The Bold Charlie Hebdo Covers

[questionmark]

Slideshow by Bloomberg

[Space Commander Travis]

Bold or going out of their way to be offensive? But you're not allowed to suggest that, of course, since we are all Charlie Hebdo now. You see the point is, if they were just aimed at ISIS or similar bunches of extremists, that would be commendable, but doing this is just mocking the entire religion of Islam. It's not just the extremists that they're satirising.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Valdemar the Great

[Karasu]

True satire causes misunderstanding.

[RavenHawk]

Bold or going out of their way to be offensive? But you're not allowed to suggest that, of course, since we are all Charlie Hebdo now. You see the point is, if they were just aimed at ISIS or similar bunches of extremists, that would be commendable, but doing this is just mocking the entire religion of Islam. It's not just the extremists that they're satirising.

Well then, I’d say that the Moderate has one of two things they can do. Instead of paying lip service to how these terrorists don’t represent Islam, they can take the leading role in bringing an end to the terrorism or they can continue to enable it. The outcome of that will reflect the true nature of Islam. Put the onus where it belongs. No more excuses.

[questionmark]

Bold or going out of their way to be offensive? But you're not allowed to suggest that, of course, since we are all Charlie Hebdo now. You see the point is, if they were just aimed at ISIS or similar bunches of extremists, that would be commendable, but doing this is just mocking the entire religion of Islam. It's not just the extremists that they're satirising.

Remember that good old bonmotte: "I don't like what you are saying but I would give my life so you can keep on saying it"?

Yes, some of these magazines are obnoxious, but that is their right.

[Michelle]

Bold or going out of their way to be offensive? But you're not allowed to suggest that, of course, since we are all Charlie Hebdo now. You see the point is, if they were just aimed at ISIS or similar bunches of extremists, that would be commendable, but doing this is just mocking the entire religion of Islam. It's not just the extremists that they're satirising.

I wonder why we didn't see all of the other groups they "offended" gunning for Charlie? Insinuating incest between a father and son is pretty offensive, especially considering it was talking about the president of France. That is grounds for beheading right there!

Oh, I forgot...it's to be expected when you insult Islam and they brought it on themselves.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Michelle

[Keel M.]

None of those are covers that were created since the massacre. They're all old and proof that Charlie Hebdo isn't just taking aim at Muslims and Islam. They are equal opportunity offenders. We have a lot of that here in the US. Plenty of comedians in this country are extremely offensive in my opinion yet they are hugely popular with others.

Yes, they are offensive. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion of loving or hating them. But taking your hatred out on these people by ending their lives is something no one has a right to do. They continue in their popularity because there are just enough people who are enjoying the cartoons for them to keep going.

[Occult1]

Bold or going out of their way to be offensive? But you're not allowed to suggest that, of course, since we are all Charlie Hebdo now. You see the point is, if they were just aimed at ISIS or similar bunches of extremists, that would be commendable, but doing this is just mocking the entire religion of Islam. It's not just the extremists that they're satirising.

They didn't take the gloves off whether it's Islam, Judaism, Christianism ect when they had something to say about it. But with freedom of speech inevitably come people who don't agree or might even get angered. Under no circumstances did the Charlie Hebdo been convicted of incitement to racial hatred or religious intolerence, that has simply never been the intention. It's a satirical newspaper. As for 'blaspheme', that kind of thing isn't in the french penal code. At the end of the day, common sense must be applied and the wine watered down. 'I may not like it but I am not going to dwell on it' or 'Live and let live'. I do think that's the conclusion a lot of muslims reached, especially after the lost of legal battles by the UOIF in 2008 and they cannot be blamed for the action of muderers.

When the pedophelia scandal at the Vatican became a target:

* snip *

Edited January 8, 2015 by Saru
Image removed due to copyright

[acidhead]

Maurice Sinet

[kartikg]

Are the shootings wrong ? Ofcourse they are. But for certain Muslims it's not acceptable to make fun of their prophet. It's a line which cannot be crossed. They don't care if it's satire or serious. They have made their point clear. If you still want to draw go ahead but don't expect safety of your life. It is now matter of courage will you risk your life ?

[Space Commander Travis]

True satire causes misunderstanding.

Agreed, if it was true satire, which these aren't, it was rather juvenile really. And the point is that these weren't just targeted at extremism or at Al Q or ISIS, these were quite indiscriminate and indifferent as to whether they insult an entire religion and millions and offend millions of people.

[bee]

Agreed, if it was true satire, which these aren't, it was rather juvenile really. And the point is that these weren't just targeted at extremism or at Al Q or ISIS, these were quite indiscriminate and indifferent as to whether they insult an entire religion and millions and offend millions of people.

the 'entire religion'.....chooses to be offended...

they don't have to be so precious about it all.....

edit to say...unless the indoctrination removes that choice, of course...

which is like saying we must treat them like they have no mind of their own...

and make allowances

.

Edited January 10, 2015 by bee

[Space Commander Travis]

For ****'s sake bee, don't be so naive. It's a basic principle that no representation of the Prophet Mohammed can ever be made, let alone be used in "wacky" "Satirical" "humorous" cartoons. It's just like burning the flag would be to an American. They were, literally, asking for it; they wanted to be martyred for "Freedom of Speech".

