Paris attack: Who is responsible?

Paris attack: Who is responsible?


January 7, 2015, Paris witnessed barbarity and ruthless killing in the name of vengeance. Gunmen or more specifically, terrorists claiming to be followers of Islam, stormed into the the office of Charlie Hebdo's satirical magazine and killed 12 people brutally. This is not the first time when Charlie's weekly was attacked. Back in November 2011 there was firebomb attacks on the headquarters of his office. Threats were given by mad extremists to yet another bunch of mad cartoonists who abuse and offend people through their cartoons. Who is actually responsible for this barbarism and loss of 12 lives?

Terrorists are responsible:

1. Media has the freedom of expression and though they misuse the freedom to offend religion and beliefs of people, nothing justifies killing of people. It is terrorism and fanaticism and everyone should condemn the act for the sake of humanity. These terrorists are no friends of any religion. They are the biggest enemies of peace and humanity, have crossed every limits of barbarism, and should be punished.

2. There is no vengeance in Islam and those hypocrites who shouted out after the killing that they avenged Prophet Muhammed are actually nowhere near to the teachings of the Prophet. The greatest of prophets of Islam does not need mere humans to take revenge for him. Islam teaches tolerance and these extremists know nothing of the same yet call themselves follower of Prophet.

3. Protesting against the media and condemning the obscene caricatures of Hebdo could be done in a peaceful way too. There is no denying that his cartoons are indescribably offending to our Prophet and raised anger everywhere not only amongst the Muslims but other religions as well (it's not only Islam that Cynic Charlie offends) but such acts of terrorism are not justified in any way.

4. Freedom of press and democracy cannot be stabbed to silence by these means of inhuman acts. Intimidation by religious extremists and politicians is at its height and these terrorists are born out of it. They might take a stand that their act is justified given that they were offended by the press' publication and they did not agree to it. But you do not need to agree to everything they write and publish and power doesn't give you the authority to punish them for what they wrote or drew.

5. Islamic minorities in France are living under unpleasant situation with Islamophobia getting them discriminated. To add to their despair, their economic crisis makes them easy target to intimidation by the so called jihadists. But instead of resorting to violence these people can protest in other peaceful ways where there would be more space for sensible discussions and that would yield effective results too.

Charlie Hebdo shares the partnership in crime:

1. The role of the media is to bring forth the truth, free from intimidation and fear. Lampooning shariah laws and offending a religion is what media do when they have nothing else left to cover their pages. Without thinking of the consequences or the kind of response such offensive cartoons could draw, Hebdo continued the business of hurting sentiments of people worldwide. This is not meant to defend the terrorists or their act of terrorism but there is no denying that such content is like oil on fire for those already ready to kill and die intimidated by the leaders of the terror groups.

2. According to Florence Noiville, a French novelist, there is a keyword in France - laicite - which means public life should be separated from religion. Does this rule not apply to the French media? Terrorists hurt physically in the name of religion. We can them hypocrites. Media cartoonists like Hebdo hurts the sentiments of millions intentionally in the name of democracy and freedom of press. We now call this strategy. How are people like Hebdo any different from those like ISIS? Both are ruthless in different ways.

3. Other than the followers of these terror groups, every Muslim condemns the atrocities and fundamentalism of these extremists. The terror act was condemned by Muslims across the globe. Did Charlie's media think of the sentiments of these people when they drew the obscene cartoons of one of the greatest prophets of a religion? Common people like us could get angry over it and condemn the cartoons with words but what else had Charlie expected from these terrorists? Opponents would call this a strategy to gain sympathy and outspread messages of Islamophobia - we expect Charlie to be expecting this too.

4. Meaningless and obscene cartoons of Charlie Hebdo are just meant to anger people of a religion and they have nothing in it that calls for freedom of press of democracy. They are drawn just to offend people. Is that so difficult to stop? If we cannot expect sensible media people to understand that their content is hurting people's sentiments, there is no expecting these fanatics to feel the pain of people.


For Hebdo, it's just a cartoon he created one fine day when he was retarder and had no news to play around with. His cartoons were failing to get attention so he decided to play safe with the matter that would get him into the limelight for no good reason. Muslims across the globe were offended (mission accomplished) but then came the unexpected blow from another bunch of retards. Both of these groups insulted the Prophet. More than the cartoonist, these terrorists offended his teachings. Our heart goes out to the families of the victims of this massacre.
Post your comment


  • RE: Paris attack: Who is responsible? -Riki Jain (01/12/15)
  • This is a clear case of insanity of terrorist and madness of open press
  • RE: Paris attack: Who is responsible? -Deepa Kaushik (01/12/15)
  • We have a few people who try to offend the community just to get themselves to the limelight. Hebdo is one among them who just tried to get the attention of millions through his career / profession. Whatever he narrated through his cartoons was unacceptable by the majority. As a professional he should have maintained the standards of a cartoonist, which in no way permits to offend anyone, or any community or group.

    It is not just the cartoonist but also the news agency who went ahead with publishing the cartoon. News and media has some ethics to be followed. What a news agency aims as of today is just the number of viewership / readers to get to the top. They hardly mind altering their standards and professional ethics to reach a top position. The news agency along with the cartoonist is equally at fault in welcoming such an attack. A continuous offense in the manner of cartoon has to face some kind of dreadful activity one day or the other; which came forth in the form of terror attack.

    Though the reason for the attack was within the news agency itself, still we can in no way accept the terror attacks. The terrorism cannot be favoured in any way. No person has the right to end other’s life. To kill someone would always be an offense. Even a death sentence in written after taking in to account all sorts of proofs into account, then how can we justify the killing of people just on the name of portraying their resistance against the activity. I understand that the writer tried to compare the inhuman nature of the terrorist with the emotionlessness of the cartoonist. But there is no scope to provide any cover for these anti-social activities. The comparison can be regarded in terms that both of them have hurt others, emotionally or physically, but both were ruthless in their activity. Still, on a wide vision it would be the terrorist who should be held responsible for the attack.
  • RE: Paris attack: Who is responsible? -raj (01/12/15)
  • Have you lost your mind? how can you compare Hebdo with ISIS,who are killing people ruthlessly on the name of religion. Do not try to give a protection cover to these extremists like ISIS ,al-qaida,etc by your scholar knowledge.
  • RE: Paris attack: Who is responsible? -Prabhu (01/12/15)
  • Well articulated article, Farhana