Question:
can anyone blame the Iranians who took the American diplomats hostage in 1979 during the hostage crisis?
anonymous
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
can anyone blame the Iranians who took the American diplomats hostage in 1979 during the hostage crisis?
23 answers:
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:28:39 UTC
Uh... yes. That was flat out wrong.
Gman
2008-07-17 15:28:02 UTC
Yes. They held 52 people against their wills for 444 days. Are you okay?
Uncle Pennybags
2008-07-17 15:31:57 UTC
Yes, I blame them.



You don't take hostages. Period. Especially those in an embassy. You don't want them there anymore, kick'em out. Shut down the embassy. That would have done the trick.
u_bin_called
2008-07-17 15:29:56 UTC
you lookin' for a show of hands.....or will just fingers do....?
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:28:26 UTC
yes
Www W
2008-07-17 15:36:35 UTC
The poor Americans don't know any of their history.
Phil M
2008-07-17 15:37:03 UTC
I think there is more than enough blame for what led to the event to go around....



I still blame the individuals responsible for their actions (hostage taking) and I also blame our government as well as the UK govt.



This is another example of refusing to respect another nations sovereignty over "safety/security" issues and yet we expected the Iranians to respect our sovereignty (diplomatic compoud)



As for "They held 52 people against their wills for 444 days."



What is it you think we're doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo and those "secret prisons?"



Until someone can face their accusers and have their day in court, I consider them all being held against their will. I would hope others feel the same towards me.
Michael
2008-07-17 15:35:29 UTC
Carter screwed over Iran, but it is difficult to sympathize when one takes hostages.
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:31:02 UTC
No. I cannot blame them. The CIA screwed with Iran too much.
Arsal
2008-07-18 01:50:24 UTC
NO

we took hostages and then we release them BUT

they hit our TRAVELING airplane which killed 290 innocent people, include 60 kids in them,and they still say "it was an accident"

i think not only we shouldn't release them but also we should have killed all of them,but u know we are not like these kid killers
?
2016-10-13 09:26:09 UTC
They have been ignorant cowards that violated diplomatic accords agreed to via each u . s . a . on the earth. How can one clarify the thought methods of barbaric thugs, "howdy, enable's take a gaggle of workplace workers hostage, which will show usa a lesson". Even the Nazis respected foreign places embassies in Berlin for the duration of their upward push to skill. yet, what are you able to anticipate from a rustic ruled via fanatical ayatollahs whose international view is caught in the 8th century.
CaesarLives
2008-07-17 15:54:48 UTC
Yes. Holding the civilians in the Embassy (their were few diplomats there at the time) was a mistake.



In the past, the U.S. removed a democratically elected leader from office in Iran and replaced him with the tyrant Reza Pahlavi. Thug Pahlavi was educated in the U.S. and used Iranian oil revenues to pay off the CIA. The CIA used the money to fund its secret operations (since Congress requires the CIA to report how it spends all funds it receives from Congress, the CIA needs alternative sources of funding for secret operations).

By the time Jimmy Carter had become President, the Iranian people had become angry with Punk Pahlavi for his fascist policies, lavish lifestyle, and disrespect for Islamic culture. The CIA deliberately failed to report the public hostility toward the Shah to President Carter, who was unaware of the potential revolution being pursued by Iranians. By the time Carter learned of the bad situation in Iran, it was too late to resolve the crisis without bloodshed.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini was set to return to Iran from France, both the French Secret Service and CIA were present. They could have prevented the Ayatollah's return one way or another, but President Carter had Khomeini escorted safely to the airport for his return to Iran. Carter removed Pahlavi to allow for a civil and peaceful change of power from Pahlavi to the new Iranian govt. Not that the change went without bloodshed, however.

Iranians should have welcomed Carter's role in the removal of the Shah, but instead they were angry that Carter allowed the Shah to remain in power for so long. Iranians should have been pleased that the CIA didn't cause the Ayatollah to meet some "tragic fate" in France, but Iranians failed to appreciate it.

President Carter was the first President in recent history to go against U.S. interference in foreign affairs, but the Iranians didn't appreciate this fact.

When Iranian college students climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy, it was planned as a peaceful occupation of the exterior grounds of the Embassy to attract world media attention to the plight of Iran and to express their fear that the U.S. would invade Iran to install another dictator. Carter had no such intention.

However, a small group of armed Islamic extremists had infiltrated the student's group and raided the Embassy to hold the Embassy staff hostage. These thugs then used the hostage crisis to force Ayatollah Khomeini to abandon his own plans for a Democratic Republic in Iran, and compelled him, through manipulation, to take a harder line. These extremists were traitors. The fact that they would move against the Ayatollah proves that they are not good Muslims, but heritics. One of those traitors is Ahmadinejad. He was one of the radicals who pushed for a totalitarian dictatorship in Iran.

Iranians should be grateful that President Carter was a Christian man of peace who chose not to retaliate against Iran for taking hostages at the Embassy. Many Americans still regret his decision to resolve the matter peacefully. In fact, it ruined his Presidency and place in history.
john
2008-07-17 15:36:58 UTC
It was not the "proud and great" nation which did the hostage taking but a gang of crazed lunatics. Their antics seemed to find favour with the "proud and great" people so perhaps the "proud and great" people had become out of control nutters as well.
?
2008-07-17 15:39:09 UTC
Yes and it should have been their very last act. Now one of the hostage takers is the puppet leader of Iran.



Aren't you glad you are here and not there?



I know all of the ones I have met are.
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:48:03 UTC
Yes, I can. They overthrew a Democratic govt and held 52 people for 444 days against their wills.
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:54:22 UTC
Lets see. we overthrew their democratic leader and installed our puppet dictator (the shah) and people expect the people we brutalized through our puppet to be nice to us. What kind of fantasy land are conservatives living in.
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:30:18 UTC
Absolutely amazing. A terrirost country run by islamic fanatics takes US hostages for over a year and a half, and you actually think they were justified? I suppose next you're going to tell me that the innocent people who were MURDERED on 911 had it coming.
a bush family member
2008-07-17 15:30:23 UTC
Yes, I can blame them. It was wrong for Iranians to take innocent Americans and hold them for a year and a half.
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:30:29 UTC
Nothing does not happen out of nothing. Of course we mingled in their affairs and as a result they took our hostages.

Same thing is going on all over the world where we stick our noses.



Thumbs down on YA will not change anything.
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:37:05 UTC
I suppose Jimmy Carter could blame them...
phil
2008-07-17 15:42:18 UTC
yes ,they are the ones to blame. they invaded US soil,they took Americans hostage.they had no legitimate reason to do so
anonymous
2008-07-17 15:37:31 UTC
they are damned lucky Reagan was not in office at the time.
♥ Mel
2008-07-17 15:30:36 UTC
Yes...I can blame them. No spine people.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...