British Embassy Attacked

I suppose this is just what the hardliners in Iran want. Reports indicate they, as opposed to Ahmadinejad, seem to be driving the hostage situation.

But will the mainstream media report it? Gateway Pundit has it, with graphics.

Following increased tensions between Tehran and London over the detention of 15 British marines who entered Iranian waters illegally and likely gatherings by protestors in front of the embassy compound, the police increased security measures and arrangements around the embassy here in Tehran on Friday.

Comments

[southdakotaboy]

Britain needs to get their people out now! This is the same crazy crap they pulled last time. The world needs to just pop these guys right now. From what I've been reading in the comment sections of some British papers the Brits are just about fed up with this muslim crap. If Iran takes over the British embassy you might just see riots in Britain against all muslims. You might also see a definite uptick in suport of the BNP.

[scarshapedstar]

"This is the same crazy crap they pulled last time. The world needs to just pop these guys right now."

Are you joking? The Revolutionary Guard is nuttier than Ahmadinejad and it seems they're trying to provoke a war, possibly even a coup. They *want* us to start bombing. They think they've got the hardware to sink our carriers, and they may be right. But they're still not crazy enough to fire the first shot, not when they know we've got at least one boomer waiting offshore.

[micah]

Scarshaped Star: You are exactly right.

This is TOTAL provocation by Iran. They are daring Britian and/or us and/or Israel to come on and "do something" that will make US look like the aggressors.

The truth is: A-jad has been holding Iran hostage the whole time he's been in office. Their culture doesn't respond to mercy and diplomacy. It is misunderstood as WEAKNESS. The only thing they respect is strength and fear. We are wasting our time trying to wring our hands and appease that jerk.

[micah]

Bottomline: Exploiting a young woman (the mother of young children) as propaganda.

nuff said.

[Capitalist Infidel]

How many acts of war does Iran have to commit before the liberals will support going to war?

[BobInStamford]

While I realize that you flat-earth patriots are very well informed, I might point out that the US has captured 5 Iranian diplomats in Iraq and has been holding them incommunicado for weeks. Any linkage, heros??

[ET]

Bob whereeveryouare -- Iraninan diplomats? Or gun runners bringing weapons into Iraq to kill coalition forces caught in the act on iraqi soil and held as enemy caombatants?

Do you really equate this with the capture of uniformed sodiers in international waters? Why don't you don your burka, you pussy, and move to tehran? Your hatred of the west is indicative of serious childhood issues, probably with a male relative. You need serious counselling or a good bitch slapping.

[nowinger]

According to a knowledgeable source at the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, the five were not accredited diplomats, although they had submitted documents for accreditation before the raid was carried out. Their applications were being processed, said the source, who asked not to be identified. The source also said that the Kurdish regional government had treated both of them as if they were indeed accredited.

The raid on the Irbil liaison office was the third in a series of episodes that targeted Iranian officials operating in Iraq. On December 20, US forces stopped a car carrying two Iranian diplomats and their guards. The next morning, soldiers raided the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shi'ite leader of the largest political party in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and detained two Iranians who turned out to have been members of the Revolutionary Guard.

After a tense nine-day political standoff, the Iranians were released from US custody and were ordered by the Iraqi government to leave the country.

As part of extensive review of its diplomatic relations with Iran, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry plans to turn all liaison offices in Iraq into consulates, giving them official diplomatic status, according to the New York Times.

Looks like the Bushies were splitting legal hairs again, Iranian officials who have applied for accreditation but not yet received it, an office that functions as a consulate but we say it isn't so we raided it anyway, then spirited their guys off into the land of waterboarding until they too confess they planned 9/11 and shot JFK.

[Hard Right]

Ah yes Nowinger, how horrible that they are allowed to help plan the murder of our soldiers in peace. We need to drop you lefties in Iran and see how they deal with your kind.

