The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard threatend to retaliate against the United States and Britain following a
suicide bombing that killed 42 people, including 6 commanders of the Guards.
Media reports out of Iran say a Sunni Muslim group called Jundollah claimed responsibility for Sunday's attack in Sistan-Baluchestan province. But Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iranian security officials have documents indicating "direct ties" from Jundollah to U.S., British and, "unfortunately," Pakistani intelligence organizations, the ISNA news agency said.
"Behind this scene are the American and British intelligence apparatus, and there will have to be retaliatory measures to punish them," Jafari said.
The U.S., Britain and Pakistan have all condemned the bombing, and denied any involvement.
"We reject in the strongest terms any assertion that this attack has anything to do with Britain," said a spokeswoman at Britain's Foreign Office. "Terrorism is abhorrent wherever it occurs."
But Iran doesn't believe it. General Mohammad Pakpour, commander of the Guards' ground forces, said on Iranian television, "The base of the terrorists and rebels has not been in Iran. They are trained by America and Britain in some of the neighboring countries."
Jundollah says it is fighting to end discrimination against Sunni Muslims by Iran's dominant Shi'ites. Jundollah operates out of a Sunni area in Iran along the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its leader is Abdolmalek Rigi.
"This person himself and his plans are undoubtedly under the umbrella and the protection of these (U.S., British and Pakistani) organizations," Jafari said.
The incident is threatening to raise tensions at meetings in Vienna Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program. Analysts also fear the bombing will be used an an excuse to further clamp down on moderates opponents of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
NEWS:Iran Threatens U.S. After Suicide Bombing Kills 42
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
War on the horizon.
I wonder how liberals will try to pin /this/ on Bush like everything else Obama mucks up.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 5:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you should apply
With your lack of intelligence you would fit in the Obama camp... maybe as script writer!
- dingo1 October 19, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh, it's you.
Your attempt to goad me into a confrontation have failed.
Do you have any relevant commentary on the topic?
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What me Warry?
You think we are actually behind this?
- Submariner October 19, 2009 5:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No. I do not.
I think that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is behind this.
I meant what I said, not what you seem to read into it.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 5:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
um
Look, I know you don't like me, and all that. But you specifically brough us into this naming not one, but two US Presidents.
"Reading into" has a connotation different from "reading", which is what I was doing...
- Submariner October 19, 2009 8:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You fail to see the forest due to the trees.
I know you cannot help it, though.
You are wrong to think I do not like you, it is your anti-social, hostile, and insulting attitude that I despise.
P.S. I will stop replying to you in this thread the first time you insult or degrade me. So, if you want to converse, be on point.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 8:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jeesh.
If I can't be hostile, insulting and anti-social on the internet , where can I?
:P
So what forest? Hopefully no one with any credibility would run out and take responsibility for terrorism for the US by blaiming Bush.
But, given our history, I think we should not blind ourself to potential undue western influence.
There's a big difference between a previous information asset, and a paid black ops insurgent, of course.
- Submariner October 19, 2009 8:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Touche :P
Like MrBook did, you misunderstood my statement. This is because I left a little room for misunderstanding, and you found it.
Let me rephrase:
I wonder how liberals will try to pin /this/ on Bush [also, just] like [how he gets blamed for] everything else Obama mucks up.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 10:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
have you noticed...
sanitarynapkin is always correct and every one else is wrong?
And if you prove him wrong then you're an as-hole!
- dingo1 October 20, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Update.
There was a very good report on NPR today about the Revolutionary Guard.
Apparently these guys do not answer to the government , really. They are like the Fed and the Mob combined with a paramilitary organization. They are seriously into all parts of the economy and apparently we are tailoring sanctions to weaken this strange group.
I suppose that makes them as likely suspects as any, though it would surprise me little to learn Jundullah was being supported by the West.
Anyway, how screwed is Iran? They got these stooges, Ayatollah's, and I'm-mad-and-I-did-a-job coming at them from 3 directions.
Ah, mighty Persia, as good as gone as ever...
- Submariner October 20, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do you agree
With folks like Dr. Paul who feel that the rhetoric coming from the W.H. concerning Iran seems oddly familiar to the rhetoric which preceded our mission creep into Iraq?
(And no, I don't mean Dubya when I say "mission creep"... It is just an unintended pun)
- SolarSanitizer
October 20, 2009 7:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Same but different
Hopefully there's no Ambassador/CIA agent/W.H. Stooge conspiracy involved.
More hopefully, I hope there's no undue pressure on our intelligence communities to market a war .
But yes, I suspect there is some agenda behind the coverage here and there.
