Gunfire as Vigilantes Attack Iran Protesters

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=42P505KJWSQRGCRBAEKSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=2927376

Gunfire as Vigilantes Attack Iran Protesters
Fri June 13, 2003 04:12 PM ET
TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) - Automatic gunfire could be heard in the Iranian capital early Saturday as hundreds of Iranian pro-clergy militiamen, some armed with Kalashnikov rifles, attacked groups of people protesting against clerical rule.
"Most were armed with sticks and chains but a few had Kalashnikovs," Reuters correspondent Jon Hemming said from the scene.

"I heard automatic gunfire but I couldn't see where it was coming from or what it was aimed at."

The militiamen jumped out of trucks and off motorbikes to attack a few dozen youngsters protesting around a bonfire in a side street not far from the Tehran University dormitory which has been the focal point of protests for the last four nights.

The youths had been throwing stones and chanting slogans including "Death to Khamenei" a reference to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has blamed Iran's arch-foe the United States for stirring up unrest in the country.

Washington, which labels Iran an "axis of evil" member and accuses it of trying to build nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism, has welcomed the protests.
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Those crazy fundamentalist Mullahs are always doing shti like this. You wonder why the people of Iran despise the government of the USA? The same reason the people of Afghanistan despise the government of the USA, and the people of Iraq despise us too. It's because the USA and Britain shoved down and created Islamic Fundamentalism in that region as a tool to distroy the Soviet Empire through afghanistan, and to stop development of strong an independant nationstates. Instead, the Kissinger/Zbignew Brzezinski doctrine was that of drowning them in organized fundamental religious terrorists, which they convienently launder their drug money in London, and buy weapons with it.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Those crazy fundamentalist Mullahs are always doing shti like this. You wonder why the people of Iran despise the government of the USA? The same reason the people of Afghanistan despise the government of the USA, and the people of Iraq despise us too. It's because the USA and Britain shoved down and created Islamic Fundamentalism in that region as a tool to distroy the Soviet Empire through afghanistan, and to stop development of strong an independant nationstates. Instead, the Kissinger/Zbignew Brzezinski doctrine was that of drowning them in organized fundamental religious terrorists, which they convienently launder their drug money in London, and buy weapons with it.

I think you surpassed MoonBeam


:D
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Those crazy fundamentalist Mullahs are always doing shti like this. You wonder why the people of Iran despise the government of the USA? The same reason the people of Afghanistan despise the government of the USA, and the people of Iraq despise us too. It's because the USA and Britain shoved down and created Islamic Fundamentalism in that region as a tool to distroy the Soviet Empire through afghanistan, and to stop development of strong an independant nationstates. Instead, the Kissinger/Zbignew Brzezinski doctrine was that of drowning them in organized fundamental religious terrorists, which they convienently launder their drug money in London, and buy weapons with it.

I think you surpassed MoonBeam


:D

Not yet - he didn't blame it all on Bush and he also didn't end his post with "bush is a disaster" :p;) But yes, he is getting close.:p

CkG
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Do any of you actually deny that the "Mujahadeen" 'Iran-Contra' operation was ran in which the USA and Britain, with help from Israel funded and created Islamic Fundamentalist movements using most of them for recruits to fight in Afghanistan against the soveits, and funded them with the 'contras', that is narco-money?
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
Those crazy fundamentalist Mullahs are always doing shti like this. You wonder why the people of Iran despise the government of the USA? The same reason the people of Afghanistan despise the government of the USA, and the people of Iraq despise us too. It's because the USA and Britain shoved down and created Islamic Fundamentalism in that region as a tool to distroy the Soviet Empire through afghanistan, and to stop development of strong an independant nationstates. Instead, the Kissinger/Zbignew Brzezinski doctrine was that of drowning them in organized fundamental religious terrorists, which they convienently launder their drug money in London, and buy weapons with it.

I think you surpassed MoonBeam


:D

Not yet - he didn't blame it all on Bush and he also didn't end his post with "bush is a disaster" :p;) But yes, he is getting close.:p

CkG

Some of what he says has some merit, while the rest is just more conspiracy theory.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Some of what he says has some merit, while the rest is just more conspiracy theory

A broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean I pay attention to one.
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
A broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean I pay attention to one.

I challenge you to find just 1 individual who has had anywhere near the accuracy of forecasting and coutner intellegence as LaRouche has. Just because you disregard him, doesn't mean you're right.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
yet because you blindly follow everything you say, you must be? your conviction is not the same as evidence, the popes faith is equal proof of God's existence by comaprision.

You need t ocheck out more than one source, seriously.


Do you have any idea how long the US has aided Afghanistan? how about the EU historically? Before, during, after soviet occupation?

