A Semi-Involved Question Regarding the Recent Bombing in Shiraz, Iran…
I am a regular ol' graduate student at, arguably, the best university in the United States: Northern Arizona University. I'm nobody special and I fell off the turnip truck a long time ago. I have just given a presentation at a sociology conference (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=378415321) on a project I have been working on (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=378413572). After my panel had completed our presentations, I was asked a question of which I have been thinking about all day long.
A gentleman asked what I had to say about the reported bombing in Iran yesterday (April 13, 2008). I was not aware of the incident at the time and I told him such. Upon further inquiry, I realize that the gentleman was asking about the bombing in Shiraz, Iran on Saturday night.
So, it is reported that Jundallah is responsible. It is also widely reported that the U.S. tacitly (to be politically correct) supports this group. It is also reported that Jundallah, or at least some of its members, have had some sort of relationship to al-Qaeda in the past.
My question is this: Considering the argument in my paper, what are the implications of the recent bombing in Iran? What does it mean for the United States if it is known (my suspicion--> when it becomes publicly known) that we are involved in this bombing? What does it mean for the U.S. to cleave to groups like Jundallah?
Peace,
bluegreencody
Light blue touch paper and stand back?
So enter a sociologist to SWC and I have quickly read through your links, where there are some excellent thoughts and references for SWC to plunder.
To the explosion in Shiraz, Iran and your question. Considering the argument in my paper, what are the implications of the recent bombing in Iran? What does it mean for the United States if it is known (my suspicion--> when it becomes publicly known) that we are involved in this bombing? What does it mean for the U.S. to cleave to groups like Jundallah?
Crazy decision making if the USA was in anyway involved. I know very little about the group Jundallah and would be tempted to think such a bombing serves only the regime's interests. I recall from reading a long time ago the Iranian regime's counter-intelligence branch etc was very skillful.
I'd say leave such groups well alone and surely Chalabi's role in Iraq is enough of a lesson for the USA?
davidbfpo
Thanks for the link. Hard to say about the
blast though I agree it looks like a single explosion and not a collective of smaller ones. Could be a single small to mid size item. Not too large, few pounds; RPG warhead or a mortar round though there was no evidence of fragments.
For your second question, the answer is yes -- though to them it is not stupid; most of the world isn't nearly as risk averse or as safety conscious as we are.
As one can't actually see the explosion directly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bluegreencody
So, here is a clip which shows the moment of the bombing:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20e_1208097765
I understand that there are reports of the war exhibition exploding, but I would ask two questions about this story:
1) Does the explosion in the video seem like a collection of ammunition exploding? I do not have the experience to comment definitevely on this, but it appears to be one solid explosion...
2) Are the Iranians stupid enough to leave this type of blatant hazard (an ancient grip of live ammo) in a mosque under less than perfect conditions? My inclination is to say no...
There is only the quick visual and sound to go off of. But I don't think it sounds like more than one explosion at all. the reverberation is just a continuance of the already echoing audio track.
As to who's behind it I think I would have to agree with the others that either its a singular attack by one of their existing threats or I wouldn't put it past the Intel people to have known about it already in some form. It really does only serve to help their regime given that it gives excuse for crackdowns, provides ammo for figure pointing, and might serve to help sidetrack some of the more moderate inclinations politically speaking as of late
Going back to the original question...
In terms of my argument, located at http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=378413572, I think one of the obvious implications of the Bush-Cheney doctrines is that the U.S. is able to prioritize targeting certain groups over other groups. To be blunt, confronting Iran becomes more important than defusing al-Qaeda. The advantages are many and among others...
1) Pure revenge for Iran being obviously involved in U.S. casulaties in Iraq.
2) Shows Iran that the U.S. can mess around violently in Iran, just as Iran can act violently in Iraq.
3) It is easier to comprehend, strategize, and operationalize state versus state conflict, in contrast to state versus non-state conflict.
In any case, especially in relation to the work of Reason, Domhoff, and Sklair, would a U.S. intervention in Iran (even without U.S. involvement in the Shiraz explosions, but particularly with) constitute the proper course of action for the "commonpeople"?
