Islamist militants strike heart of Tehran, Iran blames Saudis

I did not move goalposts we simply see it in a diffrent way.

You pin countries and organizations,"this org is a threat to be dealt with and that one is'nt", my whole point was its a culture issue that allowed this kind of fanatics who use this kind of terror and cultures go across countries and across organization, to be more specific:
Israel battles terror from several sources, generaly speaking the Palestinian resistance is not a death cult I was refering to, the Hamas are.
Hizbi is not a death cult but they do support it when 13 y kids become Shahids - and dont try to tell a 13 y old knows anything more that what is being told to him.
Those terrorists that attacked Iran were Iranians, they didnt come from Saudia or Syria, they grew up worshipping this death cult. so were European terrorists mostly European raised citizens, the mutual to all of them is the cult.

 

I do not think there is anything in your post I disagree with.

This post however, does not address the central point being discussed previously.

 

That's Iraq, not sure it even touches Syria, maybe they should play footsy and try to reach us

 

Not overtly, no.

But like the US and the stuxnet virus, covertly, behind the scenes, with support for mercenaries.

 

The concept of martyrdom is actually much stronger in Shia Islam than Sunni Islam. But unlike Sunni Islam, which has strains and elements which aspire to an Islamic caliphate and recruit people to fight for such causes, the martyrdom promoted under Shia Islam is not about spreading Islam but standing up to oppressive rulers. Hence, even if this cultural issue was significant in understanding the threat posed by terrorism against US and Europe, it wouldn't paint the threat at all similarly when it comes to Shia versus Sunni movements. It would rather better explain the success of groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere being able to recruit fighters who are willing to stand up to oppression and die for the cause against Israel, while it would also point to the difference with groups such as Al Queda and ISIS and others whose focus isn't fighting oppressive rulers but carrying out the kind of attacks they have carried out in Europe and North America.

But, of course, whenever an Israeli partisan posts anything on these subjects, two things must be borne in mind. First, the Israelis have been rather blunt and open about the fact that they view Hezbollah/Iran as their primary threat and would like the West to focus on their enemies (Hezbollah/Iran) and not so much on ISIS and company. Second, and this is what I genuinely dislike about the "contributions" of Israeli partisans to debates on political, historical and social issues in the region: pro Israeli groups, knowing that no matter how and what tradition you focus on (western-democratic, secular, islamist, etc), that an honest account of issues won't make their actions look any better, have perfected the art of creating false realities relying on lies and propaganda. Wahhabi Arabia is trying to imitate their tactics, but honestly they have a long way to go to be as effective!

As for those who carried out the terrorist attacks in Iran, indications are they were Arabic speaking, sunni, Iranian nationals. In this regard, roughly 9% of Iran's population are Sunni, most of them Baluchis, Kurds and some of Iran's Arab minority, mostly living in Iran's impoverished regions in the periphery. While most of them aren't all that politicized, and most of those who are politicized, often belong to non-sectarian or even previously leftist or Marxist groups, a lot of Wahhabi money has been pouring into these regions of Iran looking for recruits and trying to peddle ridiculous propaganda. In the process, there may be a few hundred deranged souls who have been recruited to the Wahhabi cause under various flags. A few of these souls have even joined ISIS and those who carried out these attacks seem to have been among them.

 

What would KSA have to gain with the Baluchi or Iran? The honest answer is NOTHING. You are fixated on Wahhabis, but you have never lived in KSA.

Why would Iranian leadership with its rich Persian history have such an inferiority complex and belligerent stance. Why not focus on Iran and NOT the neighbors?

 

"Not overtly"? OK give me an example of covert Saudi attacks on Iran. Your accusation is pure fiction. What are you trying to justify?

 

I can post reports which clearly outline the financial and other assistance given by Wahhabi Arabia to these terrorist groups, but what good does that do? You will simply ignore the reports and post some comment that is irrelevant or merely denies the obvious.

