Talk:1987 Mecca incident

Title

NPOV? I don't know whether the anti-Iran claims have any basis, but somebody should check. --Nargmage 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC) --Evidently not--220.238.70.149 10:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Tried to clean it up a bit, though I don't know much about the riot itself Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if am missing something but: "This resulted in 402 people killed (275 Iranians and 85 Saudi policemen)" - what about the other 42? if it was "(including 275 Iranians and 85 Saudi policemen, plus a number of bystanders" it would make more sense (assuming that's what happened) - could someone with a bit more knowledge of the event deal with this? --Black Butterfly 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

can we change the title of this from riot to something else? the pro iran side would say that it was not a riot but a massacare

Hrm, "massacre" is as pointed as "riot" is the problem, just in the other direction. Do you have a more neutral term in mind to suggest? Incident? Clash? Shooting? (were they even shot?) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

from an iranian point of view it wasnt a riot but more like an attack by the saudi police. i think protest is a much more nuteral word. it was an initial protest by the iranians that led to the incident.

moved it :) Feel free to make any corrections you feel the article needs, by the way Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

state sponsored terrorism

Hey guys! On that day Iranians organized a calm and peaceful demonstration as every year. They organized the demonstration in previous years with no problem. It was nothing new. We have also numerous government-organized demonstrations in Iran throughout the year. It is just for 1 hour and then it finishes. That's all. Saudi's regime killed 400 people! 400 is 1/5 of 11/09. This was a massacre. A terrible one. These western countries were all silent. Why? If there is a demonstration in Iran and Iranian regime kill one person, suddenly 100 countries will condemn that!! Saudi's fundamentalist regime killed 400 innocent normal (very normal tourists). .....This was one of the biggest tragedy for Iran of 20th century. Many families lost their members. Sina Kardar 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are insufficient independent accounts to make a good assessment.--Patchouli 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think every thing is clear if one sees the following points:

• Every year hundreds of thounsands of Iranians go to Haj. These people are normal people. (I am not writing to those fanatics who think all Iranians are terrorists!)
• They used to organize a boring government organized demonstration like every year. Such demonstrations have been always calm both in Iran and Saudi arabia.
• There is a strong anti Iranian feeling among some arabs. Even in his last minutes, Saddam used the opportunity to say Death to Persians. This is pure racism.
• Alqaeda which is a sunni (vahhabi) group was at its formation period at that time in Saudi arabia. Extremist sunnis think it is fair to kill Shias.
• I have a direct experience with this event as my mothers cousins were all there and become injured. They would never go to Saudi arabia if they knew such a thing is going to happen.

Guys! we even condemn killing a of person like saddam. why do we lose our humanity when it comes to such clear bloody act ? We all condem if in a peaceful demonstration in tehran, the regime arrest 5 person or beat a few. Then why do we lose our sensitivity when it comes to killing of hundreds innocent by police? I will stop here and I will not make any comment further. If the reader has a tiny bit of ethics and humanity, he/she will see the dirty act of Saudi regime. Sina Kardar 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no response from the Saudi Arabian side in the article.
2. Government-organized demonstrations are not always peaceful. The Islamic Republic decides whether it is going to be violent and to what extent.[1][2]--Patchouli 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Governmant organized demonstration happens every week in Iran and it is almost always peaceful (There might be very very few exceptions that I can not remember). But in Hajj it was ALWAYS peaceful. If Saudi Arabia did not like "Baraa-at az Moshrekin" ( برائت از مشرکين), it could easily ban Iranians of entering Saudi Arabia but has no right to beat let alone kill hundreds of civilians. Let me summerize the whole story: Saudi said any demonstration against Israel and US in Mecca or Medina is Ok and acceptable but not inside the Great mosque. They believed this would be an innovation in Islam. And an innovation in Islam will make God angry and those innovators will go to hell. That's all. Sina Kardar 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1943, a Saudi religious judge ordered an Iranian pilgrim beheaded for allegedly defiling the Great Mosque with excrement supposedly carried into the mosque in his pilgrim's garment.Sina Kardar 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The demonstration was not peaceful at all. Just take a look at the following scholarly source.

On Friday July 31, 1987, a demonstration by Iranian pilgrims against the enemies of Islam (including USA and Israel), erupted into fighting between the demonstrators and Saudi security forces.

The violence by the demonstrators led to shooting by the police which culminated in a stampede of the pilgrims (K. McLachlan, Iran and the Continuing Crisis in the Persian Gulf, GeoJournal, Vol.28, Issue 3, Nov. 1992, p.359).

Heja Helweda 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the majority of the sources say. Don't try to justify killing of unarmed demonstrators. --Mardavich 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Violent demonstrations

"..Khomeini included the customary plea to pilgrims that they avoid clashes, insults, and disputes, and warned against those intent on disruption who might embark on spontaneous moves.[3]"

POV and Disputed tags

Please someone describes why there should be these tags?--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of good reasons. For one thing the article tries - not so subtly - to imply that the Saudi police just woke up one morning and decided kill these people because they were Shi'as. This is, of course, absurd, as Shi'a pilgrims had been coming to Mecca annually before this incident, and continued to come annually afterwards without such clashes occurring. It also takes it at face value that Khomeini had instructed pilgrims to be peaceful and quiet when there is every indication he insitgated the protests to embarass his Saudi enemies. Finally, it calls it a "massacre" when 85 armed Saudi policeman were also killed. From the discussion above, it looks like someone moved it to "massacre" unilaterally. Instead of "riots" (which favors one side) and "massacre" (which favors the other), the article should be moved to "clashes", and then let the reader decide based on the facts (after some editing, of course). Regards. -- Slacker (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Wow...Im saudi and find this article completly absurd...Just as absurd as persian arabphobic feelings or vice versa... If the "protest" as you call it was compleltly normal like all the othe years before, then why did the police attack them on that day only? was it not an anti-saudi riot because of saudi's support of iraq? and about bannning iranians from coming to saudi, saudi arabia does not bar any muslims because of their origin (as there is always a limit based on a country's muslim population and not on the relationship with the country, even saudi's are not allowed to go to hajj more than once in 10 years)

Please...Persians, stop escaliting everything, we might have conquered your country a long while ago, but that was a long time ago...The iraq and iran war were caused by the two most radical people in middle eastern politics...that doesnt mean arabs and persians should hate each other....I mean ye sure, maybe mock each other from time to time but not HATE.... By the way my grandmother was persian...So plz dont accuse me of being a racist...I just want the baathists of both sides to stop making everything so tense through such articles.... khuda hafez :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.154.133 (talk)