[nowinger]

There isn't any evidence they were anything but Iranian government officials working at the consolate in Kurdistan. The list of lies, mis-statements and bad intelligence doesn't bear repeating here, lets just say that the Bush administration has lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the Iraq and Iran situations. If the Iranians were involved in planning attacks or supplying weapons, then say so, show the world the evidence and prove you are right. Shuttling these people off into a black hole isn't proof of anything.

[BobInStamford]

Oh my, it looks like your brave leader may have 'embarrassed' himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

Thankfully, the SURGE is WORKING. Mission accomplished, yet again!

[BobInStamford]

Oh my, it looks like your brave leader may have 'embarrassed' himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

Thankfully, the SURGE is WORKING. Mission accomplished, yet again!

[ET]

nowinger...I guess that is the difference between you faithless libs and us bush supporters. You prefer to trust the NYT to tell you what the status of these guys is, you believe all of their hair splitting and condemn the administration. I choose to trust the Americans on the ground to take whatever steps they must to ensure their safety. What is the status of the captured Iranians? I don't give a shit. If the guys in country determined they needed to be detained, I say lock 'em up.

BTW, Should we take from your comments that you think the capture of the British soldiers is fair game? Do you think the UK is getting what it deserves? Would you suggest that we accomodate Iran's demands? You sure appear to support the totalitarian iranian regime. Please say so directly.

[ET]

--"White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning."

bobinlalaland doesn't even read his own citations. Blame Bush! Is all he can say, like a broken record.

Robert, you are a coward and a waste of oxygen. Go suck a muffler.

[nowinger]

Our country is not based on the premise of 'if the government thinks you are guilty, then you are guilty and you proceed directly to jail, without trial or any evidence being made public. I'm sorry you have such a lack of faith in our country that you believe we need to bend our own rules in order to beat a handful of muslims from the third world. The government said Saddam Hussein had WMD, that he was in the process of restarting his nukes program, that we would be out of Iraq in 6 months and that the war would pay for itself from Iraqi oil revenues, that no one was abused in US custody, that no one was tortured in US custody, ALL of these positions and statements were false. Forgive me if I require more of my government than 'because we say so'. Since I don't know who is telling the truth about whether the Brits were in Iranian or Iraqi waters, I can't comment beyond that it is disgusting for them to be paraded around on TV and coerced into writing propaganda letters.

[nowinger]

My question to you would be how many times does the government get to be wrong before you start asking for proof. The Bush Administration has proved on mulitple fronts that they are either incompetant boobs or calculated liars or both. Why should I trust them now?

[bloodrage bob]

amazing. just when ya think, "i can't despise liberals any more than now: they can sink no lower"....here they come squealing "bush!", and "don't fight back! that's what they want us to do!" to the brit soldier kidnapping.

it's troubling. keeps me awake at night, in fact. the age-old question, made ever more urgent by recent actions: is it that liberals are more *ignorant*, or are they more *pussies*? back and forth my mind goes....it's so close! how to choose?!?

[mkultra]

The same idiots who advocated for the invasion of Iraq and put coalition troops within the arms reach of Iran are now calling for retribution against Iran when Iran acts like ... Iran.

Look you idiots, if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place we wouldn't be in this position. And those of us who were against invading Iraq were against invading precisely because this very situation was likely to occur.

And now, these same idiots think that they know what the proper course of action is. The same people who thought invading Iraq was a good idea now think hitting Iran is a good idea.

Hey, idiots, STFU now. Let the adults handle this.

[Jon G]

Bloodrage: You're an idiot!

They captured Brits, not Americans. It's up to them how to handle things.

The last war we started hasn't gone exactly according to plan. It might be wise to avoid starting another one until we've finished that one. And remember the old rule: When you find out you're in a hole, quit digging.

[southdakotaboy]

"when Iran acts like ... Iran" all the more reason to just get it over with and nuke the place. When we start taking for granted that a country acts this way things are messed up. And nobody needs to compair us to them. If they weren't acting like a bunch of 7th century thugs the US would not be treating them that way. This lib moral equivalence thing is just stupid.

