Did Charlie Hebdo just go too far?

2015-01-09T14:51:16-05:00

Obviously, there is no justification for the murders in Paris and I am so glad that this idiots took two the chest and one to the head. Personally, I find political cartoons amusing. However, did Charlie Hebdo just go too far? Apparently, the cartoon(s) in question go back to 2005 and originally the product of a Danish newspaper:

1. Sep 05: Danish pub publishes cartoons, call Muhammad a terrorist
2. Oct 95: Egyptian paper condemns images; 10 Muslim embassies filed complaints
3. Jan 06: Norwegian paper re-prints cartoons; two Muslim countries recall their ambassadors
4. Jan 06: EU offices attacked in Gaza; France, Italy, Spain, and Germany pubs re-print cartoons
5. Danish and Norwegian embassies attacked in Damascus
6. Feb 06, Charlie Hebdo republishes cartoons, French president calls this an "overt provocation."
7. Feb 08, Danish paper re-publishes cartoon, attempts made to murder editor
8. Now 08, Charlie Hebdo offices burnt, after they use cartoon of Muhammad on cover
9. Sep 12: Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoon of Muhammad nude; magazine sued and web site attached.
10. Jan 13: Charlie Hebdo publishes illustrated bio of Muhammad, titled "Perfectly Allah."
11. Jan 15: Well, we know that

By now, we all know that Muslims have an issue with the depiction of Muhammad as a matter of idolatry (look it up, I had to), so why keep doing it? .

I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever hearing of a Muslim magazine publishing cartoons of Jesus naked.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/charlie-hebdo-shooting-12-killed-muhammad-cartoons-magazine-paris-n281266

Twelve people were killed Wednesday when gunmen stormed a French satirical news magazine which has published cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Jan 9 at 2015 4:59 PM

2015-01-09T16:59:15-05:00

No, they did not go too far.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:07 PM

2015-01-09T17:07:32-05:00

I lack to see how this is a serious question. There are a million things on the internet or published that someone, some where takes offense too. I am sure some people would hate the show Tosh.0 which probably has said or done worse then Charlie Hebdo.

I have seen, read and worse. To far? Seriously? To far to deem that this action was what justified?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:14 PM

2015-01-09T17:14:13-05:00

Do I think they went to far? Nope. That's what is great about a free society you can speak and say what you want. (Within reason, I still believe its not free speech to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater) Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they are right!

Now having said that, if you are going to take on an inflammatory subject like for example depictions of the Muhammed then you should understand that there can and will be consequences.

As a former Antiterrorism and Force Protection specialist, I think they should have prepared better based on their threats. They should have taken tougher security precautions. But then again even the best security precautions will not deter a determined attacker they will find a way.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Jan 9 at 2015 5:20 PM

2015-01-09T17:20:15-05:00

I don't think so. I look at Michael Moore who as the right to say anything he wants (politics, religion) and am ok with it. I disagree with much of what he says, but he has the freedom to do it.

If Michael Moore took his same rhetoric and applied it to Islam, he would be just the same. Bill Maher release a video ridiculing Christianity. But they have every right to do it.

Many of the extremists don't want anything that challenges there viewpoint. If you look at the difference between Sunni and Shia, it isn't significantly different. Yet they go after each other like they are heathens.

If you look at the history of the paper, on average that is 1-2 a year. There are some that do 1-2 a day!

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:23 PM

2015-01-09T17:23:18-05:00

I don't think it's justifiable to kill somebody over a spoken or written word or expression through art.

Also, just to split a hair here...Charlie Hebdo made fun of everybody. They are/were a very left wing liberal magazine that also took pot shots at Catholicism. This isn't some sort of instance where a "Christian" magazine made fun of Muhammad. It's misleading to state that you don't see Muslim magazines publishing cartoons of a naked Jesus when this isn't the opposite of that.

Just like we shouldn't blame the victim of a rape because they wore provocative clothing we shouldn't blame Charlie Hebdo for their murder of their cartoonists and employees.

The only thing I can blame them for after all the years of this building up is this; If they truly valued their own and their employees' lives they would have had much better security.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:22 PM

2015-01-09T17:22:26-05:00

CW4 Ray Montano, I don't think anyone would call Charlie Hebdo a Christian magazine. I could be wrong about that. The difference is that people have attacked Jesus, made fun of Jesus, probably drawn satirical cartoons of Jesus ... and Christians are not hunting them down to kill them.

