Home » The Iranian blast was ISIS

Comments

The Iranian blast was ISIS — 24 Comments

  1. bob sykes is sorely disappointed or it just shows the perfidy; ISIS and Israel in alliance! (sarc x 11)

  2. Yes. The use of two suicide bombers and ease of infiltration into mass crowds both suggest schismatic conflicts — spillovers of the Yemen – Houthi war, perhaps?

  3. well that was the subtext of the war in syria, more of a multi level scrum,

  4. A little bit of Islamic history:
    __________________________________

    After the death of Muhammad in 632, a group of Muslims, who would come to be known as the Sunnis, believed that Muhammad’s successor as caliph of the Islamic community should be Abu Bakr, whereas a second group of Muslims, who would come to be known as the Shias, believed that his successor should have been Ali. This dispute spread across various parts of the Muslim world, which eventually led to the Battle of Jamal and Battle of Siffin. Sectarianism based on this historic dispute intensified greatly after the Battle of Karbala, in which Husayn ibn Ali and some of his close partisans, including members and children of the household of prophet (Ahl al bayt), were killed by the ruling Umayyad Caliph Yazid I, and the outcry for revenge divided the early Islamic community, albeit disproportionately, into two groups, the Sunni and the Shia. This is known today as the Islamic schism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_divide
    __________________________________

    Christianity is hardly perfect, but after Christ left the scene, Christians didn’t immediately divide into two rival factions vying for leadership and start killing each other.

    Muslims are still killing each other over the Sunni-Shia schism.

  5. There have been bombings of Shiite mosques in Pakistan. Payback, maybe. Islam is not only bloody on its margins but bloody within.

  6. Must confess; although I knew that Sunni’s and Shia have not been the best of pals since forever, I did not know that ISIS and Iran were enemies. So I was greatly surprised to hear that ISIS was behind the bombing in Iran.

    I guess that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” policy is not the case with Iran and ISIS.

    Oh well.

  7. What did ISIS have to gain?

    ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shia. Shia and Sunni are enemies. Think Catholics and Protestants in 17th century Europe (30 Years War, Guy Fawkes, Louis XIV kicks out Huguenots, etc.)

    One thing that ISIS and the Mullahs can agree on is their hatred of the US, of the West.

  8. terrorism, strictly defined, is attacking non-military targets for purposes of political gain. Such gain might be instability in the targeted polity.

    But the gain involved in this particular atrocity, and others we could think of, is not immediately apparent.

    I suppose the perps, such as survive, might say something about raising the consciousness of the oppressed Iranians against the mullahs. Doesn’t make sense, of course, but it’s not falsifiable. If there’s no uprising, there’s at least some unrest, even if not visible. So it would be said.

    Unless the perps actually believe the above, then what we have is mass murder because mass murder is what they do. A few layers of rationalization, perhaps.

  9. “When in doubt, blame the Jews” seems to be the default setting in a lot of places, not only Islamic ones.

  10. Would appear that ISIS is a whole lot smarter than American liberals.

    When “Biden”, in “his” extraordinary wisdom, hearts Iran (& Co.) with billions upon billions upon billions of dollars, ISIS understands EXACTLY what that means. (So does Saudia Arabia, by the way. And the Emirates. And Egypt, etc., but they don’t have the same—let’s call it—“freedom of movement” that ISIS has.)

    Yes, ISIS gets the message, loud and clear.

    Not American liberals, though, whose cluelessness is elevated, in their own eyes, to sheer brilliance (to be sure,”Biden”‘s O-SO-SUCCESSFUL campaign of demonizing “his” political opponents plays a HYUGE role in this cluelessness—heck, if Trump is a NAZI, then ANYTHING is possible…and justifiable!! Yes, it is, even unto destroying the good ole U. S. of A., not that they’d actually see it as “destruction”, of course—they can’t: they’re totally blind to it. Their “shields are totally down and broken).

    So when ISIS just happens to notice that “Biden” is helping the mullahs create a Neo-Fertile-Crescent (an Arch of Shi’ism) across the Middle East and down into the Arabian Peninsula, ISIS understands exactly what that means.

    Not American liberals, though (who would appear to to twist themselves into knots to believe it means that “Biden” is still a firm supporter of Israel(!)).

    But for ISIS, this has NOTHING to do with Israel.

    This has everything to do with the American decision (as ISIS sees it) to continue to work to destroy the Sunni nations (let’s call it GWB vs. Saddam Hussein, THE SEQUEL).

    And ISIS, very sensitive about movies like this, does not like it one bit, no it does not! No popcorn for ISIS…or rather, for them, there’s far better things than popcorn…

    (Not to worry, though. They’ll take care of Israel later.)

  11. Oops, should be “…Arc of Shi’ism…”—hey kinda like Obama’s “Arc of History”(TM)….

  12. Reminds me of the Iran-Iraq war, when some in the West hoped that both countries would lose.

    In “The Lord of the Rings”, Gandalf (I think) said something like “The victor in the battle between our enemies will emerge stronger than either alone.”

  13. @ huxley > “after Christ left the scene, Christians didn’t immediately divide into two rival factions vying for leadership”

    Actually, they did.

