Three more Iranians set themselves on fire

Check out the guy taking the picture. What a humanatarian!





If your gonna do it do it right.
Damn those Iranian women know how to set themselves a flame better than that!




He must of listen to mamma.
He's got clean draws on!
(Draws means underwear Nans)




Dude, I need to borrow a buck 50 I got the cheap watered down gas.
I gonna get the premium gas



Ooh oww Ooh Oww oww oww ooh




The World's Fastest Man!




And to think hemorroids are painful!




Help I fallen and I can't get up!


BBQ Iranian style



Any ATS members that would protest in this fashion?



[Edited on 19-6-2003 by MiStErBeLLaTrIx]

is there some kind of religious significance to this madness?

cripes thats disturbing. I can't see the point in that.

Three more Iranians set themselves on fire on Thursday in European capitals to protest a crackdown on an exile group in France, while police in Paris detained nearly 100 people to prevent further attempts at self-immolation.

French Try to Stop Iranian Protestors


A total of seven Iranians have set themselves on fire in Paris and other cities since raids Tuesday on the French offices of the Mujahedeen Khalq, which fiercely opposes the Muslim clerical government in Iran.



Passers-by stop to watch as flames envelope a young Buddhist monk, Saigon, October 5th, 1963.

The man sits impassively in the central market square, he has set himself on fire performing a ritual suicide in protest against governmental anti-Buddhist policies. Crowds gathered to protest in Hue after the South Vietnamese government prohibited Buddhists from carrying flags on Buddha's birthday. Government troops opened fire to disperse the dissidents, killing nine people, Diems government blamed the incident on the Vietcong and never admitted responsibility. The Buddhist leadership quickly organized demonstrations that eventually led to seven monks burning themselves to death.

I guess you must eventually become immune - the man behind the monk is still trying to find a light for his cigarette.

*sigh*
These dudes should set themselves on fire back in Tehran.

The Iranians could do with this new type of energy source.
Who needs Nuclear reactors when you can have People Fired Reactors?

actually Iran is on the verge of a political revolution stirred by students and workers and families. the military refuses to intervene on behalf of the religious leaders. so there are street battles in all major cities between black clad fedihien types and protesters only student info and video is getting out of the country

tut

How can ANYONE set themselves on fire to make a point? We can not comprehend these people & their thinking!

Nah. It's not sick. It's STUPID!!!!!
And guaranteed these Iranian guys are on drugs when they pull these stupid stunts.

Why anyone would want to protest in this manner is beyond me. What the hell do they think??!!! We're going to turn around and admire them??!!! We'll care even more for their cause because they've just seriously disfigured or killed themselves horribly??!!!

Yeah!!! Let's support a cause whose followers are dumb enough to burn themselves alive.

These people are morons. They're trying to impress people.
It doesn't impress me.

How many americans lined up at Concord Bridge in 1775 to get shot at by a much larger, better, professional British army?

These people aren't sick, or stupid. Granted, their methods don't seem to be working right (as being able to only set yourself halfway on fire... only to run around fanning the flames... is, I admit, stupid), but, for the sake of freedom, many people throughout history have sacrificed their lives.

Now, I am not endorsing suicide bombers... there's a big difference between this and that.

To take your own life just to get your message across IS stupid.

You have a mouth. You have two hands and feet.
Use those in either politics or revolution.

When all you have to give to put your point across is your life, you have failed to function properly.

Sometimes the only thing people have left to give IS their life.

I suppose if this is what it takes to get western governments to notice their plight then they think its worth it, we can sit and call them idiotic but they're braver people than most of us will ever be.

Its interesting they have chosen France to do this

They chose france specifically because the French government is cracking down on a group opposed to the current Iranian government.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams


How many americans lined up at Concord Bridge in 1775 to get shot at by a much larger, better, professional British army?

That is hardly a comparison. That was war. People killing other people. In that scenario, you are dealing with human going against human. The victims might have had some chance of survival - however slim, they actually had a logical point because there was a possibility that they could achieve their aim without coming to harm.
When you are dealing with people the results can vary.

With fire there is no variance.
Haven't you heard that if you play with fire you will get burnt?
The result is always the same. Death or disfigurement.

By setting themselves alight these people might have some misguided belief that they are helping their cause, but, psychologically for onlookers, this is not a good propaganda stunt. It creates revulsion and confusion. They are actually damaging that which they seek to protect.

I call that - stupidity

Oi! dont bring us brits into it, we may have invented genocide but the french perfected it.

Algeria anyone?

Leveller,
No, at that point it WASN'T a war. Lexington and Concord was a full year before the Declaration of Independence was signed...

At the abstract, moral level, there's no difference between those farmers from 1775 and those Iranians who want to take down the clerical government that rules them.

Any time another person kills another person - it's war.
That's how I define the word.

It doesn't matter what Independance Declarations were made nor when or where the incident occured.
The fact is that the people involved in your example had a chance. They could have survived.

For those who went out there totally believing that they would die - I have no sympathy.

Death is a last resort. It is not something you seek to use as a propaganda tool unless you are using it physically against other people. Using it against yourself shows weakness. It proves that you are incapable of offering any other alternative. # what you believe in. Where death comes in, there is a defining line. In comparison, it almost seems OK to be a suicide bomber because although you are gaining propaganda, at least you are also physically hurting your enemy.
You are selling yourself out to death if your only aim is to change other people's opinions.


If all you can do is die for your beliefs then you deserve the end result.

I would never choose any belief that calls upon me to die for it without giving me a chance to survive if I take that risk.


It's a waste of life.

[Edited on 20-6-2003 by Leveller]

I'm not saying that Concord wasn't the beginning of a war... what I am saying is that it was the beginning of a liberation movement... which is EXACTLY what this Iranian thing is.

Dying for a cause is not a sign of defeat or inferiority... Sometimes there are no ways to express yourself, or to get your point across. Believe it or not, we do not live in a world where everything is settled in a cute little conference room. I highly doubt that these people could write a polite letter to the clerics who run Iran... and receive a polite, conciliatory note in reply.

Their countrymen are being held down. The conference room has failed.

TextAny time another person kills another person - it's war.

In a way yes. That doesn't make it wrong. A thief comes into my house while my wife and children are sleeping, I shoot him and he dies, not only am I glad I took the SOB down, the law say I'm right.