A better question would be how many non-Muslims think the same, a lot of Americans don't seem to realize how much hate is directed towards their country...
While there might be some religious undertones, I don't feel it's fair to hang up a single religion as the issue here, especially if you take the above in mind.
Why would we take into account feelings about the US and its foreign policy when discussing an attack on a French
newspaper, based in France
, written in French
and only really widely available in France
Now, France has its own ignoble history when it comes to its treatment of primarily Muslum countries... Algeria has already been mentioned and France's relations with its ex-colonial countries in North Africa mean it gets involved there frequently (it largely took the lead with regard to Libya for example). But does anyone here really
think that this was intended to be a strike at the heart of the French establishment to take revenge for France's actions in Algeria? Or any of its other former colonies? If that's the case then why target Charlie Hebdo... a publication that was more than happy to mock the establishment? Why not some of the French Nationalist groups with ties to the OAS?
Let's remember that Charlie Hebdo has been attacked before. It's offices were firebombed in 2011 after it listed Mohammed as its editor in chief and had a picture of him on the cover. In 2012 it had to have riot police stationed outside after it did more caricatures of Mohammed. The editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, was living under police protection having received multiple credible death threats from Islamist sources and was personally named on a "Wanted Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam" hit list published by Al Queda's propaganda arm. It's worth noting that list coincides pretty much perfectly with the attempted, foiled and completed Islamist attacks that have occurred since it appeared.
So yes, maybe, for reasons that are virtually impossible to understand, someone who didn't like the US' foreign policy or France's own history decided that the best target to attack was an anti-establishment, anti-government (at least in its current form) very left-wing satirist. Or... which I'd suggest is far more likely... someone was offended by the way he mocked his religion and decided that the appropriate punishment for making fun of it was to be murdered.
No-one sensible should be using this as an excuse to demonize all Muslims or the religion in-and-of-itself (although it will be somewhat interesting to see if the people so aghast at "not all men" are equally intent on attacking someone who says "not all Muslims"). But to take the religious element out of it strikes me as utterly disingenuous.