Another terrorist attack -Tehran Iran

[Antonio Coceri]

Actually, I am surprised Iran has received only very few attacks by terrorists until now
The UK has been the target much more, and France

 

[McHrozni]

Actually, I am surprised Iran has received only very few attacks by terrorists until now
The UK has been the target much more, and France

This kind of flies in the face of the assertions these countries are targeted due to their foreign policy, doesn't it?

McHrozni

 

[Antonio Coceri]

This kind of flies in the face of the assertions these countries are targeted due to their foreign policy, doesn't it?

McHrozni

Actually. the UK and France have always been on the other side of the fence regarding foreign policy

 

[Oystein]

The problem is that we have realized long ago that as far as the really big terrorism problems go, Iran is the largest single sponsor out there.

No, "we" haven't "realized" this.
I deny it, actually.
I am pretty sure much more terrorism is sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and quite possibly more is enabled by the USA than by Iran.

Unlike the Sunni groups Iran doesn't care much for their factional affiliation and supports Islamic terrorists of all creeds, as long as they fulfill its goal of attacking western or Jewish targets.

Nonsense.
Iran has a well-defined regional agenda and picks its affiliations carefully to advance that agenda. It is not anti-western, possibly not even really anti-Jewish - Iran has no claim to Palestine.

We share a few enemies with Iran, they aren't too fond of ISIS, but that's it.

McHrozni

That is a whole lot.

 

[Oystein]

Actually, I am surprised Iran has received only very few attacks by terrorists until now
The UK has been the target much more, and France

I am not sure it is true that Iran has had fewer terrorist incidents. I suspect there is a possibility that some lower-profile incidents simple never were reported by our media.

 

[ddt]

The problem is that we have realized long ago that as far as the really big terrorism problems go, Iran is the largest single sponsor out there. Unlike the Sunni groups Iran doesn't care much for their factional affiliation and supports Islamic terrorists of all creeds, as long as they fulfill its goal of attacking western or Jewish targets.

We share a few enemies with Iran, they aren't too fond of ISIS, but that's it.

McHrozni

I don't think you can make that case. They primarily sponsor Hezbollah which is not really in the business of terrorism. They're content with their power base in Southern Lebanon, but they don't routinely cross the border with Israel to commit acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens. There were border skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah in the early 2000s; in one of them, Hezbollah managed to capture a handful of Israeli soldiers, which was the stated reason for the outbreak of the 2006 Lebanon war, but I'd not classify that as terrorism. They're also not in the business of sponsoring or committing terrorist acts worldwide.

Hamas is very much the same story; the only thing different is that they routine lob missiles from Gaza into Israel, which you may classify as terrorism. But at the moment, Iran doesn't even sponsor Hamas.

The Yemeni insurgents that are sponsored by Iran also only have national goals in the Yemeni civil war.

The only exceptions that I can come up with to the above are an attack on a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires some 30 years ago which is strongly suspected to be the work of Hezbollah and Iran; and possibly Lockerbie, which would have been in retaliation to the USS Vincennes incident. But those are long ago, atypical and there are no more recent examples.

When I go to the supermarket, I run the slight risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack by an ISIS fanboy or an AQ fanboy, but not in the slightest by an Iranian-sponsored terrorist.

 

[ddt]

This kind of flies in the face of the assertions these countries are targeted due to their foreign policy, doesn't it?

McHrozni

May I have the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot?

 

[Wolrab]

I don't think you can make that case. They primarily sponsor Hezbollah which is not really in the business of terrorism. They're content with their power base in Southern Lebanon, but they don't routinely cross the border with Israel to commit acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens. There were border skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah in the early 2000s; in one of them, Hezbollah managed to capture a handful of Israeli soldiers, which was the stated reason for the outbreak of the 2006 Lebanon war, but I'd not classify that as terrorism. They're also not in the business of sponsoring or committing terrorist acts worldwide.

Hamas is very much the same story; the only thing different is that they routine lob missiles from Gaza into Israel, which you may classify as terrorism. But at the moment, Iran doesn't even sponsor Hamas.

The Yemeni insurgents that are sponsored by Iran also only have national goals in the Yemeni civil war.

The only exceptions that I can come up with to the above are an attack on a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires some 30 years ago which is strongly suspected to be the work of Hezbollah and Iran; and possibly Lockerbie, which would have been in retaliation to the USS Vincennes incident. But those are long ago, atypical and there are no more recent examples.

When I go to the supermarket, I run the slight risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack by an ISIS fanboy or an AQ fanboy, but not in the slightest by an Iranian-sponsored terrorist.

I have no problems with your post except the highlighted. How can anyone not see random rocket attacks as anything but terrorism? I'd be terrified if the next village over started lobbing missiles. Come to think about it there is a large, multigenerational population of Syrians there. Good people, great food.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Terroist/Freedom fighter is a small line to walk. While what ddt wrote is true about the resistance organizations the anti-Iran propaganda needs for their branding, the totally vicious, bizarre and freakish terror cult of the MEK has been removed from the US list of terrorist organisations in 2008, after lobbying of the usual suspects including "senile" scumbag John McCain (may he rot in hell).

 

[McHrozni]

May I have the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot?

As far as I know they're a Briton and a Frenchman. How is Iran to blame for their work again?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I don't think you can make that case. They primarily sponsor Hezbollah which is not really in the business of terrorism. They're content with their power base in Southern Lebanon, but they don't routinely cross the border with Israel to commit acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens. There were border skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah in the early 2000s; in one of them, Hezbollah managed to capture a handful of Israeli soldiers, which was the stated reason for the outbreak of the 2006 Lebanon war, but I'd not classify that as terrorism. They're also not in the business of sponsoring or committing terrorist acts worldwide.

