So, let’s look at the guy who started this whole cartoon escapade. He’s Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper. In all of the Lexis-Nexis database of stories from the American media on the Mohammed cartoons, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that Rose is a close confederate of arch-Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. Indeed, there is almost no context at all about Rose’s newspaper. On a brief mention in the Washington Post gave a hint at a fact desperately needed to understand the situation. The Post described the affair as “a calculated insult … by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem.”';
Suggs goes to explain:
How bad is Pipes? He wants the utter military obliteration of the Palestinians; indeed, from the Muslim world, his racism is about as blatant as that of the Holocaust denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Pipes’ frequent outbursts of racism -- designed to toss gasoline on the neo-cons’ lust for a wholesale conflict of cultures -- earned him a Bush nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank. Rose came to America to commune with Pipes in 2004, and it was after that meeting the cartoon gambit materialized.
Sure. It is just a coincidence that as the US government is preparing for war on Iran, a massive global event occurs that fills westerners with disgust for Muslims takes place, over cartoons that had been published in a minor Danish newspaper six months before. Flemming Rose's interview with Pipes is online at Pipes' website.
These events are orchestrated. For a reason. This is more than a discussion about censorship or liberalism or the Islamic world and intolerance.
UPDATE: WaPo has Flemming Rose's justification for printing the cartoons.
[Iran] [US Foreign Policy] [Daniel Pipes] [Islam] [Muslim cartoons] [US]