> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want.
I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but feel that actually, they may have been strategically brilliant. They chose a relatively poorly defended target, and they've successfully engineered a massive international incident which exploits the fault lines between Muslims and non-Muslims, between the left and the right, and among the left. The anti-Muslim backlash is going to be a recruitment goldmine for ISIS et al.
In some ways I guess whether this was by accident or design isn't particularly important, but I still find the question fascinating.
Terrorist's goals are to drive a wedge between societies so they can exploit the fallout for recruiting and support. It's like when car bombs go off in front of holy shrines in Iraq, the terrorists want reprisals to happen so they can operate in the violence and fanaticism that erupts after. Somewhere are people who helped planned the Paris attacks who are dismayed the French public didn't immediately firebomb all visible mosques in revenge to spark chaos.
I do share this view. People often forgot that terrorism is not about body count - deaths are only collateral damage, means to an end which is to influence a population through fear.
Importantly, it's just a variation of Osama bin Laden's self-stated goal for 9/11: poke the bear in order to get him to chase us into our trap.
The French will surely be more willing to pursue military intervention against jihadists, leading them to inevitably kill some innocent Muslims in the process, increasing recruitment.
From the replies I was assuming it was deleted for using the word "faggot" as a pejorative. I may be wrong.
To be clear, I don't mind the fact it was deleted. I do think Freedom of Speech is a poor justification for reprisals against Muslims of Islam partly because, as Stanley Fish put it, there's no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too.
I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but feel that actually, they may have been strategically brilliant. They chose a relatively poorly defended target, and they've successfully engineered a massive international incident which exploits the fault lines between Muslims and non-Muslims, between the left and the right, and among the left. The anti-Muslim backlash is going to be a recruitment goldmine for ISIS et al.
In some ways I guess whether this was by accident or design isn't particularly important, but I still find the question fascinating.