- Submariner October 21, 2009 12:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Does nationbuilding by any other name smell as sweet?
The stage is being set. The ball is rolling.
I might have my tinfoil hat on a little too tight here, but I think we will go to a war in Iran under Obama's watch. Likely in term 1.
I think this because the tensions are rising at a breakneck pace, we are told that their government is invalid, they are ramping up nuclear weapon production... In fact, everything I read in the media suggests that we are supposed to fear Iran more and more and they 'must be stopped'.
The beat of the war drum is increasing in tempo.
- SolarSanitizer
October 21, 2009 12:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
muck up
How is this a 'muck up' by President Obama?
Does he have control over what the Jundollah does?
- MrBook
October 19, 2009 6:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't know... Does he?
It doesn't matter if I think Obama did or didn't.
I guess I should have added to my statement to prevent it from being twisted. Seems like I have to account for every possible misinterpretation.
"I wonder how liberals will try to pin /this/ on Bush [also, just] like [how he gets blamed for] everything else Obama mucks up."
So, when I see liberals blame Bush for this snafu, I'll let you know.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 6:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
clarity
Yes that is much clearer... your original wording seemed to indicate that the bombing was the result of an action/inaction by President Obama.
- MrBook
October 19, 2009 6:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I guess I assume that
If it sounds right in my head, everyone else will understand it.
How dare you all not think how I think. =)
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 6:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
easier
It would be a great deal easier then wouldn't it ;-)
- MrBook
October 19, 2009 7:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is interesting...
As a side note, it is interesting how two liberals have found a way to misconstrue my statement, but both have refused to deny the charge.
Very interesting....
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 6:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
charge!
It seems like an easy mistake to make when you consider your original statement.
"I wonder how liberals will try to pin /this/ on Bush like everything else Obama mucks up."
/this/ can be read in context as 'the bombing' which is what the article is about.
'Obama mucks up' implies that President Obama was involved and that through a mistake caused the bombing.
So far no liberals have blamed President Bush for the bombing, so there is no charge to deny...
- MrBook
October 19, 2009 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Until now.
And the usual suspect: Democratic Underground.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6810212
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You realize
Someone somewhere is using you first post as an example of right-wing-nut-jobbery. My point is, you can always find an assinine claim from somewhere on the internet . That does not change the fact that you brought the US into this.
Seriously, though, why do you think the Iranian's would be behind this Jundullah group? They seem more than happy to make wild accusations and threats without killing their own people, or killing their own people for causes a lot less controversial than CIA funded insurgents (to the Middle East, that is). Why would they go to this trouble?
- Submariner October 19, 2009 8:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who knows?
That is not what I was talking about. It is not really nut-jobbery when it is going on.
Do you deny, then, that you liberals try to blame Obama's failures on Bush? Try to stay on point.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
OMG, talking about begging the question...
It seemed like a simple question.
If we were involved, it would predate Obama, so it would be calender definition involve the Bush regime.
But you clearly suggested Obama mucked something up, as if you assumed the west was involved.
- Submariner October 19, 2009 8:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I let my suspicions get the better of me.
I would not be at all surprised if Obama's administration had a hand in this, no. This is because I do not trust Obama. I have read and heard too many lies and distortions from the man. Once bitten.
(BAM! a vampire joke! )
(And you thought I didn't)
( pay attention :P )
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tee hee
A vampires, so frequent an apt metaphor.
Newt Gingrich was once asked why we should trust politicians: "You shouldn't. You should watch us like hawks."
As a young buck, I was impressed by this show of candor. It restated the idea the framers frequently voiced about balance of power being necessary because successful politicians are by necessity ambitious men. And I guess it reflected a rugged individualist response to modern representative democracy .
That was last millennia though. I think this reverse psychology marketing a lot of conservative politicians rely on has come home to roost in a lot of bad ways.
For one, why pay these guys if we can't trust them? I mean, is it so hard to isolate 0.0002% of the population that can be trusted, and that we could expect to avoid undue influence, conflict of interest, and general apathy? Why should we accept this state?
And also, if the government just did what the people expected it to, without regard for campaigns, lobbies, and public/private complexes, it could probably do a better job than any other institution. And if so, why wouldn't we want such a government?
Distrust should not be an option. It is regretable things have gotten this far out of hand.
- Submariner October 20, 2009 4:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think that we are being duped.
Particularly by the 2 party system. We are roughly split down the middle. In thirds might be more accurate. but still split into smaller, easier to control chunks.
But... What is the remedy? They have the power and control. They own the media .
- SolarSanitizer
October 20, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.