Edited January 10, 2015 by Valdemar the Great

[bee]

For ****'s sake bee, don't be so naive. It's a basic principle that no representation of the Prophet Mohammed can ever be made, let alone be used in "wacky" "Satirical" "humorous" cartoons. It's just like burning the flag would be to an American. They were, literally, asking for it; they wanted to be martyred for "Freedom of Speech".

on the contrary....if the limit's of your analysis is that they 'were, literally, asking for it'....

then IMO it is YOU who is naive.

It is NOT a basic principle that no representation of the PM can ever be made....that is just an artificial 'rule'

made up by a group of people - to suit a group of people -

You have many faces Val....sometimes anarchist, sometimes this or that or the other...

this one of obedient supporter and excuser of murderers who think they are above the law of the land

(on this occasion the French Law of the Land)

Is a new one...

.

[Occult1]

For ****'s sake bee, don't be so naive. It's a basic principle that no representation of the Prophet Mohammed can ever be made, let alone be used in "wacky" "Satirical" "humorous" cartoons. It's just like burning the flag would be to an American. They were, literally, asking for it; they wanted to be martyred for "Freedom of Speech".

It's a basic principle that the french law allows for satirs and humorous cartoons of any kind of figures. Did the Charlie Hebdo sometimes went far? Probably, it's a matter of opinions, but they remained within the legal frame of freedom of speech which is everyone's right. The time when religious values dictated the law and censored freedom of speech is done and over. Whether you are mocking Obama, Marine Le Pen, the Prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ makes no difference in a free society. That a group of armed people would try to impose their distorted moral principles, killing bystanders in the process, can only serve to disgust and revolt the people.

Edited January 10, 2015 by sam_comm

[questionmark]

It's a basic principal that the french law allows for satirs and humorous cartoons of any kind of figures. The time when religious values dictated the laws and censored freedom of speech is done and over.

something they had the guts to lay down in the 18th century revolution... others did not go that far even though they should.

[Karasu]

For ****'s sake bee, don't be so naive. It's a basic principle that no representation of the Prophet Mohammed can ever be made, let alone be used in "wacky" "Satirical" "humorous" cartoons. It's just like burning the flag would be to an American. They were, literally, asking for it; they wanted to be martyred for "Freedom of Speech".

It's only a basic priciple if you are Muslim.

[Careful_perspective]

For ****'s sake bee, don't be so naive. It's a basic principle that no representation of the Prophet Mohammed can ever be made, let alone be used in "wacky" "Satirical" "humorous" cartoons. It's just like burning the flag would be to an American. They were, literally, asking for it; they wanted to be martyred for "Freedom of Speech".

I think you gave a poor example. If someone burned an American flag most Americans would not be in support of their death.

Edited January 12, 2015 by woodsbooger

[Einsteinium]

For ****'s sake bee, don't be so naive. It's a basic principle that no representation of the Prophet Mohammed can ever be made, let alone be used in "wacky" "Satirical" "humorous" cartoons. It's just like burning the flag would be to an American. They were, literally, asking for it; they wanted to be martyred for "Freedom of Speech".

The right of freedom of speech is more important than not offending religion, or for that matter anything else.

These terrorists killed people for drawing a cartoon. I find that to be vastly more offensive than any cartoon depicting anything. Satirical or not, and an affront to civilization as a whole. There is NO excuse and NO justification for this type of behavior.

[questionmark]

True to an extent, non of my interests or herds i mix with though result in random innocent people being executed for saying or drawing something I don't like....if I followed your example then every two-bit hate preacher in London would be face down in the thames now......not really the way for a society to behave is it!

See, that is the difference between them and us, if somebody tries to sell us some hate speech we patiently try to explain him/her what is wrong with that... if you blog the truth in Arabian countries you get flogged... and then they try to get us to adopt their values...

[F3SS]

This is the new cover.

*snip*

Al-Jazeera won't show it. Neither will CNN.

Just because an image is forbidden for the believers does not mean it is forbidden for everyone else. That is their rule, not our rule. Our women in cars and bikinis are forbidden to them too. That's a death penalty for them. Is a woman driving in a swimsuit asking for it? They have no authority over the world.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Saru
Image removed due to copyright

[F3SS]

The shape of his head and turban... Am I just seeing things or is that less than subtle satire?

[Michelle]

This is the new cover.

Al-Jazeera won't show it. Neither will CNN.

Just because an image is forbidden for the believers does not mean it is forbidden for everyone else. That is their rule, not our rule. Our women in cars and bikinis are forbidden to them too. That's a death penalty for them. Is a woman driving in a swimsuit asking for it? They have no authority over the world.

They can't kill all of us and the actions of these fanatics are only going to bring more of the same kind of satire.

[Likely Guy]

The shape of his head and turban... Am I just seeing things or is that less than subtle satire?

Pareidolia. Penis complex, something, something...

In light of what happened, the best cover, ever.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Likely Guy

[F3SS]

Paredolia.

No I'm pretty sure that's the inclination to see a face where one is not. I'd call what I see paranuts.