For one thing, Muslims didn't get mad about the whole torture thing. After all, since they are animals who only understand force, it was quite mild by their standards:
Most Muslims did not view it as a torture story at all. Muslims were not outraged at the interrogation techniques used by the American military, which are quite mild by Arab standards. Moreover, many Muslims realized that the most of the torture scenes in the photographs—the hooded man with his arms outstretched, the prisoner with wires attached to his limbs—were staged.
Note the rigorouly sourced claims that "most" and "many" Muslims weren't outraged by the torture. This is proven by the footnotes, which a careful study reveals there aren't any footnotes. No, the Muslims weren't outraged at beatings, suffocation, humiliation, mistreatment or rape: what really bothered them was the sex stuff, because like most right-thinking people, Muslims hate dirty nasty ucky sex:
The main focus of Islamic disgust was what Muslims perceived as extreme sexual perversion. For many traditional Muslims, Abu Ghraib demonstrated the casualness with which married Americans have affairs, walk out on their spouses, and produce children without bothering to take responsibility for the care of their offspring. In the Muslim view, this perversion is characteristic of American society.
You see, it's not at all that Iraqis were pissed that innocent people were beaten and tortured and had broken light-sticks shoved up their ass! Not at all. What really frosted their Islamic flakes is that the people doing their torture were having unmarried sex and carrying on affairs and bearing children out of wedlock. Which, I mean, you know, that makes perfect sense to me. Whenever someone smears me with dogshit, wraps me up in a mattress, pounds on my kidneys with a rifle butt, and takes photographs of the whole scene to send to his buddies back home, the first thing in the forefront of my mind is, "Is this guy who's torturing me loyal to his spouse? Because if not, I'm going to be very upset."
Of course, if the Iraqis who felt the illicit carryings-on of PFC England and Spec. Granier were representative of the evils of America, they were mistaken:
It reflected the sexual immodesty of liberal America. Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from Red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of Blue America. Casting aside all traditional notions of decency, propriety and morality, they simply lived by the code of self-fulfillment. If it feels good, it must be right. This was bohemianism, West Virginia-style.
You see, even though England and Granier were red-state Republicans, they had somehow been brainwashed into adopting liberal blue-state values (extramarital affairs, sexual promiscuity and unwanted pregnancy being completely unknown in conservative circles). If not for the insidious influence of the cultural left, it would not have occurred to two Appalachian-Americans to have sex with one another, and the horrors of Abu Ghraib would never have taken place!
This is why we must not minimize what went on there; it was a terrible, unforgivable thing. But we must make sure that we blame the right people: not the soldiers who actually did it, or the military that allowed it to happen and then covered it up, or the government that failed to address it, or the pundits who made excuses for it, but the liberals:
In minimizing Abu Ghraib, some conservatives became cheap apologists for liberal debauchery.
It takes a lot of stones to claim that Abu Ghraib is the responsibility of the liberal left, but that's why Dinesh is a superstar.