British Embassy in Tehran Stormed

[AndyDufresne]

This was just coming across the wire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15936213

Protesters in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have broken into the UK embassy compound during a demonstration against sanctions imposed by Britain.

Militant students are said to have removed the British flag, burnt it and replaced it with Iran's flag. State TV showed youths smashing embassy windows.

The move comes after Iran resolved to reduce ties following the UK's decision to impose further sanctions on it.

The UK's Foreign Office said it was "outraged" by the actions.

It urged Iran to honour international commitments to protect diplomatic missions and their staff.

The students clashed with riot police and chanted "the embassy of Britain should be taken over" and "death to England", AP reports.

Students were reported to be ransacking offices inside the building, and one protester was said to be waving a framed picture of Queen Elizabeth II.

Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency said embassy documents had been set alight. Embassy staff fled by the back door, the agency added.

...

Even the picture of the Queen wasn't safe!


--Andy

[barackattack]

So:
- the protestors are angry about reduced ties between the UK and Iran (suggesting they want greater ties)
- Iran behaves in a way that it knows will lead to the UK imposing sanctions
- Iran is moving to impose diplomatic sanctions on the UK (i.e. further reducing ties)
- the protestors target Britain but ignore their own government

[thegreekdog]

So:
- the protestors are angry about reduced ties between the UK and Iran (suggesting they want greater ties)
- Iran behaves in a way that it knows will lead to the UK imposing sanctions
- Iran is moving to impose diplomatic sanctions on the UK (i.e. further reducing ties)
- the protestors target Britain but ignore their own government

The British won't shoot them (at least not yet).

[barackattack]

So:
- the protestors are angry about reduced ties between the UK and Iran (suggesting they want greater ties)
- Iran behaves in a way that it knows will lead to the UK imposing sanctions
- Iran is moving to impose diplomatic sanctions on the UK (i.e. further reducing ties)
- the protestors target Britain but ignore their own government

The British won't shoot them (at least not yet).

The failings of liberal governance.

[Metsfanmax]

So:
- the protestors are angry about reduced ties between the UK and Iran (suggesting they want greater ties)
- Iran behaves in a way that it knows will lead to the UK imposing sanctions
- Iran is moving to impose diplomatic sanctions on the UK (i.e. further reducing ties)
- the protestors target Britain but ignore their own government

The British won't shoot them (at least not yet).

But will they use pepper spray?

[InkL0sed]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

[thegreekdog]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

[Baron Von PWN]

So:
- the protestors are angry about reduced ties between the UK and Iran (suggesting they want greater ties)
They are angry about sanctions, I don't think they give a hoot about UK-Iran relations

- Iran behaves in a way that it knows will lead to the UK imposing sanctions
- Iran is moving to impose diplomatic sanctions on the UK (i.e. further reducing ties)
- the protestors target Britain but ignore their own government
the joys of nationalism

[Baron Von PWN]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

Their government didn't impose sanctions the UK did.

It's much easier to blame an outsider than it is your own government. Especially an outsider with a history of messing with your domestic affairs.

[saxitoxin]

Oh no! The Iranians looted the embassy's treasured Travolta painting! Oh the humanity!



from: http://www.reuters.com/article/slidesho ... 111129#a=1

Ol' Saxi agrees with InkL0sed and Baron Von PWN.

[barackattack]

If they're angry about sanctions then they should have thought about the potential consequences of their actions before they pissed off our Government. The UK isn't actively taking something from Iran - they are denying Iran access to something that they have no entitlement to anyway.

They are only lying in the bed they have made for themselves.

[ender516]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

Their government didn't impose sanctions the UK did.

It's much easier to blame an outsider than it is your own government. Especially an outsider with a history of messing with your domestic affairs.

And especially when your government is not particularly tolerant of anti-government protests.

[saxitoxin]

If they're angry about sanctions then they should have thought about the potential consequences of their actions before they pissed off our Government.

If you're mad about the Liverpool Customs House getting leveled in the Blitz, you should have thought about the potential consequences of your actions before you pissed off Hitler.

[InkL0sed]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

My point is simply from our Western perspective. The purpose of these sanctions is to discourage the Iranian government from certain behaviors (mostly its nuclear program). We've known for a while that these sanctions have a limited (if any) effect in that respect – I'm just wondering if they're in fact a counter-productive policy.

Basically I'm saying this: maybe, in the end, our sanctions just give the Iranian government more excuses to externalize the problems, thus giving them enough support to suppress anti-government protests. If that were the case, it might be a good idea to end them.

I also don't really know what's going on – but that's why I'm only wondering these things.

[thegreekdog]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

My point is simply from our Western perspective. The purpose of these sanctions is to discourage the Iranian government from certain behaviors (mostly its nuclear program). We've known for a while that these sanctions have a limited (if any) effect in that respect – I'm just wondering if they're in fact a counter-productive policy.

Basically I'm saying this: maybe, in the end, our sanctions just give the Iranian government more excuses to externalize the problems, thus giving them enough support to suppress anti-government protests. If that were the case, it might be a good idea to end them.

I also don't really know what's going on – but that's why I'm only wondering these things.

I thought the sanctions had to do with human rights issues (shows what I know).

Let me put it another way - If Cuba imposed (effective) sanctions on the United States because we still had the death penalty or didn't allow women to vote or whatever and if I was angry about those sanctions, I'd probably blame the United States (not Cuba), especially if I didn't support the death penalty or prohibiting women to vote or whatever. Although, if I thought I could get away with storming the Cuban embassy and knew that I couldn't get away with storming the U.S. capitol because someone would torture and kill me, I would storm the Cuban embassy.

That's all I'm sayin'.

