"The coordinated attacks appeared to mark an escalation in hostilities between Iran’s leadership and one of the nation’s many disgruntled ethnic and religious minorities, in this case the Baluchis. The southeast region, Sistan-Baluchistan, has been the scene of terrorist attacks in the past, and in April the government put the elite Guards Corps in control of security there to try to stop the escalating violence.
Iranian officials have accused foreign enemies of supporting the terrorist insurgents and repeated that charge Sunday. By midday, official news reports from Iran said that 31 people were killed and at least 28 injured." NY Times
So, the New York Times believes that Sunni Baluch tribesmen fighting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are terrorists? Perhaps the Times missed the event last year in which the US Government labelled the "Al Quds Force" of the IRGC a terrorist organization. The IRGC now embodies the power of the Shia Persian theocracy in Teheran.
Does the Times now believe that armed resistance to a government, any government is by definition "terrorism?" By that standard was George Washington a terrorist? Were the Machabees terrorists? How about Simon Bolivar, was he a terrorist? Was Emilio Aguinaldo a terrorist?
Have we become so much a status quo country that rebellion has lost its charm for us? "De Oppresso Liber?" I guess that is gone, gone with this …
"…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.."