Four gunmen in military uniforms aligned with a separatist group attacked a military parade on Saturday in the Iranian city of Ahvaz. The gunmen opened fire on civilians, and tried to shoot officers on the podium overseeing the event.
At least 29 people were killed in the attack, some as young as four years old. Over 60 others were wounded in the attack. Iran reported two of the gunmen were killed and two of them were captured.
ISIS claimed credit for the attack, which was followed by a group called the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz claiming they were actually behind it. The ISIS claim was likely false, as they claimed to have tried to assassinate Hassan Rouhani, who was not even there.
The struggle movement is an Arab separatist group that wants to make southwestern Iran an independent, Arab-dominated nation. Iranian officials were quick to complain about Gulf Arab states backing such groups.
In addition, Iran summoned the ambassadors of Denmark, Britain, and the Netherlands after the attack, complaining that the nations are hosting members of the separatist groups, and pushing for them to list the organization as a terrorist group after the attack.
An initial statement from the Iranian military blamed the US and Israel for orchestrating the attack, though subsequent statements focused on the Arab separatist movements, and regional nations who sponsor them.
“Separatist”….
No neocon would dare call them “terrorists”
All I want to know is: how much does it cost US to support this new separatist proxy? And how much Israel pays (as that is alo our money).
It’s not “our” money at all. Americans do not own or control Federal Reserve Notes. They are a product of the principal banks which also comprise the Bank of England. Americans borrow those notes and force them to be circulated as legal tender among the population. That is why the American federal government is 20 Trillion in debt, and all US state and municipal, corporate and personal debts exceed 100 Trillion.
It is not Anerican Federal government, US state, municipal and corporate debt. It us OUR debt, thus OUR money. Fed and other such creatures around the globe are PRIVATELY OWNED, and the costume they put on to make it look like it us not their private pocket — is asyounding. Yet, people pay and pay and pay. History repeats itself. Frim Venice onward. When Fed, corporations and others cannot repay to their slave owners, the result is either more debt load to public through bailouts, restructuring lisns, refinancing. Or if not, debtors forfit assets and other valuables, employed are on streets, and money sucked out by the private pockets is only a cherry on the cake, as they have already collected on that same debt many times over. But our political class is captive to the system, incapable to change it, or not even conceiving a possible alternative.
So yes, every such approval of meddling anywhere, is just mire money sucking out of the debtor, before lowering the boom. Ordinary people cannot avoid the consequences, unless we start campaigning against such waste, and find a way to punish and scare off profigate spenders and their money suppliers.
It is our debt, but not our money. The American government only decides how its borrowings are spent, but the Federal Reserve can print money debt-free and distribute it to anyone it pleases also.
My first guess would be MEK-Giuliani and Bolton seem to be supporters of this terrorist group.
Just anouther terrorist group intent on destabilizing the region. Most are funded by Saudi Arabians and equipped and trained by Americans/Israelis.
Separatists? No. That’s the US-Israel line.
>Trump tweet Jul 22:
“To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
>Zarif tweet Sep 22
Terrorists recruited, trained, armed & paid by a foreign regime have attacked Ahvaz. Children and journos among casualties. Iran holds regional terror sponsors and their US masters accountable for such attacks. Iran will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of Iranian lives.
ADDED: The report Saturday described the gunmen as “Takifiri gunmen” . .Takfirism is mostly rooted in Wahhabism, the official religion of the absolute autocratic regime of Saudi Arabia, the US best friend in the Arab Middle East.
Iran is 61% Persian, 2% Arab, and the SW of the country is where all the oil wealth is. No one in their right mind would believe that a wealthy new Arab country can be carved out of Iran. Yet nations with money to burn and an axe to grind with Iran might well see such crazy people as useful tools to weaken a country they have zero interest in getting along with. The Saudis, Israel and/or the US are all very likely to be the sponsors of these terrorists. Whoever sponsored them, this is yet another wake-up-call about US actions and the actions of our allies, who in theory are all working together to fight terrorism.
. . .from reuters
Rouhani says Iran ready to confront U.S. after military parade attack
Terrorists not separatists….Fix your column!
How do you conclude they are separatists?!!! Just because their phony name resembles it doesn’t mean they are…
. . .from mee:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said that U.S. sanctions on Iran are leading to economic pain that could lead to a “successful revolution,” contrasting with administration comments that government change in Tehran is not U.S. policy.