In the meantime, though, Wahhabi Arabia has been rather brazen about its policies with leading Saudi officials even attending rallies held by the terrorist group, MEK. MEK a cult like group which has carried out many terrorist attacks in Iran in the past. Thanks to the Israelis and the Saudis, and their neocon allies and their lobbying, the group (and its assorted umbrella organizations such as the so-called "National Council of Resistance" is no longer treated in the US and other places as the terrorists they are. Still, even "Voice of America" couldn't help find Wahhabi Arabia's open embrace of the MEK as rather shocking.

https://blogs.voanews.com/us-opinio...anian-exile-group-inflames-mideast-conflicts/
Saudi Backing of Iranian Exile Group Inflames Mideast Conflicts

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopo...plot-iran-spells-trouble-chinas-new-silk-road

 

What you call evidence is simply speculation..

The People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, more commonly known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq or MEK, is a controversial Iranian resistance group; it was once listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States for its alleged killing of U.S. personnel in Iran during the 1970s, and for its ties to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Recognizing the group’s rejection of violence, the State Department delisted the MEK in late 2012 but voiced ongoing concerns about its alleged mistreatment of its members.

The MEK helped Islamists overthrow the Western-backed Shah in 1979, but broke violently with the clerics shortly after the revolution and were forced into exile in France in 1981. The group moved its base of operations to eastern Iraq in 1986, but in recent years the pro-Iranian government of Nouri al-Maliki has pushed for the exiled group to relocate. In mid-2014, some 3,000 MEK members resided at Camp Hurriya (Liberty) near Baghdad, awaiting resettlement to third countries.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mujahadeen-e-khalq-mek



Experts say MEK’s ideology—initially a blend of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism—as well as its popular support in the initial post-revolutionary period put it at odds with the new clerical regime, which cracked down violently on the potential political rival.

The mullahs arrested and executed thousands of Mujahedeen, who retaliated by assassinating dozens of senior government officials, including the president and prime minister in August 1981, according to the U.S. State Department. The month prior, Rajavi established in Tehran the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), also known as the MEK’s "parliament in exile," but he and the group’s leadership were quickly driven into exile in Paris.

(Your understanding is extremely shallow.)

 

ARAMCO and the Saudis have known about the resources in Baluchistan since the 1960s, but until recently there wasn't enough MARKET for those resources. The Chinese built Port Gwadar while Bush was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.. which actually makes since Afghanistan shares a border with China. ..

The Saudis don't want to control Gwadar... If China can make it work.. and it appears that they can, other countries will find it useful.

 

I'm pretty sure the Syrians fighting Assad and Sunni joining Daesh also have oppresion stories of their own and the facts are the war there goes on so they sure do have recruits of their own,
Standing up to oppression is gallant really but how is handing out candies in the street when a Shahid blew a bus full of civilians "standing up to oppression" ? and when you define our very existance as oppresion regardless of 2 states - how is that "defensive"?, now your public was raised on such messeges since birth and among the less educated I expect this death cult culture spread, now they each have their own goals it makes no diffrence.

Well the only reason Israel view Hezbollah/Iran as a primary threat is because Hezbollah/Iran declared Israel needs to be destroyed, Im no expert but to me it sounds hostile.
I didnt suggest to focus on Hiz/Iran and leave Daesh nor did I ever hear any Israeli official suggesting it, I do think Hiz needs to be included in sanctions like other terror org because it uses same tactics, regard Iran I really dont know the threat level they pose on us but Ill take the word of our experts on that.

You have to be specific, what malicous venemous schem did I conjur here ?

And you can bet they felt oppressed and were sure they are going to Heaven, most probebly visited some "holy man" that assured them on their path, if that holyman has other agendas to promote with other terrorists than its not just a culture but a buisness.

 

Margot, No surprise. You came up with some irrelevant comments to divert the issue. The MEK is a group that, no matter how you slice it, has little support within Iran, particularly after siding with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war and fighting alongside the enemy; has committed terrorist attacks in Iran in the past; and is committed to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government through support of foreign actors. And Wahhabi Arabia took their policy of covert funding and support for this group out in the open, sending one of their best known diplomats to attend their most recent conference and rally.

