Awful, not only on the merits but as another instance of the military taking on a State Department function. In most cases, like in Iraq, they have no choice; in this case they seem to have simply arrogated the duty to themselves. Wilders isn’t making their job easier, but the logic here seems to be that if every criticism of Islam can be twisted to jihadist ends and every jihadist end is a threat to military operations, it follows that criticism should be suspended for at least the duration of the war. No sale, boys. In fact, not only are you implicitly lining up with scum like this, the moral equivalence on display here is rancid enough to qualify for dKos. Disgraceful:

Wilders website was one of several that re-published the [Mohammed] cartoons after the initial violent demonstrations had begun, citing a defense of freedom of speech and igniting further violence…

These [jihadist] leaders have already proven they will use any means to stir the hate against anything that stands between them and the power they desire. While Wilders and the Party for Freedom stir the hate by blaming an entire religion for the actions of extremists, they also attract more of their own “fanatical” followers, increasing their own power. The headlines that resulted from the violence, the fear generated in communities around the world, an increase in “suicide bomber recruiting” all further the terrorist’s goals. While the Party for Freedom preaches hate and fear to its followers, the terrorists preach hate and vengeance to their own.

Condemning the religion that has been twisted and misused to convince the suicide bomber to put on the vest does not make the world safer from terrorism. It provides a tool the terrorists will use to place more innocent teenagers inside suicide vests and send them out into the world, seeking targets.

Exit question: How far should the “does this make the world safer from terrorism” litmus test extend?