Badmovies.org Forum

Bangkok blasts wound Iranian attacker, 4 others 

http://news.yahoo.com/bangkok-blasts-wound-iranian-attacker-4-others-135304254.html (http://news.yahoo.com/bangkok-blasts-wound-iranian-attacker-4-others-135304254.html)

BANGKOK (AP) — An Iranian man carrying grenades blew off his own legs and wounded four civilians Tuesday after an earlier blast shook his house in Bangkok, Thai authorities said. The explosions came a day after an Israeli diplomatic car was bombed in India — an attack Israel blamed on Iran.

Authorities say it's unclear whether the Bangkok explosions were linked to the New Delhi attack, but Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said, "we can't rule out any possibility."

Thai security forces found more explosives in a house where the Iranian man was staying in Bangkok, but the possible targets were not known, Police Gen. Pansiri Prapawat said.

A passport found at the scene of one blast indicated the assailant was Saeid Moradi from Iran, Pansiri said. Authorities in Tehran could not immediately be reached for comment.

Tuesday's violence began in the afternoon when a stash of explosives apparently detonated by accident in Moradi's house, blowing off part of the roof. Police said two foreigners quickly left the residence, followed by a wounded Moradi.

"He tried to wave down a taxi, but he was covered in blood, and the driver refused to take him," Pansiri said. He then threw an explosive at the taxi and began running.

Police who had been called to the area then tried to apprehend Moradi, who hurled a grenade to defend himself. "But somehow it bounced back" and blew off his legs, Pansiri said... 


http://news.yahoo.com/bangkok-blasts-wound-iranian-attacker-4-others-135304254.html (http://news.yahoo.com/bangkok-blasts-wound-iranian-attacker-4-others-135304254.html)

Israle has taken out a bunch of irans scientists, this is payback. it's sad that innocent peple are getting caught in the middle, but it's not lke Iran was going to do nothing. comes with the territory when you play these kind of games.

I wouldn't desribe a scientist manufacturing explosives for the world's number one supporter of terrorism as an "innocent person" - if that is, in fact, who you were referring to.  If all Iran's nuke builders became toast tomorrow, the world would be a safer place.

point is you can't be too surprised or indignant when your enemy fights back.

If in fact that is what's happening on either side.

allhallows- I see what you're saying but the motives are certainly there on both sides. Its about the worst kept secret in the world that the US and Israel are at least behind the stuxnet virus thing, if not the assassinations of the scientists.

And it's a valid point for consideration. It is very easy and convenient to sit back and say "well, they're developing nuclear weapons and they are our enemy so it is justified. I accept that there is some truth to that. However, and I know that Indy hates this, but these types of secret operations and fooling around in the middle east has been something the U.S. has been doing since the Cold War. The U.S. has to some extent created its own enemies.

If the Republicans would just stop being so stubborn and admit that, we could finally be able to move past it and move forward with our foreign policies in a way that is healthier. Ron Paul is about the only Republican who is honest about it. And don't tell me he doesn't know what he's talking about because he has plenty of foreign affairs experience and is a perfectly legitimate authority on the matter. You can question his foreing policy posture all you want, but you can't say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If the Republicans were at least honest about these things I would be more willing to listen to what they had to say. Unfortunately, most of them have their heads in the sand about the middle east. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats do too.

Ultimately, though, lester has a point. It's war. To us, the middle east is the enemy, and to them, the West is theirs. Therefore, there is going to be retaliation. Let's not get indignant and try to behave as if the U.S. hasn't reaped civilian destruction as a casualty war in all of this. Please. All collateral damage to innocent civilians is unacceptable, of course, but it kills me when people in the U.S. try to pretend like our military doesn't cause their own share. That's the darkest and most unfortunate aspect of war, which is why it should be avoided whenever possible. Up until 9-11 we had been very sheltered as a nation from the kind of civilian war casualties that the rest of the world is much more familiar with.

So yeah, feel free to condemn the attacks, I condemn them too. But the self-righteous indignation is a bit foolish.

  To me, the biggest difference between us and them is that, as a rule, we target those who are actually trying to kill us.  They target the civilian population - and the more women and children they kill, the happier they are.  Hizbollah is notorious for placing rocket launchers as close as possible to hospitals or schoolyards, so that when the Israelis return fire, women and children die, and then they can bring in the gullible Western media and lecture them about the evil, barbaric Zionists.

  As far as Ron Paul goes, I do not think he is ignorant or stupid.  But I do think his brand of neo-isolationism is dangerously short sighted and would end with America being even more isolated and weakened than it already is.  A shame, really, because he has some domestic ideas I truly agree with.

  Radical Islam has been and will be at war with the West as long as there is a West.  Any literal interpretation of the Quran is going to take its injunction to "make war upon the unbelievers until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued" very seriously.  And the Islamic world seems to be moving towards a more and more literal interpretation of the Quran - the moderate voices carry little weight in the "Arab street."  Dictators like Mubarak may have been thugs, but at least they had a vested interest in keeping the peace.  I am not sure that is true of Egypt's new rulers, and it was certainly not true of the Islamic revolutionaries who ousted the Shah and seized control of Iran.

