Just because most people won't go on a shooting rampage over them doesn't mean the images aren't offensive to some people. No point throwing fuel on the fire.
Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either.
If you want to see offensive cartoons there are plenty of websites just a google search away.
It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me."
> Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either.
Wrong - http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn...
It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me."
> No, fuck the group that uses terrorism to shut people up. It should be way more offensive to bow to the demands of the terrorists than to post some cartoons.
You mistake your own ignorance for my Islamophobia - Charlie Hebdo made many comics ridiculing politics, Catholicism (especially Catholicism) and religion as a whole.