Reported ISIL attacks on Iranian Parliament

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

ISIL attacks in Tehran

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/07/iran-attacks-isis-claims-responsibility-for-pair-raids-in-tehran.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/attacks-reported-iran-parliament-mausoleum-170607063232218.html

Gunmen attack Iran's parliament, Khomeini shrine
Several killed in attacks on parliament and Mausoleum of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran, as ISIL claims responsibility.

Gunmen and suicide bombers have attacked Iran's parliament in central Tehran and the Mausoleum of Ayatollah Khomeini in south of the city, killing several people.

Four armed assailants attacked parliament office buildings on Wednesday morning, while the shrine of revolutionary founder Ruhollah Khomeini was struck by a female suicide bomber, state media reported.

One of the attackers on Iran's parliament complex blew himself up on the fourth floor amid an ongoing siege, state broadcaster IRIB reported.

Lawmaker Elias Hazrati told state television that three attackers, one with a pistol and two with AK-47 assault rifles, raided office buildings at the parliament complex.

Footage showing that terrorists are surrounded in #Iran's parliament & security forces are there.#Tehran #TehranAttack @AbasAslani pic.twitter.com/Pz3TeUDUSI
— Global News (@GlobalZarfati) June 7, 2017

ISNA news agency quoted a member of the parliament as saying that all the parliament doors were shut and access to the complex was sealed by police.

"There is panic going through the streets of the capital right now because of the attacks. There is chaos inside the parliament," Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons said.

"It is very likely that these attacks were coordinated. It's hardly a coincidence that it happened within minutes of each other."
ISIL claim

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group claimed responsibility for the attacks via its online forum.

"Fighters from the Islamic State (ISIL) attacked the Khomeini mausoleum and the parliament building in Tehran," the Amaq agency said, citing a "security source".

ISIL later posted a video which showed what it claims is footage from inside the parliament building where a wounded man is seen on the floor bleeding.

It marks the first major attack of the group inside Iran.

The attack on the shrine of Khomeini is symbolically stunning. As Iran's first Supreme Leader, Khomeini is a towering figure in the country and was its revolutionary leader in the 1979 ouster of the shah.

**jhe90**

They had enough enemies already they wanted more?

I'm sure the Iranians are known for peace, tolerance and being a push over...

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

jhe90 wrote:
I'm sure the Iranians are known for peace, tolerance and being a push over...

Well, I'm not sure they are any more ruthless than the US. But they likely have more direct influence on the region. Because they aren't trying to control it from one or two continents away…

**Easy E**

Iran was all ready involved in the anti-ISIL operations so this will change nothing on that score.

**jhe90**

Iran can if it wants probbly exert at a fairly good softer leverage on things in some nations and circumstances..

If they wanted to hurt ISIS,they could

**Easy E**

In my mind, it is just brining us one second closer on the Sunni/Shia world war Doomsday Clock.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
In my mind, it is just brining us one second closer on the Sunni/Shia world war Doomsday Clock.

"So the old Ottoman vs. Persian play eh? Sounds like an opportunity for...empire muahahahah"
-Julio Cesar

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
In my mind, it is just brining us one second closer on the Sunni/Shia world war Doomsday Clock.

From ISIS perspective... pretty much.

From Iran's perspective... they'd be like "WTF dude!?!?!".

This, and the whole Qatar ordeal... ain't no picnic in that region of the world.

**Easy E**

I am curious why the Iranians would be WTF Dude??

I thought they and their allies were involved fighting ISIL in Syria, and not on ISIL's side. It was my understanding ISIL was mostly Sunni extremists and not Shia extremists.

I have been mistaken many times in the past though.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Nah you were right, they mostly support Assad.

**Ouze**

Iran is blaming Saudi Arabia for the attack.

Man, things have really escalated over there in the last few days.

**Prestor Jon**

Ouze wrote:
Iran is blaming Saudi Arabia for the attack.

Man, things have really escalated over there in the last few days.

I think the region is still reeling from the Arab spring and the power vacuums that were created. There is more opportunity to expand your country's sphere of influence in the ME than ever before because of the current instability and that is the kind of crisis that regional powers like KSA(Sunni) and Iran (Shia) aren't going to let go to waste. The bigger the threat they can paint each other as being the better excuse they have to start taking control of more parts of the ME to protect themselves and the Sunni or Shia muslims in the area that are their constituents/supporters.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

**jhe90**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Iran is blaming Saudi Arabia for the attack.

Man, things have really escalated over there in the last few days.

