The argument is not with terrorists themselves, though, because terrorists are presumably beyond the reach of ideological debate. So what is its purpose? And, perhaps more importantly, what are its consequences?

These are questions that a critically thinking public should have asked when European newspapers rallied around ‘free speech’ and began republishing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in 2006, incensing the Muslim world. But instead, a misguided debate about ‘free speech’ and ‘religious sensitivity’ emerged and continues today.

A key element of this argument is presenting ‘freedom’ or ‘free speech’ as in danger. These values, being perhaps the most central to Western society and even the individual’s identity, elicit strong emotions in Westerners. They may be similar to the emotions that Muslims experience when the central symbol of Islamic society and identity was attacked by Western media and society at large. This comparison may help Westerners to consider the reactions of Muslims more calmly.

In both cases, it became difficult to think things through rationally. A threat to such basic elements of identity elicit fear. This should be recognized as dangerous. In the volatile circumstances that breed terrorism, war and social tension, it is precisely at junctures such as those faced in 2006 as well as today that we must be most careful.

Recently, Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who is behind the publications of caricatures of Muhammad that caused an uproar in 2006, responded to a tape recording of Osama Bin Laden, the man who is supposedly behind the 9/11 attacks and whose name is synonymous with “terrorism.” They are voices engaging one another on fiercely antagonistic ideological grounds in a time when their words have real consequence.

There is one point that they appear to agree on. Each seems convinced that the best way to address the tension between Islam and the West is through head-on confrontation.

Mr. Rose presents himself as if he is speaking for the West and challenging the ideology of “terrorism” or “radical Islam” or something. But I wish he would stop.

For starters, how come such western inventions as the computer, the internet, modern video production techniques, cel phones, cars, planes and weapons are okay for him and his followers to use in so-called defense of Islam? If you really reject the west, shouldn’t these things also be rejected along with Coke and Hollywood movies?

And why doesn’t anyone (Muslims included) ever really condemn him and his followers for the killing of innocent Muslim women and children in violent strikes as sloppy and random as public suicide explosions?

And while I’m at it, didn’t Mohammed Atta and some of his uptight cohorts spend one of their last nights before 9/11 in a Florida strip club? Not exactly in line with the so called beliefs he died claiming to defend is it?

Sometimes I wonder how he can even be so sure of himself with the many inconsistencies in his rhetoric. But then again, he’s got to be pretty polarized in his views by now, and that can lead to a lot of self delusion and righteousness.

In closing, to anyone who ever doodled the time away with cartoons in the margins of their school notebooks…HAIL, the power of the cartoon!!

Haven’t we been informed, ad nauseum, that Islam is a religion of peace and how the majority of Muslims do not hate us or wish us harm.

So why should we tip toe around Muslims? We don’t worry when we insult Christian snakehandlers do we?

I’ve always marveled that the inimitable truth of Allah (as communicated through the Angel Gabriel and eventually winding up as the Koran) could possibly be subject to “insult”.

Or could need any kind of defense from mere mortals.

Especially from mortals who seem to think “insult” to the Koran is a more significant crime than slaughtering their own women and children.

I have PIGMAN, in all his pigskinned leather glory, showing OBL what he thinks of his latest rant.