[BobInStamford]

Oh you sad cons are so tiresome. Sorry heros, you lost your little Iraq adventure. Ergo, you don't get to play anymore. Time to wrap things up. Another year and perhaps a farewell carrier landing by your revered leader. Then the party is over and you will have to watch the old Fox News coverage of the shock and awe campaign to get your jollies. Good luck with your surge.

[Purple Avenger]

"Iraninan diplomats? Or gun runners bringing weapons into Iraq"

In Bob's World there isn't any difference.

[Jon G]

Southdakotaboy is an idiot too. The evidence: "just get it over with and nuke the place"

That's as close to certifiably insane as you can get.

[Buzzy]

Now I know why the leftist trolls here support Iran so much.

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD150807

[BobInStamford]

So it's ok for one side to seize foreign nationals but not the other? More con logic. Carry on, heros.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6512927.stm

[Aussie]

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is off to Syria, where I'm sure she can do a lot of good. In fact she should stay there, I'm sure they need her more than anyone else does.

[Aussie]

Wow, Bob, you support Iran? Hey they need you too! Hop on a plane like Pelosi, go meet your new friends!

[ET]

nobrainer, you make a lot of claims in your post

--Our country is not based on the premise of 'if the government thinks you are guilty, then you are guilty and you proceed directly to jail, without trial or any evidence being made public.

it is a war, dude. No trial or evidence is necessary on the front line.

--The government said Saddam Hussein had WMD, that he was in the process of restarting his nukes program...

Uh, the entire intel community said that, yet you only blame your government for the fact that it turned out to be different. If you are a true lib, you also believe that backroom deals made by oil barons concocted the whole affair. One thing I have always wondered, if the admin really lied about wmd to start the war, why didn't they carry it to the next logical step and plant some there to cover their tracks?

--...that we would be out of Iraq in 6 months and that the war would pay for itself from Iraqi oil revenues...

Please show me a quote from a credible source that indicates who in the US government said these things.

--...that no one was abused in US custody, that no one was tortured in US custody

the definition of abuse and torture have been and still are being discussed in the context of the war on terror. Opinions vary on how far we have or should go to extract intel from our enemies. Again prove to me that the government's denials of torture are false. It is just another liberal opinion cited as fact to make your specious argument.

--Since I don't know who is telling the truth about whether the Brits were in Iranian or Iraqi waters...

This is a very telling statement. I feel sorry for you that you are so confused that you would give iranian propaganda any credence at all over statements from the british government.

One day, when you grow up, perhaps you will learn that the government you despise is the best option on the planet. That we do our best to adhere to our principles in a hostile world and, even when we fail, we have more respect for life and freedom than the sand smokers you seem to revere. Your worldview is ass backwards.

[southdakotaboy]

The second Pelosi gets back from her little trip to Syria she needs to be arrested.

[Aussie]

Hey a message to American lunkheads, my fellow Australian, Richard Butler, was the best of the Iraq weapons inspectors (don't tell me anout mealy-mouthed twit Hans Blix). Butler was BEGGING the world to do something about Saddam, right through the Clinton golden years (of sleeeeeep).

And guess what, know-nothings? Richard Butler is as effing LEFTIST. But he was a bloody good weapons inspector, and he knew Saddam better than any friggin Yank. And he said continually, 'Something must be done' right through teh 90's.

THat something came down to in-fuggin-vasion! THere was no other option! Get your facts strasight kinder kiddies!

[Capitalist Infidel]

The love that leftists like nowinger and bob have for the terrorists is stunning! They defend the Islamists more than we defend the American military. They ask us why we don't sign up, why don't they sign up with al Qaeda?

[Buzzy]

Sometimes I think they have.

[LOL]

"This lib moral equivalence thing is just stupid."

"just get it over with and nuke the place."

Just nuke it. It's a video game. The winger mentality in a soundbite.