 

MEK has NOTHING to do with Arabia or Wahhabi.. a lot of them are living in exile in Europe and the US. In fact, they sent Trump a letter immediately after the election because I posted it here.

 

Margot2,
But you know the principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Since ever since the ancient times, the most irresistible "alliances" and connections!

 

The MEK has nothing to do with Wahhabi ideology. True. But it is one of the terrorist groups whose funding comes largely from Wahhabi Arabia (aka Saudi Arabia) . It is a group that Wahhabi Arabia has more or less supported openly these days, while it used to be more covert in its support for the group after they lost their last patron, namely Saddam.

 

And so I wonder of these world wide terrorists, do they worship God, or do they suppose that God should worship them? Otherwise, who would say, "I will murder the innocent and rape the pure, and God will bless me", if they do not command God?

 

MEK would be a liability to Saudi Arabia.

 

Hey that could have happened to a nicer country!

 

Tell that to your Saudi friends!

MEK conference attended by Faisal.

 

No "hug thy enemy" messages from Ayatollahs. Iranian deputies chant "death to America" after the attack on the Parliament.

https://twitter.com/potkazar/status/872442124930830337

Nice.

I've noticed one major difference between the discussion about the attack in Tehran and any other discussion on any other terror attack in any other country: no allegations of false flag attack for this one. Seems a bit weird.

I've also noticed that what's sauce for the Russian goose is not sauce for the American gander. Every Assad supporter out there claims that Russians had every right to interfere in Syria because they help the legitimate ruler of the country. But when it comes to the US helping the legitimate ruler of Iran - the shah - against the machinations of Mossadegh who forced him into exile, the whole "interference for the sake of the legitimate ruler" argument mysteriously vanish. And no, Mossadegh was not at the time the legitimate democratically elected prime minister of Iran, not after he cancelled the parliamentary elections and was appointed directly by the shah.

 

I have never understood the argument on this issue.

Both countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran have vastly different moral compass' than we do in America and most of The West. They both do things that we see as immoral and wrong, but hopefully Iraq has taught us that our government doesn't work for everyone, it sucks that there is suffering in the world but often times we cannot do anything about it.

Between two countries who definitely have interesting value systems, I will chose the one who is welcoming and taking picture and all kinds of things with our President vs. the country who's president goes on national TV and chants "Death to America"

But for those people that try to argue one side is worse than the other, you get the Jay Cutler response.....

.....doooonnn't CAAAAAAAAAARREEE!

 

No, they worship Allah.

 

Hah, yeah....Allah the bottomless pit.

 

It's covert--how am I supposed to know any details?

What the spooks do is their business only, not mine.

But I have no doubt at all their many shenanigans are legendary and true.

 

While Mossadegh was elected to the Majles (the Iranian Parliament) by democratic means (Iran at the time was not a democracy by any means, though some aspects of it were democratic in nature), the office of Prime Minister was nominated from amongst the Majles deputies by the Shah. In turn, the Majles members either voted for or against the nomination (In his initial appointment Mossadegh was approved by a tally of 79-12).

Mossadegh enjoyed massive popularity at different times during his political career, but his position as Prime Minister was never due to a nationwide poll (he was PM on two separate occasions).

This is not to say Mossadegh’s position was not legitimate. He was chosen by his constituency to be a Majles deputy, this is indisputable. He was not however, chosen by the Iranian people to be Prime Minister.

This also does not account for the fact that the Majles was mostly comprised of feudal landowners, intrinsically opposed to Mossadegh and his populism. Before Mossadegh became Prime Minister, the Iranian public was unhappy with the state of affairs in Iran; Mossadegh with his sincere populism was seen by the Shah as a clever alternative to yet another feudal landowner or military officer.

continued

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/six-myths-about-the-coup-against-irans-mossadegh-11173