Oh. My. God.
Her (I presume Kari is a her) premise seems to be that yes, yes, those attacks are deplorable, but it's not the Muslim's fault. It was the fault of that icky YouTube video that no one had heard of, let alone seen, prior to the attacks. Indeed, she tried to equate them to "vocal protest." Yes. Really.
Want proof? Sure you do, that's an unbelievable charge. No one would try to equate the rape and murder of four Americans, including an Ambassador, with vocal protest.
He pointed to the uproar over 1988 Hollywood film "The Last Temptation of Christ." Director Martin Scorsese's adaptation of a book by the same name showed Jesus struggling with lust, depression and doubt, and engaging in sex — in his imaginings — before snapping back to reality and dying on the cross. That movie was seen as blasphemy by some Christians, who — though not violent — were vocal enough to prevent the film from being shown in many parts of the United States.
Now, some may point out that this isn't "her" saying it, but the interviewee. That is, these aren't her words, they're his. Three problems with that. First, at no point does she express any incredulity over the assertion, which one would expect if she did, in fact, disagree. Second, this isn't a direct quote, meaning this is her interpretation of the comment, again, you would think there would be some comment if she disagreed. Finally, the only one interviewed for the piece was John Espizito- there were no contrasting opinions. Based on all of that, it is quite clear that Ms. Huus agrees with the sentiment.
And that's not the worst from the article. How about this little gem (later in the piece):
"Muhammad didn’t win over his enemies by violence, he did so through compassion."
Ummm... excuse me, but I'm pretty sure "slay them" and variations of such are found throughout the Koran. He did expressly win over his enemies by violence. Indeed, it was because he failed to win them over and was exiled that he started assembling armies and conquering his neighbors "by the sword."
"Innocence of Muslims" features wooden acting, poor dubbing, awkward sexual moments and ham-fisted insults, with none of the production values of "The Last Temptation of Christ," or any serious exploration of Islam. Experts said it would almost certainly have remained obscure had it not ignited the protests and violence after being circulated in Arabic via the Internet.
Yes, because it's quality should matter regarding a) it's "worthiness" as free speech and b) whether or not someone should be offended enough to riot and murder.
Perhaps the kicker, though, it the thought that dominates the end of the piece. The thought seems to be that Muslims, in general, are just nice, go-along-to-get-along folks, rubes even, who just can't help themselves when their religion is subjected to any form of criticism or ridicule. Further, that the ones to blame here are somehow not "Muslims" but are, instead, "extremists in the region who are using anti-American sentiment to advance their own goals."
Umm... goals like Jihad, forced conversions, and world conquest? Like the Koran teaches? Those goals?
"The sad thing is these people are doing it on purpose," he said. "And unfortunately these Muslims fell right into the trap."
Yes. Because the victims here are not four murdered Americans, it's the Muslims.
That NBC could approve this piece is beyond me. Beyond being moral relativist drivel, which I expect, it's infantile, one-sided, and pathetically credulous. Moreover, it's insulting- it's insulting to Muslims (oh, those poor dears are too stupid to know they shouldn't riot), it's insulting to Christians (vocal oppostion to an offensive movie is just like rioting, anal rape, and murder), but mostly its insulting and insensitive to those victims and their friends and family. It's using their deaths to squash religious speech of which Ms. Huus obviously disapproves. They deserve better than that.