    Read Acts and Paul’s letters (I just finished a good commentary on them).

    The conversions of gentiles began within the first decade after Christ’s resurrection and ascension and led to the first, somewhat trivial, controversy between Jewish and mostly-Greek individuals, although not resulting in a leadership split or challenge: the Apostles were the acknowledged authorities and settled the matter satisfactorily (providing welfare to widows fairly, Acts 6:1–7).

    The next “factions” developed after Paul and other missionaries successfully proselyted to the gentiles outside of Judea, between the Judaizers (who said that all gentile converts have to follow Mosaic Laws in their entirety, or at least circumcision and a few others) and the “Gentilists” (my term) who won a compromise from the leaders in Jerusalem (James, Peter and the other apostles) on just four qualifications related to Jewish ritual and ethics. Again, the controversy was settled because of the unity on Apostolic authority.
    *
    Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
    *
    Next were the various “personality congregations” who asserted that they would only follow the person who baptized them, not necessarily the leaders in Jerusalem or their official representatives to the gentile churches (Paul, Barnabas, and a few others). Paul had to assert their delegated authority from the Jerusalem apostles (and as an apostle himself) to tamp down nascent schisms.
    1 Corinthians 3:4-9 New King James Version
    4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?…

    Then Paul warned against newly-rising self-appointed leaders in the Christian churches who brought in heretical doctrines contrary to those taught by Paul (and his immediate companions) and Peter (and the Judea-centered leaders).
    Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

    Fortunately, the killing held off for a few hundred years, but still predates the events Gringo noted (“Think Catholics and Protestants in 17th century Europe”) .

    All accusations of heresy, however much they might be doctrinally motivated, eventually become rival factions vying for leadership, and they didn’t always limit themselves to just “cancelling” their opponents in the current fashion. However, for nearly a thousand years, the executions of heretics was done by the state, not the Church per se.

    https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19368/who-was-the-first-church-father-to-argue-for-executing-heretics

    Technically, the first ecclesiastical authority to say that heretics should be persecuted was Pope Gregory IX in 1229. The first Church Father to say that heretics should be compelled to recant would be Augustine around 400 AD.

    The first heretic actually put to death (385AD) was killed by the Emperor – and the Pope was very annoyed at the development. It wasn’t for another 800 years that the church followed suit.

    That said…

    The church typically did not execute heretics. Rather, the state, sometimes at the behest of the church or other times of a monarch desiring no discord amongst his subjects, would carry out such persecution and executions.

    The earliest Christian heretics were not put to death by the Church, but rather by the Roman Empire. Note for example, the first “heretic” to be executed – Priscillian – was put to death not by the church, but rather the state. Furthermore, those responsible for getting the state to put him to death were subsequently excommunicated by the Pope for their actions.

    Per this article:

    The first person to define what heresy was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (2nd Century). He simply warned about the dangers of a multitude of opinions on how God works.

    The first person to make heresy a crime was Emperor Constantine (320s). He made the assembling of heretics an offense, the penalty of which was the confiscation of property.

    In 380 AD under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I laid down the rule that only the Catholic Christians could define orthodoxy within the confines of the Roman Empire. As noted already, it was under his reign that the first heretic was put to death.

    Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion

    Emperor Justinian issued severe laws against heretics in AD 527 and 528. (It should be noted, this was in the aftermath of a severe series of riots that left thousands dead.)

    Pope Paschal II (Pope from 1099 and 1118) was the first to say that anyone who disagreed with the apostolic see was a heretic.

    Pope Innocent III (1199) was the first to declare heresy to be high treason against God, having already called for the execution of those who persisted in their heresies after being excommunicated.

    It was not until 1229 that Pope Gregory IX declared that it is the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics.

    Which they did.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics
    (or at least some we know about, beginning in 1076)

    Citations to post-Reformation examples of persecution and killing up through the 19th century, such as in LDS history including the infamous Missouri Extermination Order, are easily available on the internet.

    Still, there does not seem to be an analogous Sunni-Shia split in the annals of Christendom, where essentially a single dividing line of contested succession has existed since the beginning and still drives animosity and violence.

  14. That’s what Israel’s enemies like to do to each other when they don’t have a Jew to gas.

  15. Fortunately, the killing held off for a few hundred years

    AesopFan:

    Which was the important point of my comment, I thought, though you clipped that part off when quoting me.

    Yes, I know Christianity was never One Big Happy Family. You didn’t even touch on how the Gnostic Christians were treated.

    And later, the persecutions and inquisitions became horrific. No excuses IMO.
    Nonetheless, I would still argue that this is the default of Christians set by Jesus:
    ___________________________________

    By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

    –John 13:35 [KJV]
    ___________________________________

    Muhammad never said anything like that.

    I admit there were some rough patches, but Christians didn’t start off killing each other, and after they started, they did stop.

    Muslims have never ceased their efforts to subjugate the world and anyone who disagrees with their notion of what Allah wants, including other Muslims, which has always included killing people.

  16. Then again there are sects in the LDS community, at least in UT and ID (?), some not so amicable.

  17. yes the ones I heard about in readers digest in the 80s, then krakaeur, who I don’t really trust to tell me the time of day related,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>