Cartoonish Islamist Reality

The Great Mohammad Cartoon Controversy has jumped the shark; and lapsed into a satire of itself. Via the indominable Michelle Malkin:

Pakistani protesters holding daggers stage a rally against the publication of cartoons depicting Islamic Prophet Muhammad, with black banners arounds their chests that read, 'God is Great,' Friday, Feb. 24, 2006 in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Question: If the cartoons on either side accurately portray modern Muslim behavior, and the Islamo-fascists demand that we cease printing such cartoons, aren't the mainstream media essentially performing as a propoganda vessel for the Islamists? If realistic portrayals like the ones above are banned, but uncensored pictures of Abu Graib can appear in every newspaper in America, is not the media intentionally giving a skewered view of our enemies, and ourselves? A view that only helps American enemies portray themselves as victims, while hiding their own brutal nature?

Is the liberal media so afraid of the man in the picture above that they are willing to give him editorial control over the images that are allowed to appear in our information outlets?

Apparently so...

UPDATE: Today's New York Times editorializes on the Cartoons of Evil, and bespeaks of the still-elusive moderate Muslim:

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists...It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced.

It is time for moderate Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by straddling the fence. It is they who must explain to their people that the cartoons were an isolated incident, and not the face of hostile crusaders. It is they who must make it clear to their people that blowing up mosques, beheading hostages and strapping on belts of explosives are far, far greater evils than a few drawings in a distant paper. They must do so because their future is at stake — not Denmark's.

True enough, although the Times is very late in waking up to the dangers presented; and still claims that we, the West, are not in danger. But their call to action for the "moderate Muslim" echos mine, and is of value. Yet Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters feels that this Times editorial paints the paper in an even worse light:

From the time of the first arson and the point when the first signs appeared demanding violence -- in other words, since day 1 of the protests -- the point has always been to intimidate non-Muslims into silence.
The Times cannot bring itself to admit this. Why? It would force the Times to recognize its role in the shameful surrender shown by the American media in not just refusing to publish the cartoons themselves, but also in their haughty rationalizations that they must remain sensitive to the icons of Islamic faith. They routinely fail to show this sensitivity to icons of other faiths, such as their reprint of the Ofili Madonna, covered in elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia...They only care about sensitivity when the offended carry bombs, guns, and torches.
Even today, with its far-too-late recognition of the real issues involved in the Cartoon Wars, the Times has yet to publish the cartoons themselves so their readers can understand the context of the controversy.

Typical of the liberals within the media establishment - even when it is a cause worth fighting for, let someone else do it, while we hide under the desk...