Terrorist attack in Iran

[norseamd]

A new chapter in Islamic Terrorism is now here. If ISIS starts launching terrorist attacks in Iran then we are about to see Iran being pushed to be even more involved around the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria. Even more worrying could be even more fuel being dumped on the fire that is the broader Sunni-Shiite conflict. I find it funny this happens days after the new Trump-Saudi Alliance declares a active cold war against Qatar, which Qatar maintaining amiable relations with Iran is one of the major sticking points that Saudi Arabia and other GCC states have been threatening Qatar over, in addition to their relations and support for various populist, extremist, or underground movements, like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Jabhat al-Nusra.

Iranian news outlets reported a pair of possibly coordinated attacks on the parliament and the highly symbolic tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini in the capital Tehran on Tuesday.

Casualties are unclear but the parliament is on lockdown and there are reports that in addition to the gunmen at the tomb of the Islamic Republic’s founder, a suicide bomber blew himself up.

Attacks of this kind are a rarity in the heart of Iran’s highly secure capital.

Ali Khalili of the Khomeini Mausoleum told the IRNA state news agency that there were at least three attackers who opened fire on the tomb, and one of them detonated himself at the entrance.

Lawmaker Qolam-Ali Jafarzadeh Imenabadi, meanwhile, put the number of attackers at the parliament at four and said they were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles. He told IRNA that one guard was reportedly killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/middleeast/iran-parliament-shooting/index.html

 

[Victorian Gray]

Interesting timing.

 

[pmv]

I find it almost bafflingly complex. Seems to me that most people over-simplify the whole business, trying to claim its either all down to the inherent wickedness of Islam or the evils of Western foreign policy. Surely it's obvious that the mess has many, many causal factors?

One thing I find particularly confusing is how those in power in the West (including Republicans _and_ Democrats, the Bushes, the Clintons and Trump alike) seem to face both ways - denouncing evil Islamism, even as they defend and do lucrative business with Saudi Arabia, one of it's main sponsors. I am not convinced these people really know what 'side' they are on or that they really want the conflict to end.

Clearly there's a long-standing Sunni-Shia conflict (currently with Turkey and Saudi on one side and iran on the other) but there are also lots of other factors, such as the Saudi ruling elite's need to maintain that Muslims need a monarchy (Iran being a Republic is a dangerous counter-example) or the Turks' fantasies of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire. And of course it was the West who put that elite in power in the first place.

 

[R0H1T]

I find it almost bafflingly complex. Seems to me that most people over-simplify the whole business, trying to claim its either all down to the inherent wickedness of Islam or the evils of Western foreign policy. Surely it's obvious that the mess has many, many causal factors?

One thing I find particularly confusing is how those in power in the West (including Republicans _and_ Democrats, the Bushes, the Clintons and Trump alike) seem to face both ways - denouncing evil Islamism, even as they defend and do lucrative business with Saudi Arabia, one of it's main sponsors. I am not convinced these people really know what 'side' they are on or that they really want the conflict to end.

Clearly there's a long-standing Sunni-Shia conflict (currently with Turkey and Saudi on one side and iran on the other) but there are also lots of other factors, such as the Saudi ruling elite's need to maintain that Muslims need a monarchy (Iran being a Republic is a dangerous counter-example) or the Turks' fantasies of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire. And of course it was the West who put that elite in power in the first place.

You're assuming the military industrial complex (& their beneficiaries) wants to see this issue resolved, IMO they don't & for many (led by the Saudis & Israel) Iran is the perfect boogeyman.

 

[FIVR]

They are inside Iranian parliament building and they have taken parliament members and their families as hostages. These are Islamic State militants.


Video proof (NSFW)

https://sendvid.com/8uxqe9z2

Photo of suicide bomber detonating himself at mausoleum.

Aftermath

Hopefully the Iranians can dispatch the terrorists and take back control of the building without too many casualties. Iranian forces are highly trained in urban combat and counterterrorism so they should be capable.

 

[norseamd]

I find it almost bafflingly complex. Seems to me that most people over-simplify the whole business, trying to claim its either all down to the inherent wickedness of Islam or the evils of Western foreign policy. Surely it's obvious that the mess has many, many causal factors?

One thing I find particularly confusing is how those in power in the West (including Republicans _and_ Democrats, the Bushes, the Clintons and Trump alike) seem to face both ways - denouncing evil Islamism, even as they defend and do lucrative business with Saudi Arabia, one of it's main sponsors. I am not convinced these people really know what 'side' they are on or that they really want the conflict to end.

Clearly there's a long-standing Sunni-Shia conflict (currently with Turkey and Saudi on one side and iran on the other) but there are also lots of other factors, such as the Saudi ruling elite's need to maintain that Muslims need a monarchy (Iran being a Republic is a dangerous counter-example) or the Turks' fantasies of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire. And of course it was the West who put that elite in power in the first place.

A nitpick is that Iran is far from a true Republic, although it does have its own congress/parliament/whatever, but otherwise it is essentially a theocratic dictatorship, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being the current dictator.

 

[ivwshane]

A nitpick is that Iran is far from a true Republic, although it does have its own congress/parliament/whatever, but otherwise it is essentially a theocratic dictatorship, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being the current dictator.

True but doesn't England also have a king and queen and therefore isn't a true republic?

 

[ch33zw1z]

News like this is always sad to me.

What I get out it is this: Iran has changed enough that militant Islam groups feel threatened by progress.

Please feel free to enlighten me though.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So will people start doing an Iranian flag overlay on Facebook?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Send in Millwall.

 

[J.Wilkins]

True but doesn't England also have a king and queen and therefore isn't a true republic?

