Like any other issue, this one is no exception and must be looked at in-depth...like always, try putting yourself in the shoes of another person...namely a person that may have been affected by all this...

Firstly, you should know that the same Danish paper refused to publish similar cartoons depicting Jesus in an 'offensive way' on the basis they 'could be offensive to readers'...this is not only racist of them to then publish cartoons of Muhammad, but it is also hypocrtitical....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...1703501,00.html

I will give my thoughts on the response, but the mistake you (distilled) made is that you think all this has happened SIMPLY because of the cartoons, or at least that is what you implied...

These cartoons in my opinion were not freedom of speech, but freedom of hate. The Danish paper would have known exactly the kind of respond they would receive to these cartoons, yet they were published regardless...they knew that not even Muslims are allowed to create pictures of Muhammad, never mind non-Muslims depicting pictures that are 'offensive'....

Knowing that current hostility between Muslims and the West, why on earth would you publish these unless you intentionally 'wanted' to incite anger as a primary or at least secondary reason?

This response is not just because of the cartoons, but it is years of frustration expressed towards the West due to the way Muslims are treated in the world, especially by the West...this instance acted as a trigger to protest and release this anger...I agree with Nostradamus

The reaction that has occured as a result, is in my opinion however, neccessary. Personally, I have not reacted at all but I do not condemn, nor disagree with the burning of these embassies or boycotting of goods... Because if Muslims did nothing as such, as so many Western people who are NOT a minority in this case and are NOT offended by these pictures claim, then rest assured this case would die down, be forgotten just like any other injustice towards Muslims especially....

The embassies burned because of anger towards the west generally...to claim they were merely over the cartoon would be misunderstanding the context of the response...this is a response to how Muslims are treated generally...and Muslims wanted to show how they feel...so

Do you blame them resorting to violence to express this anger?