I think the region is still reeling from the Arab spring and the power vacuums that were created. There is more opportunity to expand your country's sphere of influence in the ME than ever before because of the current instability and that is the kind of crisis that regional powers like KSA(Sunni) and Iran (Shia) aren't going to let go to waste. The bigger the threat they can paint each other as being the better excuse they have to start taking control of more parts of the ME to protect themselves and the Sunni or Shia muslims in the area that are their constituents/supporters.

Yeah, 2-3 countries are war zones, many border at least one of those.
That's not even counting the Arab spring had a impact on everyone, every country has had to deal with some o
Form of response because of it.

There's alsot of power and money up for grabs there.
Men love power... So the games begin.

**sebster**

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think the region is still reeling from the Arab spring and the power vacuums that were created.

And also the invasion of Iraq that toppled a government and failed to put anything stable in its place might just possibly be part of the issue.

There is more opportunity to expand your country's sphere of influence in the ME than ever before because of the current instability and that is the kind of crisis that regional powers like KSA(Sunni) and Iran (Shia) aren't going to let go to waste.

Sort of. One key thing to remember here is that Iran is way, way outnumbered. There are less majority Shia countries, and what Shia countries there are are minnows or basket cases. Iran has a huge stake in establishing a Shia Iraq because without it they're effectively isolated in the region. This doesn't excuse Iranian operations, of course, the groups they've funded have been pretty much all very bad dudes, but it does give context to what they're doing and why.

Effectively the Saudis are acting to exploit instability to become the dominant regional power, while the Iranians are acting to ensure there remains some kind of regional balance that doesn't leave them completely isolated.

**tneva82**

Easy E wrote:
I am curious why the Iranians would be WTF Dude??

I thought they and their allies were involved fighting ISIL in Syria, and not on ISIL's side. It was my understanding ISIL was mostly Sunni extremists and not Shia extremists.

I have been mistaken many times in the past though.

Yeah they are involved allright. ISIS and Iran are pretty much mortal enemies with ISIS claiming Iran are heretics. No "WTF Dude?" when getting attacked by group you are at war with.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

jhe90 wrote:
They had enough enemies already they wanted more?

Yes. They're a death cult who want to bring about the apocalypse. The more enemies the merrier, as far as ISIL are conserved.

**Grey Templar**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
They had enough enemies already they wanted more?

Yes. They're a death cult who want to bring about the apocalypse. The more enemies the merrier, as far as ISIL are conserved.

Can we finally just give them what they want? Roll over them with some thunder, wipe them out, and carry on.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Grey Templar wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
They had enough enemies already they wanted more?

Yes. They're a death cult who want to bring about the apocalypse. The more enemies the merrier, as far as ISIL are conserved.

Can we finally just give them what they want? Roll over them with some thunder, wipe them out, and carry on.

Problem is, the inevitable collateral damage incurred in the process of wiping them out helps to radicalise new generations of extremists. An Iraqi or Syrian civilian trapped in Mosul cares not that an American bomb was aimed at an ISIL position, they just care that it blew up their children, spouse, cousins, friends, neighbours etc.

ISIL wants to push the narrative that the West is waging a Crusade on Islam. We need to be careful not to reinforce that narrative.

**Grey Templar**

Seems like their narrative gets reinforced no matter what we do. So we might as well do something proactive.

**Kovnik Obama**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
They had enough enemies already they wanted more?

Yes. They're a death cult who want to bring about the apocalypse. The more enemies the merrier, as far as ISIL are conserved.

Can we finally just give them what they want? Roll over them with some thunder, wipe them out, and carry on.

Problem is, the inevitable collateral damage incurred in the process of wiping them out helps to radicalise new generations of extremists. An Iraqi or Syrian civilian trapped in Mosul cares not that an American bomb was aimed at an ISIL position, they just care that it blew up their children, spouse, cousins, friends, neighbours etc.

ISIL wants to push the narrative that the West is waging a Crusade on Islam. We need to be careful not to reinforce that narrative.

