IRAN: God Wills It, But The People Don't Want It (Iranian youths calling Bush "the messiah")

strategypage.com ^ | April 24, 2003 | Q & D Headlines

[Destro]

IRAN: God Wills It, But The People Don't Want It

April 24, 2003: In Iran, young people are calling American president Bush "the messiah" and wondering when he will invade Iran and free the people from the dictatorship of the Islamic clergy. Meanwhile, the Islamic radicals see the departure of Saddam's forces as an opportunity to spread Islamic rule into Iraq. Most Iraqi Shias apparently don't want an Islamic republic. But neither do most Iranians. Makes no difference. God wills it and things are likely to get ugly before they get any better.

April 23, 2003: The Iranian rebels long based in Iraq, the People's Mujahadeen, say they have reached an understanding with American forces and have been allowed to keep their weapons and Iraq bases, as well as their goals of overthrowing the religious rules of Iran. The US government believes the People's Mujahadeen can muster about 5,000 fighters.

US Marine light armor are now patrolling parts of the Iraq border, checking for hostile (to America) Iranians crossing the border.

The US has warned Iran against sending agents and aid to Iraq in order to try and establish an Islamic republic.

[Lysander]

People's Mujahadeen : let's hope it's just a circumstancial support, because they are damned commie terrorists.

The Islamic extremism of the past is now viewed with great hostility, but in the 1980s U.S. policy strongly supported such extremism. There is scarcely any recognition that a little more than a decade ago, the U.S. press waxed eloquent about the Afghan "freedom fighters" that included bin Laden. Mujahiddin-- Freedom fighter-- commie terrorist-- American lackey. It all depends on the time and perspective. Circumstancial support it is indeed.

[papertyger]

What is wrong with these people? Can't they carry out their own trash.

No, they can't. They never had a Second Ammendment, let alone have one and let it lapse. "These people" are all individuals, and if you can't defend individuals, you can't defend "people."

Acting as a group can only happen when individuals can stay alive long enough to see common cause with other individuals.

[pgyanke]

Allah is not the God of Abraham.

A good point... however, that's why I said the Koran includes the Old Testament minus the Jews and the New Testament minus the point of the New Testament.

[The Great RJ]

The despotic theocracy in Iran can't last. The younger generation with access to the Internet and satelite TV is not content to live a 13th century Islamic lifestyle without any basic freedoms. With a continued US presence in neighboring Iraq effectively blocking any interferrence by other fundamentalist Islamic countries, I see a popular uprising to overthrow the mullahs as just being a matter of time.

[oyez]

Messiah, No. But it is alright to call W. The Ayatollah of RockanRolla.

[Spruce]

Twenty-first century "Domino Effect" in progress?

[Destro]

A decade ago? How about as recently as a few yesterdays ago? Bosnia-Kosovo and to a lesser extent-the Chechens and many Central Asian muji movements?

[Destro]

Twenty-first century "Domino Effect" in progress?

Ypu should hope not--since the 20th century version failed to materialize.

[ZULU]

The U.S. should everything possible to overturn the brutal, repressive Islamic Theocracy in Iran.

It is as much of a threat to world stability as was Saddam, they are working on a nuclear bomb, we have forces on both sides of their borders, we have an active military opposition force eager to overthrown them, and their is far more spontaneous support for their overthrown domestically than ever existed in Iraq.

This calls for the kind of careful diplomacy with the Iranian moderates which Powell and the pusillanimous U.S. State Department are totally incapable of - subtle aggressive action and subtle, aggressive and consipratorial thinking.

[papertyger]

The Islamic extremism of the past is now viewed with great hostility, but in the 1980s U.S. policy strongly supported such extremism. There is scarcely any recognition that a little more than a decade ago, the U.S. press waxed eloquent about the Afghan "freedom fighters" that included bin Laden.

What a load.

There's a big difference between supporting someone you assume will be grateful for assistance in achieving self determination, and blythely throwing lethal toys at someone who approves biting the hand that feeds it because that hand is different.

While the first case may be ignorant, it is at least noble in that it assumes the best of other cultures. The second is a leftist's bigoted wet dream.

[kellynla]

There are millions of people over thousands of years of history who ridded themselves of tyrants without a second amendment(present country included). Maybe it's about time people learned to clean out their own house because this Marine like many is tired of leaving blood, limb and life on somebody else's yard just to be spit on later by ingrates.

[Destro]

Lysander is absolutely correct. Did you forget Bosnia? Kosovo? Chechnya? The Central Asian movements? The Taliban via Pakistan?

Like I said in my #19 reply to #15 "When has the USA never given circumstancial support to mujahadeen at first? We were probably (and maybe still are) the most mujahadeen freindly Western nation."

[Centurion2000]

In Iran, young people are calling American president Bush "the messiah" .....

Someone just scared the crap out of the muslim clergy in that country.

[Lysander]

There's a big difference between supporting someone you assume will be grateful for assistance in achieving self determination, and blythely throwing lethal toys at someone who approves biting the hand that feeds it because that hand is different.

It had nothing to do with gratitude. It was Jummy Dummy and Raygun fighting the cold war by opposing anything the Russians did. We often support those who turn on us. Do I need to list them? Our foreign policy has never been based in altruism, but immediate convienience.

[kellynla]

BTW it has been learned that it was the Iranians who were responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. And to this day, I haven't seen anyone from Iran come forward with the guilty parties. Yet they want us to come "liberate" them too. Maybe you have "sucker" tattooed on your forehead but I don't. Let the Iranians carry out their own trash! We've left enough blood already on the sands of the Middle East.

[philosofy123]

You are right. The Koran is a bastardized version of the OT, and the NT. For example, let us say Mo was found stealing money from Ahmed, then his commandment would say do not steel, except if you were Mo and you are stealing from Ahmed. In another occasion, if was stealing from Ali, he would add another commandment "Except if you are Mo and stealing from Ali"

[El Gato]

Allah is not the God of Abraham.

Be that as it may, they think He is one and the same.

[El Gato]

There is scarcely any recognition that a little more than a decade ago, the U.S. press waxed eloquent about the Afghan "freedom fighters" that included bin Laden

Bin Laden was a bit player. Many, but not all, members of the so called "Northern Alliance" were also "muj", supported by the US. It's not clear that OBL got any support from the US, and he certainly didn't need it, having plenty of his daddy's money to fiance his own group.

[papertyger]

There are millions of people over thousands of years of history who ridded themselves of tyrants without a second amendment(present country included).

How many of those people over thousands of years possessed the technology to take out a crowd of hundreds with a single soldier on foot?

[El Gato]

There are millions of people over thousands of years of history who ridded themselves of tyrants without a second amendment(present country included

Actually there was an equivalent to the second amendment, a weaker version to be sure, in the English "Bill of Rights".

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law".
Enacted in 1658 and still in force as of 1775.

It was because the King was denying the American colonists this and other "rights of Englishmen", that the Revolution occurred.