Unfortunately, some U.S. libertarians, presumably driven by opposition to foreign interventions, keeps saying really stupid things to trivialise Islamist terror. The despicable terror attack on a French satirical news paper provides two more examples of this.
One was Ron Paul, who asserted that the attack was “foreign policy blowback”. Seriously? Why would they specifically target cartoonists if it had been about foreign policy? Shouldn’t it be blatantly obvious that the reason that Islamists target cartoonists who had satirized Muhammed is the cartoons, especially considering that one of the murderers specifically stated that they had “avenged the prophet” after carrying out the killings of people had satirized the prophet? I like many of the things Paul have done, including his promotion of Austrian economics, but his delusional belief that foreign policy intervention is the only thing that could possibly motivate Islamic terror is beyond stupid.
The other was Lucy Steigerwald at antiwar.com, who rhetorically asked whether “Free Speech martyrs were worthier victims than war casualties”? Actually, the issue isn’t those who are killed but those who are killing, but otherwise the answer is “yes”, this terror act is a lot more serious than collateral damage vitims in war. First of all, those murdered in Paris were clearly intentionally murdered while civilian casualties are (at least in the case of bombs from U.S. and other Western countries) clearly unintentional. And yes, it matters whether you kill someone by purpose or by accident, that’s why the justice system rightly distinguish between murder, manslaughter and killings in self-defence.
The other reason is that the intention and effect of this act wasn’t just the death of 12 people. It is also to stifle free speech as anyone who considers writing or drawing anything that Muslims considers blasphemous knows that doing so might result in their execution