I think the problem is how we perceive the conflict, on any side of the western political spectrum. In the age of instant information, of social apathy, it will always be possible for a powerful agency to radicalize members of the "enemy" population. That's not specific to radical Islamist sects. Russia's done it to a point in the Cold War, for example (hell, they might still be doing it with the IFCE).

Weither or not we act, and if we do, by negociation or by force, we will still face these "just terror" attacks (ugh, horrible name). They are part of the new paradigm of modern warfare/politics. But hey, at least its not grey goo events yet!

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
They had enough enemies already they wanted more?

Yes. They're a death cult who want to bring about the apocalypse. The more enemies the merrier, as far as ISIL are conserved.

Can we finally just give them what they want? Roll over them with some thunder, wipe them out, and carry on.

Problem is, the inevitable collateral damage incurred in the process of wiping them out helps to radicalise new generations of extremists. An Iraqi or Syrian civilian trapped in Mosul cares not that an American bomb was aimed at an ISIL position, they just care that it blew up their children, spouse, cousins, friends, neighbours etc.

ISIL wants to push the narrative that the West is waging a Crusade on Islam. We need to be careful not to reinforce that narrative.

Agreed, and that's even assuming we'd know who to bomb in the first place.

Grey Templar wrote:
Seems like their narrative gets reinforced no matter what we do. So we might as well do something proactive.

Or we could drop the ridiculous revenge fantasies and stop entertaining the notion that we should be OK with killing thousands of civilians because someone wants to do something..

**Grey Templar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Or we could drop the ridiculous revenge fantasies and stop entertaining the notion that we should be OK with killing thousands of civilians because someone wants to do something..

It's not a revenge fantasy. It's being sick and tired of people like you who think it's ok to let them send/radicalize people over here to kill our civilians. I would rather we kill the guys doing that, and if some enemy civilians get killed in the process, its better than them continuing to freely attack us.

You should have more sympathy for real victims of Islamic terrorism over here, instead of sympathy for potential enemy casualties.

**Spinner**

Enemy civilians? Or people trapped in a city occupied by brutal murderers?

Take a look at those pictures of people in cities liberated from ISIS control. Do they look like they miss them?

**Grey Templar**

Spinner wrote:
Enemy civilians? Or people trapped in a city occupied by brutal murderers?

Take a look at those pictures of people in cities liberated from ISIS control. Do they look like they miss them?

I'm not saying we should indiscriminately wipe out the middle east. Just that we shouldn't let the possibility of civilian casualties keep us from actually taking action. Civilian casualties are inevitable. That's just fact. We can do what we can to minimize civilian casualties, but we should also stop being paralyzed because some civilians might be killed.

We didn't let potential civilian casualties stop us from taking out Nazi Germany. Why should these Islamic radicals be treated any differently? Do what it takes to destroy them. If you can reduce unnecessary casualties then go for it, but the job has to be done. We the west need to stop being softies and wimps.

So yes, we should go in and take out any and all radical Islamic factions with extreme prejudice and overwhelming force. And when the next one pops up, do it again. It's quite clear that taking a hands off approach to radical Islam doesn't work. And as you say, the civilians over there seem appreciative of getting rid of ISIS.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Or we could drop the ridiculous revenge fantasies and stop entertaining the notion that we should be OK with killing thousands of civilians because someone wants to do something..

It's not a revenge fantasy. It's being sick and tired of people like you who think it's ok to let them send/radicalize people over here to kill our civilians. I would rather we kill the guys doing that, and if some enemy civilians get killed in the process, its better than them continuing to freely attack us.

You should have more sympathy for real victims of Islamic terrorism over here, instead of sympathy for potential enemy casualties.

Yes, not wanting to murder thousands of innocents is totally equivalent to being OK with terrorists killing people. Meanwhile, back in reality...

Let's humor your insane idea. How do we wipe out extremism with "extreme prejudice"?

**Mr. Burning**

Grey Templar wrote:
Spinner wrote:
Enemy civilians? Or people trapped in a city occupied by brutal murderers?

Take a look at those pictures of people in cities liberated from ISIS control. Do they look like they miss them?

