Anonymous wrote:That's it? We're done?

No, I just had other things to do.

I agree that insulting ordinary, peace-loving, Muslims is also a major cost. And I get the point that exercising the right to freedom is sometimes the proper course. I just don't see that driving crazy people to do crazy acts is the same as refusing to accede to misguided authority. I think they could have made their point without spitting in the face of all Muslims by bringing Mohammed into the cartoons.

But at the risk of being boringly repetitive, none of this in any way excuses the killers. It's intellectually inconsistent for an atheist to say it, but they should rot in hell.

That's it? We're done?

Another way to answer you is this; you clearly think the cartoons had no benefit but a cost. I would point more to the cost of hurting normal Muslims and you to the cost of violence by extremist but we both see a cost.

Why did the cartoonists/journalist do it? They see the satire as having an important benefit. You disagree about the benefit but that answers your question about why THEY did it.