Anti-American protests continue throughout the Middle East, Indonesia, while Muslim leader reportedly sought in Tunisia

Hundreds rallying around an anti-Islamic film continued protests throughout the Middle East Monday, burning cars and throwing rocks at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, torching a press club and a government building in northwest Pakistan and clashing with police outside the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia. Police also tried to arrest a hardline Muslim leader — reportedly wanted for violence in Tunisia — who escaped after hiding inside a mosque in Tunis.

The protests were the latest in a week-long wave of violence sparked by the low-budget film, which portrays Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester. Many of the incidents have targeted U.S. diplomatic posts throughout the Muslim world, including one that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, forcing Washington to ramp up security in select countries.


Protesters have directed their anger at the U.S. government even though the film was privately produced and American officials have criticized it for intentionally offending Muslims.

In Afghanistan, hundreds of people burned cars and threw rocks at a U.S. military base in the capital, Kabul. Many in the crowd shouted “Death to America!” and “Death to those people who have made a film and insulted our prophet.”

Police officers shot into the air to hold back about crowd of about 800 protesters and to prevent them from pushing toward government buildings downtown, said Azizullah, a police officer at the site who, like many Afghans, only goes by one name.

More than 20 police officers were slightly injured, most of them hit by rocks, said Gen. Fahim Qaim, the commander of a city quick-reaction police force.

Later in the day, protests broke out in other areas of Kabul, including the main thoroughfare into the city, where demonstrators burned shipping containers and tires. The crowd torched at least one police vehicle before finally dispersing, according Daoud Amin, the deputy police chief for Kabul province.

At a separate protest in front of a mosque in southwest Kabul, several dozen people shouted anti-U.S. slogans and called for President Barack Obama to bring those who have insulted the prophet to justice.

The rallies will continue “until the people who made the film go to trial,” said one of the protesters, Wahidullah Hotak.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/17/hundreds-afghans-protest-near-us-military-base-purportedly-over-anti-islam-film/#ixzz26kv9qQxm

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Anti-American protests continue throughout the Middle East, Indonesia, while Muslim leader reportedly sought in Tunisia

  1. Chris says:

    A powerful reminder–we are all human:

    http://gawker.com/5943828/13-powerful-images-of-muslim-rage

    My favorite image is the hijab-wearing girl holding hands with a modern-dressed young man on the pier. In some places they could both be killed for this. But still she wears her hijab, proudly. What a statement.

  2. Post Scripts says:

    Chris the Gawker article/pictures you referenced is deceptive. It attempts to blow smoke up our arce. He is mocking the reports of violence with these nice pictures and sarcastic captions.

    The author is trying to make it look as if we are just the same and the violence in the news day after day really never really happened. As if, its a creation of the bigoted westerners overreacting.

    He’s showing us that all is serene and Muslims are merely living out their lives just like anybody else – and we’re all idiots for thinking otherwise.

    PURE PROPAGANDA BS!

    There was a time when I could show you a pretty scenes of bright yellow poppy’s growing in a garden, old couples holding hands walking down the lane, and children playing on swing sets. . . in 1968 Northern Ireland!! Yet right around the corner is a blackened, burnt out, blown up business with bullet holes all strafed along the front.

    Chris, don’t be such a sucker and act like an apologist for blatant Muslim terrorism. We’re not buying it.

  3. Chris says:

    Jack,

    Extreme partisanship is really bad for your reading comprehension skills.

    NOWHERE in that article does the author try and make it look like the violence “never really happened,” or that it was not done by Islamic radicals.

    The point being made is that the majority of Muslims are not like those who are guilty of the violence, and that many are hardworking, peaceful people, who do not follow the more strict and archaic aspects of the religion.

    How can you take issue with that message? How can you try and twist it to make me look like “an apologist for blatant Muslim terrorism?” The only way that makes sense is if you are conflating all Muslims with terrorists. You wouldn’t do that, would you?

  4. Tina says:

    Anyone with average reasoning skills knows that nice people, regardless their religion, political preference, gender, education level, degree, profession, etc., don’t run around blowing up buildings and killing people.

    The PC requirement to qualify every single word is totally NUTS! the propensity to not effectively wage a defense against radical Islam because we don’t want to offend nice people is NUTS…and it doesn’t work. It gets people killed. It wastes a lot of energy and time and becomes, after awhile, just another form of bullying.

    Apparently poking fun at the Mormon religion is just good rollicking fun…tolerance on parade…the Mormon mission slapped silly dressed down in theater makeup.

    http://www.bookofmormonbroadway.com/home.php

    See a review here:

    http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20364394_20476244,00.html

    Not buying the lefty inclusive crap either!

  5. Chris says:

    What I take from those images is that despite all the chaos and terror in the world, especially the Islamic world, there are still good people who just want what’s best for their families, who just want a day at the beach, a romantic stroll, that perfect dive…it tells me that life goes on, that people can overcome the horror around them and that good things can blossom even among tragedy.

    I can’t imagine how cynical someone would have to be to try and call that “an attempt to blow smoke up our arce (sic).” I am glad I am not as miserable as you are, Jack.

  6. Tina says:

    The arrogant left on full display presumes that those on the right lack the capacity to feel, to love, to imagine pretty, warm, inviting things when the right has scratched its head for 11 years wondering WHEN the dreamer on the left will finally take a strong stand for freedom, decency, and mutual respect without the obligatory qualifiers.

    NEWSFLASH…Jack knows there are “still good people”…he happens to BE ONE OF THEM…alas, he’s not Muslim, a woman, a person of color, gay, or a Democrat so he doesn’t rate qualifiers but is instead scrutinized and evaluated continuously for errors in speech and writing. He is labeled and shunned because his views have been deemed politically incorrect by the elite thinkers of the left.

    Our discussions have been about the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers…they have been about the not so good people, the really BAD PEOPLE that are burning, murdering, desecrating, beheading and crucifying around the world in order to establish, ultimately, a world-wide caliphate. They are zealots that HATE!

    And yet, the only people that the left take umbrage with are those who abhor the really bad people.

    Incredible!

  7. Chris says:

    “Apparently poking fun at the Mormon religion is just good rollicking fun…tolerance on parade…the Mormon mission slapped silly dressed down in theater makeup.”

    Tina, if you mean to use this play as an example of some sort of religious double standard, you couldn’t have chosen a worse example. The creators of “The Book of Mormon,” Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have poked fun at Islam with equal glee on “South Park.” (Of course, those episodes were met with threats from Islamic extremists, and the network censored them…but they tried, and I didn’t see anything wrong with the lighthearted portrayal of Muhammad they depicted, even if some Muslims were offended.)

    But there is a difference between “poking fun” and calling an entire religion “evil,” as the source you cited yesterday did. One is satire. The other is bigotry.

    The images depicted on Gawker are as much of an “eff you” to Islamic terrorists as they are toward Islamaphobes–perhaps more so. Like I said before, the radical Islamic theocrats would have the young woman in the hijab killed for holding hands with a man in public. But even though she claims the same religion, she’s not going to let the radicals tell her what to do or how to practice. This should inspire everyone–it should give us hope that Islam can be reformed from within, and that the new generation can do away with the barbaric old ways that dominate some parts of the Middle East. Why, Jack, are you offended by this?

  8. Post Scripts says:

    “What I take from those images is that despite all the chaos and terror in the world, especially the Islamic world, there are still good people who just want what’s best for their families, who just want a day at the beach, a romantic stroll, …” Chris S.

    Chris, in theory at least, some of those people would kill you given the opportunity and means. That doesn’t mean we live in fear, but we don’t assume anything either. You’re assuming facts not in evidence, you’re being naive and you wouldn’t last long in Indian Country with that attitude.

    Do you think the bombers in London were all hunch-back psychopaths, somebody that looks like Frankenstein? No Chris, they looked like every day people, some of them were medical doctors, some were students, some had just been strolling down the sidewalk with their girlfriend. Get a clue Chris, your Pollyannish view of the world is not real and some day it could cost you.

  9. Tina says:

    “…if you mean to use this play as an example of some sort of religious double standard…”

    I meant to suggest that none of us should be intimidated into silence. I meant to point out that the left only cares about silencing with respect to religion when its the the Muslim religion. I meant to suggest that the left talks about inclusiveness but doesn’t practice it AND has the nerve to imagine they are nice to everyone…they are not!

    There is a difference between thinking a religion is evil based on a reading of it’s materials and the influence those materials seem to have on controlling persons in leadership, extreme followers, and entire governments…and calling a person who peacefully practices the same religion, evil. It would be helpful if you would learn the difference.

    Unfortunately when people are affiliated by race, religion, or heritage they get to bear the burden of that groups failings to one degree or another. Jews have born this burden for ever. Those of German heritage have for a short time. Some traditional Japanese still feel the burden of WWII. Given the horrendous, arrogant, and barbaric nature of the Muslim extremists that want to kill Jews, Christians, and gays and oppress as third rate all other citizens of the world the peaceful Muslim is going to have a very tough time indeed and for some time. Blaming and deriding those who discuss the situation, rather than focusing on those committing the atrocities, is, IMHO, more than a bit whacko.

    “…even though she claims the same religion, she’s not going to let the radicals tell her what to do or how to practice.”

    Good for her. Do you think it possible to allow the same for others who speak against the radical elements who would also be in danger just for doing so? They do it in order to stand up for the right to think and speak. Good grief Chris…do you think you could finally get that there is more at stake here than hurt feelings? A basic right is being denied if we cave to the idea that Islam cannot be criticized…has that even occurred to you?

  10. Chris says:

    Jack: “Chris, some of those people would kill you!”

    Jack, WTF are you talking about?

    Do you mean that some of the normal-looking people in the pictures from Gawker would kill me?

    What is your basis for that assumption? The mere fact that they are Muslim?

    If you are only getting that idea from the religious identity of the people portrayed in the pictures–with no other evidence that any of them are radical Islamists with murderous intent–then you are simply exhibiting blind, ignorant prejudice.

    Jack: “You are so naive, you wouldn’t last long in Indian Country.”

    “Indian Country?” Are you senile now? Is that what’s happening here?

    Tina, do you see why I have trouble taking your “Stop assuming we are bigots!” complaints seriously? Jack just said that some of the Muslims portrayed doing normal, everyday things in the pictures I posted would kill me! He has no valid reason to believe that; he assumes it based on the sole fact that they are Muslim. Do you really–really?–not see how that fits the textbook definition of bigotry?

    If you don’t see how assuming that Muslims doing everyday things are secretly plotting murder–with no evidence whatsoever–is bigotry, then there is nothing I can do for you two. You simply don’t understand the meaning of the word, nor do you want to.

    “I meant to suggest that none of us should be intimidated into silence. I meant to point out that the left only cares about silencing with respect to religion when its the the Muslim religion.”

    But “the left” didn’t complain about those South Park episodes, which were made by the show’s liberal creators. Furthermore, many organizations that stand for the civil liberties of Jews, Christians, Sikhs and others–such as the ACLU–have also been called “the left.” The SPLC identifies hate groups that specialize in prejudice against many religions, not just Islam.

    The fact is that Muslims are subject to an amount of bigotry that you have never personally experienced.

    “There is a difference between thinking a religion is evil based on a reading of it’s materials and the influence those materials seem to have on controlling persons in leadership, extreme followers, and entire governments…and calling a person who peacefully practices the same religion, evil. It would be helpful if you would learn the difference.”

    I doubt that if leaders and prominent pundits in the Democratic party were calling Christianity “evil,” you’d agree there was a difference. You would feel personally attacked.

    The reason Muslims felt the need to submit those pictures to Gawker and satirize the #MuslimRage hashtag on Twitter, is because all we see about Muslims in the media is negativity. To an extent this is understandable; radical Islam is a huge threat, and should be reported on. But so many people do not understand that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Don’t believe me? Head over to Pamela Geller’s blog every now and then and read the comments. (Then take a shower afterwards.) They are disgusting. Many of them call for genocide against Muslims, and Gellar does not delete them; instead she merely stirs up their anger. And yet Gellar was actually a guest on Fox News this week talking about the violence in Libya and Egypt, as if she is an expert.

    You’re right, this isn’t just about “hurt feelings.” This is about extremists–both from radical Islam and the radical right–creating a climate where Muslims feel physically unsafe. Where their mosques are protested and vandalized. Where they are subject to threats for who they are. Where their civil liberties are violated.

    “A basic right is being denied if we cave to the idea that Islam cannot be criticized…has that even occurred to you?”

    Once again you resort to the same old strawman argument…I have never argued or implied that Islam cannot be criticized. I am tired of saying this over and over, and I am tired of you making that false accusation.

  11. Libby says:

    All right, … nearly passed. Mostly we’re just seeing a lost of really poor people vent. In Indonesia, 500 people got water cannoned in a country of 200 million. We’re not talking global carnage, quite yet.

    Tina: “Not buying the lefty inclusive crap either!”

    And if that’s really how you feel about religious tolerance, looks like we will be having global carnage soon. Unless, of course, you remain in that water-cannoned minority. We can only hope.

  12. Tina says:

    Libby: “And if that’s really how you feel about religious tolerance, looks like we will be having global carnage soon.”

    Don’t know that you’ve noticed, living as you do in the leftist NPR bubble, but the administrations pretense of tolerance, while waging hard core war and boasting about murdering Osama, isn’t gaining us any friends…as for influencing people our allies are not any more impressed by Obamas two-faced approach than are the freedom loving moderates that feel betrayed by his appeasement politics.

    Strength is respected in the Middle East…appeasement is seen as weakness…and that equals disaster. It’s Carter x ten as nation after nation falls to extremist elements.

    Love that hapless attempt to shift the blame for the totally ugly mess away from Obama…it’s cute, really, it is.

    (By the way my remarks had nothing to do with the ME…they were directed at the phony bologna assertions by persons of the left persuasion that they are religiously tolerant. What a crock!

  13. Libby says:

    Sorry, I just saw it hanging out there all by itself, and supposed you said it.

    As to Osama … was he leading a quiet life, practicing his religion? No, he was a jihadist fanatic who contrived the death of thousands … and we have done for him. Ain’t that strength?

    It will probably take some little while, but we will get the Libyian government to contrive the demise-by-drone of the militia responsible for the attack on our embassy. You watch.

    But this Anti-Islammic Crusade you seem to be panting for … it’s not gonna happen.

  14. Peggy says:

    I find it very hard to believe our IA didn’t know about this, and now Libya is saying they told us. Maybe BO didn’t because he didn’t read the briefing that day, but someone had the info. about a possible threat.

    Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack

    The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public. A State Department spokesman maintained: “We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

    But President Megarif told the American station National Public Radio: “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate. A few of those who joined in were foreigners who had entered Libya from different directions, some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria.”

    A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. “The situation is frightening, it scares us,” he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.

    Full article here:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html

  15. Peggy says:

    Love it when a man (or woman) can speak his/her mind without being called a racist.
    ———-

    NARCISSIST IN CHIEF
    BHO: A portrait of stupidity
    Exclusive: Mychal Massie rips Obama for ‘making excuses for heathen Muslim behavior’

    Websters definition of stupid is: acting in a careless and/or unintelligent manner. I submit that they should have Obamas picture beside the word in their dictionary. Observing the way he has conducted himself and witnessing his lack of leadership ability, calling his actions stupid is the most generous thing I can say about him.

    It was stupid of Obama to choose to neglect nearly 60 percent of his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB) since taking office. The PDB briefs presidents on the most critical threats to our country. Obama administration staff pompously puff their chicken breasts out because, as they like to brag, he is so smart that the PDB outline is delivered to his residence and he reads it as if we are to believe that reading the report is sufficient to understand the gravity of the complexities pursuant to same.

    Its stupid of him to believe that he is above all of the other presidents in modern history who almost never missed said briefings. He believes himself to be so superior that as the Government Accountability Institute points out, he decided to attend his PDB with even less frequency the first half of 2012 attending only 38 percent. (SEE: Why Is Obama Skipping More Than Half Of His Daily Intelligence Meetings?; WashingtonPost.com; Marc Thiessen; Sept. 10, 2012.)

    The New York Times documented that Obama has practiced bowling in the White House alley since being elected in order to win a bowling contest (The Competitor-in-Chief; Jodi Kantor; New York Times; Sept. 2, 2012). He practices his golf and basketball religiously, but he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he was too busy to meet with him. It was later revealed that he snubbed Netanyahu to attend a campaign event in Nevada.

    It is not my intention to indict every member of the intelligence community, but in this administration, intelligence is an oxymoron. How do the directors of the various agencies explain doing such a deplorable job of intelligence gathering?

    Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf told CBS Face the Nation host Bob Shieffer that the embassy attack was preplanned. He said: It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival.

    An Israeli Foreign Ministry official, speaking in reference to the growing signs of radicalization in the Arab world, said: We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses (Israeli Foreign Ministry: U.S. Ignored Arab Radicalization; Haaretz.com; Barak Ravid/Jonathan Lis; Sept. 16, 2012).

    Obamas ambassador to the United Nations contradicted Libyan and Israeli intelligence about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, saying: Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous not a premeditated response to what has transpired in Cairo. My question is how would the Obama administration know? Are we to believe that Obamas gang that couldnt hit the ocean spitting over the side of a row-boat in the Pacific is better informed than the Israelis? Or is the ambassador trying to cover-up for Obamas abysmal foreign-policy record?

    It is difficult to imagine a more stupid act by Obama than responding to Islamic barbarism by apologizing for a movie that accurately depicted Muhammad. Having said that, his hasty apology must take a back seat to the stupid decision of his ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, who did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition the Obama administration trusting Egypts new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security rather than American Marines (Report Says U.S. Marines In Cairo Not Allowed To Carry Live Ammunition; Joe Newby; Examiner.com; Sept. 13, 2012).

    America cannot be supportive of a commander in chief who is more like a paper-doll apologist than an iron-willed competent leader.

    In 2007 Obama was feeling quite full of himself when he said that the very moment he was inaugurated the Muslim world would look at America differently, and that he was uniquely qualified to stabilize Americas relationships in the Muslim world because he had lived in a Muslim country (as a child) and his half-sister is Muslim.

    It is the stupidity of a megalomaniac for Obama to believe he could simply call and talk to the rogue leaders of countries like Cuba and Iran and they would cease pernicious behavior. I submit it would be more prudent of him to call and talk to a good psychiatrist about his glaring narcissism and his emotional instability.

    And it is the very portrait of stupidity for Obama and his minions (which apparently includes Republicans) to attack Mitt Romney for daring to condemn Obama for apologizing and making excuses for heathen Muslim behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.