An embassy is a foreign nation's sovereign territory. Muslims who attack it and raise their black flag of Islam over it are "conquering" that territory for Islam. The Muslims who attacked the consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Cairo saw themselves as liberating a chunk of infidel held territory for Islam, for the same reason that they attack Christian villages.
It's hard to kill a lie, especially once it stops being a garden-variety lie and becomes part and parcel of the groupthink consensus. The official word is that the riots and attacks are happening because of the Mo movie and even when the facts no longer fit the narrative, the narrative sausage factory grinds on.
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudanese demonstrators broke into the German embassy in Khartoum on Friday, raising an Islamic flag and setting the building on fire in a protest against a film that demeaned the Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.
Police had earlier fired tear gas to try to disperse some 5,000 protesters who had ringed the German embassy and nearby British mission. But a Reuters witness said policemen just stood by when the crowd forced its way into Germany's mission.
Demonstrators hoisted a black Islamic flag saying in white letters "there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet". They smashed windows, cameras and furniture in the building and then started a fire, witnesses said.
The possibility does not seem to enter into the tiny narrow heads of the chattering media classes that when Muslims attack a German embassy that had nothing to do with the film and raise Islamist flags over it, this may not be a reaction, but an action. The motives of the attackers may not be to protest against a movie that absolutely no one in Germany had heard of before this week and that Germany has nothing to do with, but in order to raise the piratical black flag of Islam over the territory of a non-Muslim country.
And that is what this is really about. An embassy is a foreign nation's sovereign territory. Muslims who attack it and raise their black flag of Islam over it are "conquering" that territory for Islam.
The Muslims who attacked the consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Cairo saw themselves as liberating a chunk of infidel held territory for Islam, for the same reason that they attack Christian villages.
By the sixth paragraph of its embarrassing reporting, Reuters finally admits that there is no logical connection between the German embassy and the movie.
It was unclear why the two European embassies were singled out since the film, which has outraged Muslims, was made in the United States, and U.S. diplomatic missions have been attacked by Islamist protesters in a number of Arab countries.
At this point you might imagine that the writer would rethink his Mo Outrage thesis, but then you don't know the media. Rather than back off the groupthink, the media's pattern is to find some thin premise that will support the latest expansion of the, "Muslims are Peaceful Unless You Offend their Prophet" narrative.
But Sudan has criticised Germany for allowing a protest last month by right-wing activists carrying a caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad and for Chancellor Angela Merkel giving an award in 2010 to a Danish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet in 2005, triggering demonstrations across the Islamic world.
And there you go. Reuters' news story is now pure speculation of the kind that is calculated to suppress freedom of speech. In Germany.