Stop the presses: the Danish cartoon lawsuit has been thrown out!

There are some judges with common sense left in them, after all.

But in reference to John Allen's article yesterday (In Regensburg's wake, is anyone worried about Christian outrage?), can somebody please explain, why anybody in his right mind could possibly come to the conclusion that The Prophet is "belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent, and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror"?* Why then so much heart-felt outrage over a few stupid comics, created by some degenerate infidels?

Cheers, everyone!

*P.S. Just for sake of good order and so as not to upset my insurance agent: these marks (") indicate the words of another person; they are called quotation marks. So, any chunk of text between these ("...") marks, are words expressed by another person. They are used in literature so as to facilitate commenting on such pieces of text. So, in this case these are not my words, but the text in the lawsuit; I am just quoting them so I can talk about them (hmmm, sincerely hope I'm being clear enough ...)