England is not a republic, England is a parliamentary monarchy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ugh, well we can be sure that shit's now gonna get a lot messier before it gets better.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Ugh, well we can be sure that shit's now gonna get a lot messier before it gets better.

It was to be expected, Shia mosques have been under attack all over the world for a while now.

 

[pmv]

A nitpick is that Iran is far from a true Republic, although it does have its own congress/parliament/whatever, but otherwise it is essentially a theocratic dictatorship, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being the current dictator.

It's a very long way from a well-functioning democracy, sure, but I think from the Saudi's point-of-view it's also a long way from a monarchy. A republic doesn't have to be particularly democratic to still be an affront to a group for whom a belief in monarchism is essential to their survival.

Iran seems like a contested amalgam of a democracy and a theocracy. The democratic part might _eventually_ come out on top (and how it got like that has everything to do with Western interference).

Also, I do think Iran has a greater depth of culture than just Islam, in a way that the Gulf states (and Pakistan) don't. There's a lot more to the country than Islam.

On that note, I've heard many times that one reason why Pakistan has been so scarily subject to Saudi Wahhabi influence is because it lacks confidence in it's own identity and culture, as apart from Islam it doesn't have an awful lot to distinguish itself from India (very much unlike Bangladesh, also Sunni but with a strong cultural identity of its own). My understanding is that country has the same sort of 'cultural cringe' towards the Arab world as Australia once-upon-a-time had towards the UK.

There are clearly a great number of different factors that push/pull people towards hard-line Islamism. All sorts of political and ethnic and personal psychological issues go into it.

 

[R0H1T]

It's a very long way from a well-functioning democracy, sure, but I think from the Saudi's point-of-view it's also a long way from a monarchy. A republic doesn't have to be particularly democratic to still be an affront to a group for whom a belief in monarchism is essential to their survival.

Iran seems like a contested amalgam of a democracy and a theocracy. The democratic part might _eventually_ come out on top (and how it got like that has everything to do with Western interference).

Also, I do think Iran has a greater depth of culture than just Islam, in a way that the Gulf states (and Pakistan) don't. There's a lot more to the country than Islam.

On that note, I've heard many times that one reason why Pakistan has been so scarily subject to Saudi Wahhabi influence is because it lacks confidence in it's own identity and culture, as apart from Islam it doesn't have an awful lot to distinguish itself from India (very much unlike Bangladesh, also Sunni but with a strong cultural identity of its own). My understanding is that country has the same sort of 'cultural cringe' towards the Arab world as Australia once-upon-a-time had towards the UK.

There are clearly a great number of different factors that push/pull people towards hard-line Islamism. All sorts of political and ethnic and personal psychological issues go into it.

Well for a nation that was formed on the premise that Muslims would never find peace in a Hindu majority nation, their identity revolves around Islam. The Bengalis have a greater affinity to the language, Bangla, & the eastern part of India, they've also not forgotten the 1971 massacres by the Pak army.
The influence of Saudi Wahhabism or Salafism is a different matter, the Sunni majority part of Pak is definitely a hindrance though.

 

[K1052]

Reuters apparently has a statement from the Iran Rev Guard directly blaming Saudi Arabia for the attack.

 

[phillyTIM]

So will people start doing an Iranian flag overlay on Facebook?

Hah. That'll be the day. Shame that it's such a double-standard tho.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Hah. That'll be the day. Shame that it's such a double-standard tho.

Agreed, I'd say a good first step would be saying the US is not the great Satan.

 

[zinfamous]

I imagine Wolfowitz cackling madly, alone, in his tall dark tower.

 

[feralkid]

Agreed, I'd say a good first step would be saying the US is not the great Satan.

That never bothered me; it was always just clap-trap for domestic consumption; besides we called them part of "The Axis of Evil".


6th grade level playground tauntings.

 

[Ken g6]

Reuters apparently has a statement from the Iran Rev Guard directly blaming Saudi Arabia for the attack.

This seems like a way World War 3 could start. Iran and Saudi Arabia get into a war. Russia, of course, sides with Iran. Trump, idiot that he is, sides with the Saudis. Bada bing, bada kaboom. And China picks up the pieces when it's all over.

 

[Jaskalas]

A new chapter in Islamic Terrorism is now here. If ISIS starts launching terrorist attacks in Iran then we are about to see Iran being pushed to be even more involved around the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria.

I think you underestimate just how involved Iran already is inside Iraq and Syria.

Those are Iranian backed Shia Militias that stopped ISIS on the edge of Baghdad. They are now the reason Iraq exists, and hold nearly all the political power in that country. The rest is in ruins.

 

[DrunkenSano]

This seems like a way World War 3 could start. Iran and Saudi Arabia get into a war. Russia, of course, sides with Iran. Trump, idiot that he is, sides with the Saudis. Bada bing, bada kaboom. And China picks up the pieces when it's all over.

I'm pretty sure if war had started between Iran and Saudi Arabia, our previous presidents would have all sided with Saudi Arabia since they are considered an ally and we would be obligated to assist them.

 

[norseamd]

True but doesn't England also have a king and queen and therefore isn't a true republic?

The Monarch of Great Britain has barely any real power, while the Grand Ayatollah of Iran is effectively a dictator.

 

[norseamd]

I think you underestimate just how involved Iran already is inside Iraq and Syria.

Those are Iranian backed Shia Militias that stopped ISIS on the edge of Baghdad. They are now the reason Iraq exists, and hold nearly all the political power in that country. The rest is in ruins.

No, no, I know full well, but now just think if full scale Iranian military units start openly operating in Iraq and Syria in mass.