[micah]

Where are all the Human Rights Activists? As usual:

The silence is deafening.

[Buzzy]

Micah, they're all there, just defending their good friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Death to the West.

[nowinger]

I don't despise the American government, when it works as it was envisione dit is the best form of government on the planet. What I despise is the corruption of George Bush and the neocons and how they have dirtied the country and thumbed their noses at the rule of law, the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution. What kind of people demand the power to torture prisoners when every military person will tell you that information derived from torture is unreliable? The entire world, absent the wingers, believes that torture and abuse are routine at Guantanamo Bay. Why would David Hicks have to sign a statement that says he wasn't mistreated and agree not to bring a suit against the US government for abuse if he was never abused? Logically, Mr. Hicks has pleaded guilty and agreed to repudiate his statements about abuse in order to get out of Guantanamo Bay. He did what prisoners have done since the beginning of time, he told his captors what they wanted to hear. He would have told them he masterminded 9/11 and shot JFK if it meant getting back to Austrailia. The military tribunals are show trials, the confessions and guilty pleas are not credible, which is the saddest result of Bush's decision that it was okay to leave American values at the door of Guantanamo Bay. Now, no one is ever going to be sure whether the confessions are true or not, they are all tainted by the belief that torture was used to extract them. Another example of Bush snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Zifnab]

"The second Pelosi gets back from her little trip to Syria she needs to be arrested."

Yeah. How dare she break that law. You know, the one that says Speakers' of the House can't leave the country without the President's permission. Then you'll need to arrest Tom Lantos, cause he's going too. Maybe bring him up on weapons smuggling charges. They're bringing office supplies, and its a known fact that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Finally, Keith Ellison should probably just be shot. I mean, a Muslim in Congress? Dude's probably strapping on his HEX vest as we speak. Don't want to risk trying to bring him in to custody.

[ET]

thanks for the non-response, nobrainer. Just another rant. Your arguments are based on talking points from moveon.creep...where else can you get so many 'facts' about gitmo? you have no clue. maybe when you drop out of college and get a job you will see how foolish you look to the rest of us.

[nowinger]

Rumsfeld said he expected the war to last no more than six months.

Please refer to Paul Wolfowitz's testimony before congress where he states the war would be mostly paid for by Iraqi oil money and would cost approximately $50 billion.

The captured Iranians were not captured on any battlefield, but in their own country's consulate office, thus, it would seem pretty tough to make them enemy combatants since they weren't on the field of battle and had no weapons on them at the time.

It is not true that the 'intelligence community' agreed on WMD, several of our allies disputed the credibility of much of the evidence and people we relied on, and our own intelligence reports were doctored at DOD to conform to the neocons views, all part of the public record.

It is a fact that an Afgan general was beaten to death by US soliders and that an innocent Afgan civlian was beaten and died as a result of his injures at the hands of US troops; it would seem an odd step to take for the government to want legislation offering retroactive protection for violations of the Geneva Conventions if no violations had occured, but in the winger world it all makes perfect sense...we need immunity from torture prosecutions because we don't torture, but we could if we wanted to.

I wouldn't expect anything other than looking foolish to a a group of people who thrive on hatred and fear and attack and despise anyone with a different viewpoint.

There isn't much point in backing up any factual statements since they are all discounted and you inevitably return to the talking points about WWIII and the scary arabs in the desert with their hommade bombs and Bill Clinton's blowjobs and how the debacle in Iraq is all the fault of the liberals. You live in a parallel reality where you make up facts to suit your talking points.

[ET]

have another bong hit, nobrainer. unsubstantiated claims taken from the soros guide to enlightened living in the liberal bubble. Why can't you just accept that we are engaged in a fight for our lives and that we will get our hands dirty in the process of defending ourselves?

--It is a fact that an Afgan general was beaten to death by US soliders...

Prove it. also, is it a crime for soldiers in a war zone to kill an enemy general? What standards do you hold you own countrymen to, and do you hold our enemies to the same standard? How do you respond when the enemy doesn't follow your pussycat rules of engagement?