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,349
259
126
The same reason the people of Afghanistan despise the government of the USA, and the people of Iraq despise us too. It's because the USA and Britain shoved down and created Islamic Fundamentalism in that region as a tool to distroy the Soviet Empire through afghanistan, and to stop development of strong an independant nationstates.
Oh boy.

Nevermind it was the Islamic Fundamentalist movements who were aligning with the Soviets, until the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which is why we supported secular or non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes throughout the region to oppose the Soviet alliance with these fundamentalist movements.

Nevermind that the Shah of Iran we 'inserted' was so hated precisely because his regime was secular and served to oppose the Islamic fundamentalist movements that were aligning with the Soviets.

Nevermind that the Afghans don't hate us, except for Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, but they are resentful we didn't help them stabilize and rebuild their country after the Russian occupation, leaving oppressive Islamic fundamentalists to fill the political void.

Nevermind that critics of our geopolitics have the luxury of being critical because they were spared having to learn the hard way how oppressive and dangerous Soviet collectivism would have been had we done nothing. Imagine five or six North Koreas and Irans instead of just one each. Hey now that would be much soooo much better.
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
The secondary ideas of "The Arc of Crisis" by Brzezinski and Kissinger was specifically to distroy the economies and population of these countries. It's a Hobbsian "It's us versus them, there are limited resources, so we should get them before they use their resources and grow as a threat to us". These fundy governments which WE funded and organized, have distroyed those nations. As far as the Asian, African, and Latin American counties? Well those we distroy with 'free trade', which means we're free to loot them.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Animus,

I think you surpassed MoonBeam


:D[/quote]

Moonbeam comes from a much closer to earth position... Kamazon's beam takes light years to reach the audience here.

:confused::)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: KAMAZON
A broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean I pay attention to one.

I challenge you to find just 1 individual who has had anywhere near the accuracy of forecasting and coutner intellegence as LaRouche has. Just because you disregard him, doesn't mean you're right.

I don't know the source of his counter intellegence nor the deep understanding he may posess regarding his prognostications... he is either a very lucky guesser or a spy and a major manipulator of reality. He is good at it though... better than the current crop of SWAGers.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,349
259
126
The secondary ideas of "The Arc of Crisis" by Brzezinski and Kissinger was specifically to distroy the economies and population of these countries. It's a Hobbsian "It's us versus them, there are limited resources, so we should get them before they use their resources and grow as a threat to us".
Well besides misrepreseting the doctrine, you neglect one 'insignificant' point, that Kissinger was right. The Russians were playing the game, too. It was Us vs. Them and you're either a fool or patently ignorant to believe the Russians just packed up and went home after the Cuban Missile Crisis, forever retiring their aims to spread brutal Soviet Collectivism 'round the world. That was just another battle in a larger war.

Again, Larouche should consider it a God damned privilege to be able to criticize the West. How long do you think Larouche would last in North Korea, China, or in the Soviet Union under Stalin or Brezhnev before mysteriously 'disappearing'? Three days? Maybe four, tops?

Ah, I think I may have answered my own question. Perhaps Larouche would have been just fine under those regimes. I presumed he would be criticizing a far greater evil for having lived under it, but perhaps that is an erroneous presumption. Larouche would probably be a big wig in the Politburo.
These fundy governments which WE funded and organized, have distroyed those nations. As far as the Asian, African, and Latin American counties? Well those we distroy with 'free trade', which means we're free to loot them.
Blah blah blah.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Kamazon, some of your comments have some credibility, but you're reaching the wrong conclusion. And get of this LaRouche guy's dick. You've been riding it far too long.
 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Kamazon, some of your comments have some credibility, but you're reaching the wrong conclusion. And get of this LaRouche guy's dick. You've been riding it far too long.

C'mon now, that's not cool.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Tal
Originally posted by: Dari
Kamazon, some of your comments have some credibility, but you're reaching the wrong conclusion. And get of this LaRouche guy's dick. You've been riding it far too long.

C'mon now, that's not cool.

what, you wanna ride?;)
 

Zrom999

Banned
Apr 13, 2003
698
0
0
Can we forget about LaRouche and get back on topic? Kazamon is entitled to his opinion, if he wants to believe that guy, let him.

The Iranian gov't has a policy of cracking down hard on malcontents. By using overwhelming and brutal force they hope to silence the majority of the protestors who aren't die hard fanatics, then the movement loses momentum and dies down. I doubt those "vigilantes" were acting on their own accord. The clerics will not give up power without the fight. One of the reasons for the Islamic takeover in Iran (in addition to the Tyrannical rule of the US supported Shah) was the "westernization" of the country. They won't let a few young people undermine their oppressive rule.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
A debater who insists on including a vile personal attack in his dialog has either little faith in his position or little position in his faith. Neither further the argument and both are with out substance.