  We can play "what if" all day long, but the fact is that Iran is run by religious fanatics whose goal is to destroy Israel and bring about the war which, in their theology, will bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam and usher in the return of Muhammad and the complete conquest of all non-Islamic nations.  Such a philosophy is incompatible with international peace, whether we continue to support Israel or not. 

  So my contention is that ANYTHING anyone can do to stop Iran's nuclear program is ultimately a victory for the forces of civilization.  And if, in the process, we can topple that evil government and replace it with a regime that is perhaps a bit less apocalyptic in its interpretation of the Quran, that would be nice too.

I think that's definitely true of Al queda, not neccarily every single terrorist group.


 Israel went ballistic during the 06 war. They bombed all sorts of places that had nothign to do with hezbollah.  neighborhoods that were anti hezbollah, the airport. 

not to be a religous chauvanists but rememeber neither side is Christian. here's a facebook screenshot from the other day

(https://p.twimg.com/AlxEB6JCIAArqpN.jpg:large)


You're basically saying we should bomb them because of their religion.


any entity that runs Iran is going to be anti israel and anti west or it isn't going to have any legitamacy among the people because that's what their sentiments are. You could do change regimes all day.

Indy,

I'm hit or miss with you on your last post. Ultimately my view is that the Middle East is a sea of despots and has been for a long time. The U.S., unfortunately, has engaged in playing one despot against another for decades. So, at least partially, we have fueled unrest in the Middle East. Now that the Muslim world is gradually uniting in their hatred of the West despite our quiet attempts to divide and conquer, we have serious problems. Additionally, we have the inevitable culturall blowback that war brings, bringing the quiet jihad here via immigration. Before the advent of technology and information exchange, 20 years ago many Middle Easterners may not have even knows the extent of our support of Israel. Now they know in stark detail through the eyes of technology and immigrants here in America. It's a mess.

lester made a couple of points that I have to agree with. We ARE at war with them because of their religion. This IS every bit a holy war, and how in the hell did we allow ourselves to get caught up in it? Well, that answer starts in 1948. And he's right, we can change regimes constantly and try to get somebody in there that is, as you say, "a bit less apocalyptic." That's what we've been doing for decades, supporting one mad despot over another in an idiotic attempt to interpret which shade of madness will best serve our interests. It doesn't work. Eventually they will figure it out and gang up on us, and that's what's happening now.

I'm sorry that this is true but there are only two ways of dealing with the Middle East, conquer completely or stop intervening. Anything in between just leads to our destruction, and clearly you seem to be completely in favor of business as usual, even though it's painfully obvious that it doesn't work. So, between the two only viable options, I am in favor of isolationism. I say we spend a fraction of what we've spent over the last 10 years in all of this fruitless intervention and nation-building and spend it on defending ourselves really well. It's a hell of a lot cheaper and we can return to our American roots of minding our own business and being a shining example to the world rather than the world's policeman. Maybe focus a bit more on our crumbing infrastructure and making ourselves competitive again. But whatever, total conquest is better than what we've got now so either one is okay with me.

The U.S. has a serious case of "s**t or get off the pot" and now it's coming to a head.

Lester, for all our disagreements, you have hit the nail on the head for once.  Their religion, a literalist interpretation of the Quran, calls for the forced conversion or complete subjugation of all non-Islamic peoples.  When someone's religion demands that they either kill me, convert me, or conquer me, then YOU BET I am at war with them.

Flick, you also make a valid point.  However, I think that isolationism would be, at the very best, a short term fix.  They would swallow up Israel and then demographically take over Europe (already well under way) and then we would be the last major non-Islamic power left, except for the Chinese.  We would be alone between one power that cynically uses us and another that actively wants to destroy us.

The last options that remain are the only hope for the future: a genuine Islamic reformation that renounces violence and forced conversion forever, or else a huge spiritual revival of Christianity that sweeps the Middle East and blunts the edge of the jihadist sword from within.  There are stirrings of such an event, in Iran and elsewhere, but I don't think it is of the extent that would work significant change.  Yet.  That's where my faith in God comes in.  If He placed us here, He isn't ready for us to destroy each other yet, and something will happen eventually to defuse the situation. I know of your general disdain for organized religion, but I think even you would agree that it would be better FOR US if the Middle East became almost any faith other than Islamic.

So it comes down to, in my opinion, support our allies, define and oppose our enemies to the best of our ability, and then see what happens within the Middle East.

I don't even know where to begin. My blood is hitting the boiling point again and I will probably have to PM you about it. Given what you know about me, how would you even begin to think that I would agree with religion as a solution?

have they achieved this anywhere?  like has any european country or south american country been so inundated with muslims that they've seized power and put non muslims to death?  As far as threats facing humanity, I'd put about a billion things ahead of muslims converting the world to islam by the "sword".  



christianity existed has existed in the middle east since it's inception obviously. it never really caught on with arabs even before islam.  The idea of God having a son and other aspects of christian belief were at odds with their culture.  So not likely.

and does that include Israel? even less likely!

you should check out shiachat.com sometime and run some of this stuff by the people there. I htink you'd be surprised at the responses you'd get.


 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/forum/4-islamchristianityjudaism-dialogue/

^christian/ jewish. islam dialogue section.  tends towards religion rather than politics

So, a millenia-old struggle based on dogmatic religious differences is going to be solved by applying more of the same? Interesting.