--an innocent Afgan civlian was beaten and died as a result of his injures at the hands of US troops...

you are eading alternet again. Otherwise, how could you be certain that the individual was 'innocent' and a 'civilian'. Is it possible that your kneejerk reaction is to see bad americans behind every news report?

--It is not true that the 'intelligence community' agreed on WMD...

you are just plain wrong here. the consensus was stronger than gore's global warming movement. read a little.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/bush_lied_is_the_big_lie.html

you are mis-informed and you are on the wrong side of history. the neocons didn't cause all of the world's problems. there are really bad people out there with access to munitions that could kill a lot of us in one attack, and we are on the offensive to prevent that. If you don't get that, that's ok, because there are brave people fighting and dying for your right to be wrong.

[nowinger]

A fight for our lives against a bunch of uneducated arabs making homeade bombs in the desert who come from third world countries that haven't won a war since the middle ages? If by getting our hands dirty that includes abuse, torture and kangaroo courts, I don't accept that either. We can fight terrorism and remain true to American values. Once we get down in the gutter with our enemy we are no better than the terrorists who kill hide behind little girls and behead reporters for the fun of it. If we want to lead the civilized world, then it stands to reason we have to act civlized, even when the enemy does not. That the wingers fail to understand it is American values that make us different and better than our enemies and we can't abandon them EVER, is the saddest by product of Bush's fear and hate campaign.

[LOL]

quite true nowinger, conservatisim is dead. Long live authoritarianism!

[ET]

--we have to act civlized, even when the enemy does not...

this is the root of your problem. by your logic, we would all be dead. you can't bring a knife to a gunfight. ultimately, you must destroy the enemy who is determined to destroy you.

--bunch of uneducated arabs making homeade bombs in the desert who come from third world countries that haven't won a war since the middle ages...

these guys have access to modern weapons and they want you dead. Did you forget that two 100 storey towers fell to the ground? our american values allowed those guys into our country to kill thousands. since 9/11, we rightly decided to take the fight to the enemy, and we are doing that successfully now. It is not pretty, it is not easy, it is not quick. But it is vitally important.

It is easy to talk of the american values we both cherish. but don't be so fast to pass judgement on our leaders, who really do have your best interest in mind. they face difficult choices every day, they have real world, first hand information you and your pundits don't have. thank your lucky stars they are protecting you, even as you badmouth them and sabotage their efforts. you are a lucky man. try to remember that.

[Phoenix]

American value: Don't tread on me.

It's a good one.

[Zifnab]

"you are eading alternet again. Otherwise, how could you be certain that the individual was 'innocent' and a 'civilian'. Is it possible that your kneejerk reaction is to see bad americans behind every news report?"

Ah, yes. Guilty until prove innocent. You'll make a great USA, so long as you don't target any Republicans. Kinda hard to have a trial for a dead man, so I guess we have to assume he was an evil terr'rist on the President's solomn word. If someone is accused of a crime, he is automatically guilty until the military tribunal is presented with substantial evidence to the contrary.

Now tell us again how Libby deserves a pardon for his conviction.

[Zifnab]

"these guys have access to modern weapons and they want you dead. Did you forget that two 100 storey towers fell to the ground? our american values allowed those guys into our country to kill thousands."

No, our dumbass asleep-at-the-wheel President allowed those guys into our country. Our shitty airport security that he continues to refuse to improve let them on those planes because it would mean rolling back taxcuts.

"These guys" died in the plane crash and their desire to kill us died with them. Bin Laden - the mastermind of the plot - isn't important enough to apprehend. And Bush has yet to bust another serious plot against our country, just a series of non-threats like the Miami Five or the English guys who didn't even have passports. If terrorists remain in this country, the police will never find them, the US Attorneys will never prosecute them, and no judge will ever convict them, because Republicans are too busy trying to rig elections and skim money off the government trough to bother looking.