I'm not saying we should indiscriminately wipe out the middle east. Just that we shouldn't let the possibility of civilian casualties keep us from actually taking action. Civilian casualties are inevitable. That's just fact. We can do what we can to minimize civilian casualties, but we should also stop being paralyzed because some civilians might be killed.

We didn't let potential civilian casualties stop us from taking out Nazi Germany. Why should these Islamic radicals be treated any differently? Do what it takes to destroy them. If you can reduce unnecessary casualties then go for it, but the job has to be done. We the west need to stop being softies and wimps.

So yes, we should go in and take out any and all radical Islamic factions with extreme prejudice and overwhelming force. And when the next one pops up, do it again. It's quite clear that taking a hands off approach to radical Islam doesn't work. And as you say, the civilians over there seem appreciative of getting rid of ISIS.

Lets be honest here. Really honest. Do we really understand who we are protecting and who are the supposed enemies?

**Grey Templar**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Spinner wrote:
Enemy civilians? Or people trapped in a city occupied by brutal murderers?

Take a look at those pictures of people in cities liberated from ISIS control. Do they look like they miss them?

I'm not saying we should indiscriminately wipe out the middle east. Just that we shouldn't let the possibility of civilian casualties keep us from actually taking action. Civilian casualties are inevitable. That's just fact. We can do what we can to minimize civilian casualties, but we should also stop being paralyzed because some civilians might be killed.

We didn't let potential civilian casualties stop us from taking out Nazi Germany. Why should these Islamic radicals be treated any differently? Do what it takes to destroy them. If you can reduce unnecessary casualties then go for it, but the job has to be done. We the west need to stop being softies and wimps.

So yes, we should go in and take out any and all radical Islamic factions with extreme prejudice and overwhelming force. And when the next one pops up, do it again. It's quite clear that taking a hands off approach to radical Islam doesn't work. And as you say, the civilians over there seem appreciative of getting rid of ISIS.

Lets be honest here. Really honest. Do we really understand who we are protecting and who are the supposed enemies?

We want, and are obligated, to protect our own citizens. We are not obligated to protect a foreign civilian population, we may choose to do so out of our own generosity, but we should not protect foreign civilians at the expense of letting a terrorist organization continue to kill our own citizens. If terrorists are hiding behind civilians, we should still take them out. If they can no longer hide within civilian populations they may stop doing so. You're not going to takes hostages if taking hostages doesn't protect you, it's no longer worth the effort.

We are the one's who have enabled terrorists to make hostage taking and hiding among civilians an effective tactic. If it stops being effective, they'll stop doing it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Or we could drop the ridiculous revenge fantasies and stop entertaining the notion that we should be OK with killing thousands of civilians because someone wants to do something..

It's not a revenge fantasy. It's being sick and tired of people like you who think it's ok to let them send/radicalize people over here to kill our civilians. I would rather we kill the guys doing that, and if some enemy civilians get killed in the process, its better than them continuing to freely attack us.

You should have more sympathy for real victims of Islamic terrorism over here, instead of sympathy for potential enemy casualties.

Yes, not wanting to murder thousands of innocents is totally equivalent to being OK with terrorists killing people. Meanwhile, back in reality...

Let's humor your insane idea. How do we wipe out extremism with "extreme prejudice"?

Yes, you are in-fact saying you are ok with them radicalizing people over here because you'd rather that then us taking them out, because you would find any civilian deaths that would be caused unacceptable. You would rather we lose a few of our own innocent civilians than actually having a chance of stopping those attacks, because we might get a few innocents ourselves in the cross fire.

I say, better over there than over here.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:

I say, better over there than over here.

Here's the thing: it's not one over there for each one over here. Compare how many have died in Iraq since 2003 to the casualties to terrorism in the West. We're talking an order of magnitudes more casualties in Iraq alone, and a power vacuum that created the current mess in the first place.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Grey Templar wrote:
and if some enemy civilians get killed in the process[…]
You should have more sympathy for real victims of Islamic terrorism over here

Basically what you are saying is “You should have more sympathy for victims of Islamic terrorism over here rather than victim of Islamic terorism over there.
What's the name for this kind of thinking again?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let's humor your insane idea. How do we wipe out extremism with "extreme prejudice"?

A big fat nuclear bomb, of course! I'm sure that won't lead to any escalation…