Hamas is very much the same story; the only thing different is that they routine lob missiles from Gaza into Israel, which you may classify as terrorism. But at the moment, Iran doesn't even sponsor Hamas.

How would you classify it?

Also, Hamas disagrees about their relationship with Iran.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/02/hamas-iran-relations-support-military.html

The only exceptions that I can come up with to the above are an attack on a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires some 30 years ago which is strongly suspected to be the work of Hezbollah and Iran; and possibly Lockerbie, which would have been in retaliation to the USS Vincennes incident. But those are long ago, atypical and there are no more recent examples.

There was also a bus bombing in Bulgaria in 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing

When I go to the supermarket, I run the slight risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack by an ISIS fanboy or an AQ fanboy, but not in the slightest by an Iranian-sponsored terrorist.

I wouldn't be so sure, Iran is known to have ties to AQ and that includes 9/11 hijackers. They're not as loud about it as your typical Sunni crazies, but Iran is in bed with Sunni terror groups who are (allegedly) opposed to anything Shiite on the outside. Iran is a cynical state, a wannabe evil empire which can only do justice to the evil part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

McHrozni

 

[Antonio Coceri]

I am not sure it is true that Iran has had fewer terrorist incidents. I suspect there is a possibility that some lower-profile incidents simple never were reported by our media.

Any evidence that Iran is able to conceal incidents at home?

 

[theprestige]

I was kinda thinking that they would sort of gradually move from the current militant theocracy situation to the mostly powerless religious figurehead situation, but skip the enormous world empire part in the middle.

But hey, I've been wrong before. : blush :

I'm trying to think of a historical example. Do you know of any other militant theocracies than have followed the trajectory you describe?

And what would playing our cards right look like, anyway? Would it be distinguishable from letting them do whatever horrible thing they want, until it becomes intolerable? That's usually what happens with militant regimes. Even if they do eventually fade away, they do a lot of damage first.

Chamberlain was another who hoped things would get better on their own, if Europe just backed off and let the tyrants have their way.

 

[Oystein]

Any evidence that Iran is able to conceal incidents at home?

That's not what I asserted or even suggested.
I do not claim that Iran may have concealed incidents at home.
I claim that our media might not have reported such incidents, or so low on the backsides that it didn't register with the western public.

Note the conjunctive! I do not claim that more deadly terror incidents have happened - just that we might not know if there were any.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm trying to think of a historical example. Do you know of any other militant theocracies than have followed the trajectory you describe?

And what would playing our cards right look like, anyway? Would it be distinguishable from letting them do whatever horrible thing they want, until it becomes intolerable? That's usually what happens with militant regimes. Even if they do eventually fade away, they do a lot of damage first.

Chamberlain was another who hoped things would get better on their own, if Europe just backed off and let the tyrants have their way.

The Papal States followed an arc similar to the one described.

 

[Antonio Coceri]

That's not what I asserted or even suggested.
I do not claim that Iran may have concealed incidents at home.
I claim that our media might not have reported such incidents, or so low on the backsides that it didn't register with the western public.

Note the conjunctive! I do not claim that more deadly terror incidents have happened - just that we might not know if there were any.

Why would our media not report big incidents happening in Tehran?
A powerful lobby pro-Iran in the US?

 

[theprestige]

The Papal States followed an arc similar to the one described.

They were also never particularly militant. And they were always being squeezed and dominated by the other, greater, powers of Europe. No wonder they dwindled and faded over time. By the 1920s, they needed a fascist dictator just to restore their capital out of pure generosity.

Is that what you mean by "if we play our cards right"? If we hem in Iran on all sides? Annex its territories? Dominate its spiritual and temporal leaders? Pander to its faithful when it suits us? Do business with its primarchs when it profits us? Slowly but surely grind it down to nothing? And when it's gone, give them back Tehran as a figurehead-capital?

Sure, if Europe were do to Iran what it did to the Papal States, that might work. I doubt Europe has the stones to try it, though. They'd have to move fast, anyway: The Papal States didn't have an active nuke program.

 

[quadraginta]

You say this ...

Why would our media not report big incidents happening in Tehran?
A powerful lobby pro-Iran in the US?

Oystein said this ..

I am not sure it is true that Iran has had fewer terrorist incidents. I suspect there is a possibility that some lower-profile incidents simple never were reported by our media.

These two things are not the same.

 

[Oystein]

Why would our media not report big incidents happening in Tehran?
A powerful lobby pro-Iran in the US?

Strawman again - I do not claim big incidents may have gone unreported or unnoticed.

But here is a partial solution:
Apparently, there really weren't any previous terror incidents by ISIS in Iran but many foiled plans: PressTV quotes Iranian Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi as claiming: "This was not the first terrorist plot. Terrorists have tried to carry out more than 100 terrorist plots over the past two years, all of which have been thwarted".

 

[Minoosh]

Though neither side talks about it much, Iran and the U.S. have been limited military allies in several conflicts over the past 15 years.

As far as the idea that U.S. media would play this as a big story - no. There is the novelty aspect and that's about it. It's the exception rather than the rule for U.S. media to report on foreign incidences of terror unless they are in Western Europe.

As far as "state sponsors of terror": When I looked this up earlier this year, the only countries on the list were Iran, Syria and Sudan. Now I notice North Korea has been added back into the mix. Cuba was on the list for 13 years.

IMO, having looked this up on Wikipedia, it's a pretty politicized list. Iran wants to be on the list, IMO. It wouldn't be hard to promote terrorism without being a "state sponsor," because Saudi Arabia.

Khomeini's tomb is a Shia shrine essentially and Parliament would represent the "Western" or secular aspects of Iran's government, so that may be the reason for the chosen targets.