Re post 13 by Steve Zara

Arrgghhh (grimace/cringe).

Instead, they saw in it a defamatory and humiliating message

Sorry, I beg to differ here. That would be flat out wrong. If someone accuses ME of being a mad bomber, I could not in a month of Sundays claim to be humiliated. Humiliation is simply not a word that can be associated with an accusation of this particular type of criminal behaviour when I have not committed any. A public accusation of child abuse, using my name directly, perhaps, but not being a mad bomber. And of course, no specific muslim was so named. The mere depiction of a bearded person in a head covering is somehow supposed to directly equal Mohamed ? I don't think so.

Defamed, perhaps, but then I might wish to prove that I personally am not a mad bomber. It would be easy enough to prove that any group to which I belong does not contain mad bombers. Humiliation is just another way to escalate the disagreement beyond the rational, typically adopted by those whose list of arguments has been depleted. I note that Mohamed himself did not appear to take offense personally.

You say there is more than one side here. Fair enough, the cartoons may in some quarters be considered as being in poor taste. But those who do must understand there are a great many around the world who think muslim = terrorist.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

The cartoons may well be in poor taste, but until & unless someone can fairly describe them as inaccurate, I think you would have to admit they stand on firm ground.