You're really missing the point. The aim is not to insult muslims. The aim is to speak freely. Muslims being offended is a regrettable side issue, and frankly, the muslims themselves are in control of whether they are offended or not: there's no reason they should be.

No, it's not designed to insult muslims. This is a completely mistaken impression.

Given that you have that impression, I understand why you reacted the way you did, but your impression is incorrect.

It's like saying that when I use a gun to defend my house from a burglar wearing a red hat, that my aim is to kill people with red hats. Completely missing the point.

The aim of this movement is to defend free speech (my house) from extremists (burglars) not people who happen to be muslim (wear red hats).

Again, you're missing the point. It's not an attempt at communication. It's a defence of free speech.

>>It's designed to insult muslims.

I might also add that the Swedish artist discussed now (Vilks), has a history of provocation in his work. Not only for muslims. He also made a cartoon of one of these, which imho clearly overshadows the Muhammed reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau