|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
|Locked on 06/23/2009 11:22:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:|
Skip to comments.Mousavi behind the attack on Marines in Lebanon?
Posted on 06/23/2009 9:48:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Did Mirhossein Mousavi play a leading role in the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US Marines and caused Ronald Reagan to retreat? CQ Politics says yes, calling Mousavi the Butcher of Beirut. It serves as a reminder that the man whom the mullahs have suppressed was and perhaps still is of their regime:
"He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Irans ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.
The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency."
The connection to the attack is direct, according to the man in charge of American operations in the Mediterranean at the time:
We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, retired Navy Admiral James Ace Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.
The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a spectacular action against the Marines, said Lyons.
Mousavi and his allies, perhaps cognizant that this history would surface eventually, tried applying a little proactive balm on his reputation earlier this week. In a Guardian article defending himself against criticisms that there were few differences between himself and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mousavis spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbaf said that Mousavi previously knew only Che Guevara, but now he knows Gandhi. It does confirm that the government of Iran has waged war by proxy against the United States as well as Israel for three decades, and that Mousavi participated in that war.
Does that make the uprising in Iran less legitimate? No. In fact, as Ive written many times in the past week, it just points out the stupidity of the mullahs in fumbling the rigged election in the first place. Mousavi would have played ball had mullahs allowed him to take office perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically than Ahmadinejad, but still Mousavi would have worked within the system. Theyve practically forced Mousavi to serve as a beacon for the opposition that wants the mullahs out of power, and in doing so actually make Mousavi less important as a safety valve, a loyal member of the ruling class that could mainstream the opposition so as to make it benign to the real power in Tehran. Its inexplicably stupid, like deliberately throwing gasoline on a fire.
Still, its good to remind people in the West of Mousavis actions within that ruling class. Perhaps he regrets his actions, and the Guardian statement seems to suggest that, but wed need to see a lot more than a reference to Gandhi. We need to focus our support on the people of Iran and not Mousavi, and hope that they can soon choose leaders outside of the mullahcracy that has choked Iran for 30 years.
Update: Yes, this could possibly be an oppo dump, but that would require us to question the integrity of Admiral Lyons, which I wont do. Id trust that hes telling the truth, until someone proves him wrong.
From what I understand, Mousavi and Mahmood aren’t all that different. He’s definitely not a reformer in terms of U.S. relations.
Mousavi reminds me of araRATfink.
The left in its effort to support the Mullahs has finally acknowledges the NeoCons are right.
Iran is in at least Lebanon, fighting.
The left in its effort to support the Mullahs has finally acknowledged the NeoCons are right.
Iran, is in at least one nation, Lebanon, fighting.
We seem to be in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.
If we support the current student rebellion, we in effect, get the guy who might have been responsible for the death of our marines. If we don’t, we get the war-mongering lunatic Ahmadinejad.
Maybe there’s something to Obama’s reticence after all.
I’m sure Ahmadinejad was equally responsible for it.
The vote was actually all about what would be best for Iranians. Mousavi has promised to make changes to the disastrous economy and also to offer a great deal more freedom to women. His wife is very outspoken and apparently is really the one that many of the Iranians were voting for.
One of the reasons their economy is so bad is that Ahmadinejad spends vast amounts of money supporting the “world Islamic revolution,” so if they start actually using their money for Iran and doing something about their 17% unemployment and raging inlation, I think they’ll be much less of a threat anyway.
Of course, Bambi himself is probably a supporter of the “world Islamic revolution,” so it’s no wonder he supports Ahmadinejad.
It’s like I’ve said all along about this “Iran election” thing... one Muslim terrorist is just as good as the next Muslim terrorist... LOL...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.