No, Charlie Hebdo did not go too far. The Muslim NUTS went too far.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:29 PM

2015-01-09T17:29:58-05:00

They have the right to publish whatever they want, however just because they have a right doesn't mean exercising that right is always the right thing to do. I have the right to walk down streets controlled by gangs at 2AM in the morning... however that doesn't mean I should do it. If I do for whatever reason decide to walk down those streets, I should be prepared to deal with situations that might arise. It doesn't seem to me, like Charlie Hebdo was making any serious effort to prepare for an attack that he had to know was coming.

I hope they catch and bring to justice all those criminals involved in this attack... and i hope and pray that the horror and evil evidenced by these attacks fuels progressive reform within the worlds second largest religion.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:47 PM

2015-01-09T17:47:56-05:00

Although I believe one should be able to voice or write what they choose. There are possible consequences and repercussions for that freedom. There are some things that must don't joke about. Rape, child molestation, sexual abuse, domestic violence etc and maybe religion should be added. But that doesn't excuse the act of violance on those entities, groups or individuals. This was an act of terrorism regardless of opinion. And the perpetrators deserve what ever is coming to them. This is not the beginning nor is it the end of these acts of terrorism on nations. I know many here in the states will think this is not our problem and will not give it a second thought. But I think it is time these folks woke up and start taking these events serious.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 5:51 PM

2015-01-09T17:51:27-05:00

Who the hell cares? No one MADE ANYONE DO ANYTHING!! That's what is wrong with this country because we are making excuses and letting morons tell us what we can and cannot say. It is shocking to this older Vet to see this kind of propaganda.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 9 at 2015 6:05 PM

2015-01-09T18:05:16-05:00

CW4 Ray Montano I appreciate you bringing up the question to subject it to debate, and clearly doing the work to research it and frame it in a way that took time and effort. But like CPT Justin Rose my answer is a stark: no.

(It would appear everyone else is weighing in on that side, usually in more words-again i think the point was worth raising in the way you did.) But I'll reiterate what others have said: no one is exempt from ridicule. No words justify actions. No hurt feelings justly lead to killing.

Response by SPC Stewart Smith made Jan 9 at 2015 7:07 PM

2015-01-09T19:07:53-05:00

No. They did not go too far. Nothing is above satire. Nothing.
If you claim to hold all final answers to the universe then you had better be prepared to answer a few questions and grow some thicker skin if your prophet married a six year old.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 10:18 PM

2015-01-09T22:18:32-05:00

I think that this subject is an excellent point of discussion. In short, I do not believe Charlie Hebdo went too far. Charb explained best in an interview. When asked the same question in 2012, he provides the following answer, paraphrased: "Wait a moment. I do not subscribe to Muslim law. I subscribe to French law. I do not take offense to criticisms of my government or my God, but why must I now subscribe to Muslim law?"
I can understand the idea of respecting someone's culture. Truly I can. However, that respect does not extend into binding someone to Muslim law/rules/norms. Were the cartoons perhaps in poor taste? That depends on your point of view, and I won't force mine on anyone. However, if by posting those caricatures repeatedly they "asked for it," which I am not saying is your position, then by imagine the chaos that could come from even the smallest of disagreements; think of the chaos that has already come from the smallest of agreements.

Again, this is a topic (the topic of the French society and the "Muslim" society) that I find very interesting and I am passionate about. I'd love to discuss with anyone that wants to. Great question.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 1:26 AM

2015-01-11T01:26:17-05:00

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 4:11 AM

2015-01-11T04:11:16-05:00

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jan 13 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-01-13T12:20:47-05:00

I believe that the pie-in-the-sky philosophical answer to the question is that, no, they had every right to publish whatever they wanted to. Whether people were offended by it or not does not usurp your right to do so.

However, the realistic and practical answer is, yes, they went too far in that they were not offending rational individuals. Instead they were offending irrational religious zealots/fanatics who have proven to the world that their fanaticism will stop at nothing. While it certainly does not justify their actions, it certainly cannot be considered as unexpected. When you continue to poke a tiger in the eye, you are going to get bit.

You have the right to call my wife or daughter a dirty slut. However, you probably would not want to do it around me. If you did, you should anticipate the reaction you will get from me.

I fully support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish what they want, however, they should have (and most likely did) realize the risks they were taking in doing so.

Nothing excuses the murders... but nobody can honestly state it was unexpected.