"It is easy to talk of the american values we both cherish. but don't be so fast to pass judgement on our leaders, who really do have your best interest in mind."

I don't know who's "best interest" they've got in mind, but it sure as hell isn't mine. They tap our phones, they piss away our tax dollars, they corrupt our public offices, and they slowly burn up our Constitution. None of that benefits me. I don't know how it benefits you, but surge on good buddy, cause by 2008 it'll be all over for you.

[Fred Beloit]

Zif, what happens in your head overnight? At times you appear somewhat reasonable, but every time one starts to have the least impression of your fairness, you come out with the goofiest stuff one can imagine. Example: "Our s----y airport security that he [the President] refuses to improve let them on those planes because it would mean rolling back taxcuts." There are so many things wrong with this single sentence it would take many long paragraphs to enumerate and refute them. Let me instead take just the first three words. Our airport security is working even though the Left has done everything it could do to wreck it. As evidence, let me remind you there have been no successful attacks since 9/11. This is in spite of the fact that our enemy has a certain Middle Eastern look. Screeners are prevented from paying special attention to people with that look. You Libs make that politically impossible. You have made this common sense approach into "racial profiling" even though it is really enemy profiling. I could expend more words on unionizing the screeners, but I won't; this is long enough now.

[nowinger]

Our airport security is not working, TSAs own tests prove it, the screeners routintely miss the guns and explosives. They must be too busy feeling up innocent female travelers and making grandpa take off his belt buckle, that or stealing stuff from passengers. I suspect there hasn't been a successful attack because Al Quaeda hasn't tried it again, not because TSA has been foiling terrorist plots right and left. We got the crazy shoebomber and the Brits got a bunch of guys with no passports or explosives. TSA is nothing more than conditioning the population to expect government intrusion. It is all window dressing.

[Zifnab]

"Our airport security is working even though the Left has done everything it could do to wreck it. As evidence, let me remind you there have been no successful attacks since 9/11."

Fred, a lack of terror attacks doesn't prove a functional security system. If, perhaps, the airport security caught attempted hijackers, you'd have a case. But as Mr. Shoe-bomber wasn't caught until he was on the plane, and the guys who wanted to cook up liquid explosives in the Lou never even got near an airplane, we haven't seen any positive indication of security success.

The reviews have been abysmal. The September 11th Commission gave airport security an "F" rating. Testers have been caught cheating
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/19/san-francisco-airport-officials-cheated-on-security-testing/
or simply failing
http://wcbs880.com/pages/115691.php?contentType=4&contentId=230819
repeated tests of the security procedures. Bush has forstalled implimenting 9/11 commission recommendations because the bill allows workers to unionize, and apparently unions are a greater threat to national security than hijackers.

"Screeners are prevented from paying special attention to people with that look. You Libs make that politically impossible. You have made this common sense approach into "racial profiling" even though it is really enemy profiling."

The "racial profiling" you refer to typically involves throwing Muslims into prolonged custody or simply denying them plane access even after a reasonable search and investigation has been conducted. The guys who got thrown off the Qwest flight were tossed off for praying, not for having links to terror organizations, carrying concealed weapons, or making threats to passangers.

Republican "feel good" legislation typically consists of harassing brown people at airports. Democratic "functional" legislation typically consists of improving baggage screening, expediting background checks, and refining No-Fly lists to include actual suspected terrorists rather than every political opponent that can be crammed in.

[Fred Beloit]

Zifnab: "A lack of successful terrorist attacks doesn't prove a functional security system." Amazing! Thanks for helping me demonstrate my assessment of your logic and objectivity, Zif. You DO, however, believe, like your colleague nowitter, a few MSM reports that in some tests at some places guns and other forbidden items got through prove that it isn't working. Have you read any reports in the NYT that there have been no attacks since 9/11? Of course not, that isn't news. Gee, Doctors can't cure anything. I just read a report in the NYT about how there are some sick people in the hospital.