“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them,” said Giuliani, who spoke in his own capacity though he is a Trump ally, at an Iran Uprising Summit held by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, which opposes Tehran’s government. here
Not separatists–terrorists.
Separatism is a goal. Terrorism is a tactic.
Al-Ahvaziya’s goals are separatist.
Al-Ahvaziya’s tactics may in some cases be terrorist, although this does not seem to have been a terrorist action (terrorism is the targeting of civilian non-combatants for the purpose of creating terror to exert political pressure — a military parade is a legitimate military target).
Gonna help with a complicated definition. Terrorism is both a tactic, and, a form of war. As a tactic, it covers a broad field, from dropping a nuke on Hiroshima, to an abuser threatening an abused, to the burning of the Reichstag. The goal is pretty obvious, tho, the perps may not be. As a form of war, terrorism is quite different. The four forms….terrorism, guerilla, conventional, nuclear. The nuclear form is unique, and doesn’t quite fit with the preceding three, mostly, and contains within it, terror as a tactic. The threat. I wont include that the US, using depleted uranium all over the ME, could be included as “nuclear war”. The other three are about numbers…as forms, successful terrorism brings enough recruits to establish guerilla units, whose success brings a conventional engagement. A successful terror form, attacks local enemy police, and army, or collaborating political leaders (assassination). Like every military action, survival is part of success. A suicidal attack is not likely led by a real group using terrorism as a form. Further, partisan terrorists would avoid civilian deaths at all costs, as recruitment of numbers would be blunted. The goal, kill only enemies and get away, thereby getting the locals to consider the same. Not really enough information on this attack, tho, the deaths of the attackers points to some false flag terror attack. Far better to capture them for information.
We agree that it’s a tactic. But perhaps you didn’t read Mr. Ditz’s article when it reads:
“The gunmen opened fire on civilians, and tried to shoot officers on the podium overseeing the event.”
By universal definition, this was an act of terror
Only if by “by universal definition” you mean “because I say so.”
Do you have any information to suggest that the civilians, rather than the military personnel, were the intended targets? That’s one of two elements that determine whether or not it was terrorism.
They used terrorism as their tactic, making them terrorists. Most of the Palestinian violent resistance has separatism as a goal but use terrorism as a tactic. Why do the US and Israel call them terrorists, then?
Now you are just reaching for the next available tree branch. You ignored a direct quote from the article. Also, I suppose the 4 year old that got killed just took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, eh doc?
I am aware of the distinction between separatism and terrorism. But had something similar happened in our country, they’d be labelled as terrorists.
And that labeling would be false — as I’ve pointed out vis a vis the Fort Hood attack, the attacks on military recruiting offices, etc.
Words mean things.
The subtext of my point is that we have no right to arrogate to ourselves the exclusive use of that word. We go putting the terrorist label on whom we pleases (to avoid serious discussion about a situation).
There is a reason attacks on the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan were not done by “partisans”, the US public considers “partisans” the good guys. Goebbels too, eliminated the German equivalent in WW2 in favor of “terrorists” in news reports. US bombs always fall on “terrorists” dont you know. Not that we have smart bombs, or smart Intel, what we have is clever propaganda.
Making the attack on Pearl Harbor a valid military action and not dastardly.
There is no evidence, or statements by Iran’s leaders, that Al-Ahvaziya was involved. And even if the four perps came from that organization, Iran’s leaders are saying that the US and its Gulf allies were in on this attack, which was terrorism because it is violence against citizens with a political goal. The US has been conducting hot and cold war against Iran for decades, and is stepping up its threats, so there is no doubt that this was a US operation, and not one by tiny Al-Ahvaziya.
Statements that this was a “separatist” act fall right into the desired US propaganda strategy.
terrorism — targeting of civilian non-combatants
No.
There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism. There are two definitions in US law that I’m aware of.
>28 CFR 0.85 – General functions. (FBI)
Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
>22 U.S. Code § 2656f – Annual country reports on terrorism — the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
NOTE: dictionary definition of noncombatant: — a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war
Nice try.
Not separatists–terrorists.
Correct
Oh is that what they were – Separatists? Looked like TERRORISM to me. Kind of like the Afghan FREEDOM FIGHTERS when they were trying to evict the Soviets, but then morphed into TERRORISTS when they were trying to evict the US. Can anyone come up with a valid reason to squander one more American life in Afghanistan? When the Soviets were there, we hit them with an Olympics Boycott and a Grain Embargo.
The use of the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” is a political term, the same as racism or anti-semitism or islamophobia.