos of the Islamic State terror group.

In the videos, the men looked calm and poised, not firing any unnecessary shots, showing that they were well-trained for the attack.