Act Of War?
Several of my favorite bloggers, including Ninme and Clayton Cramer, have questioned whether the attacks on embassies in Arab police states are an act of war. While an argument could be made for this (especially if one makes the reasonable assumption that such an attack could not take place without government acquiescence, if not direction, in such a state), my guess is that it leaves enough wiggle-room that the European governments so attacked won't push the issue.
Additional, Clayton asks if the attacks would cause the collective defense article of the NATO Treaty to be invoked (as it was after the 9/11 attacks). A reading of the article in question (Article 5) suggests that the answer is "no", since the attacks happened in Asia Minor:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Still, if it gets much worse, you never know...
Update 2309 06 Feb: I note that bothenook, gus van horn, G-man, and The Noonz Wire have all joined the large group of bloggers showing solidarity for press freedom by posting some or all of the cartoons in question. The link at The Noonz Wire has a fairly comprehensive round-up of posters who have done this in case I missed anyone.