[Army of GOD]

#occupybritishembassyintehran

[InkL0sed]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

My point is simply from our Western perspective. The purpose of these sanctions is to discourage the Iranian government from certain behaviors (mostly its nuclear program). We've known for a while that these sanctions have a limited (if any) effect in that respect – I'm just wondering if they're in fact a counter-productive policy.

Basically I'm saying this: maybe, in the end, our sanctions just give the Iranian government more excuses to externalize the problems, thus giving them enough support to suppress anti-government protests. If that were the case, it might be a good idea to end them.

I also don't really know what's going on – but that's why I'm only wondering these things.

I thought the sanctions had to do with human rights issues (shows what I know).

You're (mostly) mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

[thegreekdog]

I wonder if these sanctions are doing any good. Maybe if they weren't there, Iranians would be more inclined to blame their own government for economic troubles.

Instead of blaming their government for the sanctions? Maybe. I'm not Iranian so I don't know the root cause of the protests.

My point is simply from our Western perspective. The purpose of these sanctions is to discourage the Iranian government from certain behaviors (mostly its nuclear program). We've known for a while that these sanctions have a limited (if any) effect in that respect – I'm just wondering if they're in fact a counter-productive policy.

Basically I'm saying this: maybe, in the end, our sanctions just give the Iranian government more excuses to externalize the problems, thus giving them enough support to suppress anti-government protests. If that were the case, it might be a good idea to end them.

I also don't really know what's going on – but that's why I'm only wondering these things.

I thought the sanctions had to do with human rights issues (shows what I know).

You're (mostly) mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Okay, good to know.

So, on the one hand we have imposed sanctions so, ostensibly, they aren't able to build nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, we are concerned that they are building nuclear weapons (that should read "We need to invade Iranistan!").

[barackattack]

If you're mad about the Liverpool Customs House getting leveled in the Blitz, you should have thought about the potential consequences of your actions before you pissed off Hitler.

Who said I'm mad about the Blitz, bro? England knew that declaring war on Hitler opened them up to risk.

I am being driven slightly insane trying to work out what the parallels are between the following two scenarios though...

(England's situation) - Enduring the bombing of British cities by a combat belligerent. Actively destructive.
(Iran's situation) - Another country's banking system being told not to conduct business with you. Passively constricting, at worst.

[greenoaks]

i don't understand why sanctions have been made. doesn't everyone have the right to bear arms?

i thought that was put in the constitution so you could defend yourself if the US government became to oppressive. isn't the Iranian government attempting to bear arms because they believe the US government may become too oppressive.

how can the US allow the British to deny the Iranian people their basic rights?

[barackattack]

i don't understand why sanctions have been made. doesn't everyone have the right to bear arms?

i thought that was put in the constitution so you could defend yourself if the US government became to oppressive. isn't the Iranian government attempting to bear arms because they believe the US government may become too oppressive.

how can the US allow the British to deny the Iranian people their basic rights?

The US constitution only applies to US citizens. It isn't applicable to anything other than domestic affairs in the US.

And we're talking about trade sanctions, not human rights violations. The UK is under no obligation to trade with Iran, and is perfectly free to withdraw cooperation if Iran behaves in a way the UK doesn't like. Iranian banks have no 'right' to trade with UK ones.

[thegreekdog]

i don't understand why sanctions have been made. doesn't everyone have the right to bear arms?

i thought that was put in the constitution so you could defend yourself if the US government became to oppressive. isn't the Iranian government attempting to bear arms because they believe the US government may become too oppressive.

how can the US allow the British to deny the Iranian people their basic rights?

The US constitution only applies to US citizens. It isn't applicable to anything other than domestic affairs in the US.

And we're talking about trade sanctions, not human rights violations. The UK is under no obligation to trade with Iran, and is perfectly free to withdraw cooperation if Iran behaves in a way the UK doesn't like. Iranian banks have no 'right' to trade with UK ones.

Just so you are aware, some people that frequent this forum believe that there are basic human rights that cross borders. Some of these basic human rights include "free" education, "free" healthcare, "free" housing, and "free" food. I'm not saying Greenoaks is one of those people (honestly, I'm not), but those people do exist.

[saxitoxin]

how can the US allow the British to deny the Iranian people their basic rights?

The US constitution only applies to US citizens.

Lordy-me! That's what Vichy France said about the German constitution in 1942. Are you the reincarnation of Phil Pétain?

[Gillipig]

Iran tries to develop nuclear power (bombs too I'm sure) west doesn't like it, threatens with economic sanctions something that the Iranians doesn't like (why can't we have it when you have it? You even have nuclear bombs for f sake!) Have heard this before. My money would be on that Iran develops nuclear power, no one makes any sanctions for a couple of years. Then we find out they're developing the bomb and we start our sanctions. After a period of pointless sanctions Iran finally gets it's darn nuclear bombs and starts feeling safe. Sanctions are removed because Iran haven't attacked anyone in the next couple of years. This in turn encourage all other fascist dictators to do the same and before we know it, every little dictator is sitting on a nuclear bomb. This will in turn lead to the end of the world!! The judgement day will come and Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva even Elvis will return to fight. They will all pick their favorite mortal kombat character and decide Armageddon online. Jesus goes first and he'll chose Lui Kang (Jesus always picks the good guy ), Mohammed like bad guys hellbent on revenge so he'll chose Scorpion (Good choice Mohammed, scorpion would've been my first choice too.), Buddha will chose the old wise thunder god Raiden (mirrors his own personality pretty well), Vishnu the god of destruction and eternal life will chose Shinnok, the only eternal being, because just like Buddha he's very self absorbed. Elvis, the most self absorbed of all gods will chose the most self absorbed character, Johnny Cage. Whoever wins will have the others followers as slaves! I'm guessing that in the end Elvis will reign supreme! I'm not 100% sure all of this will actually happen but it's the most likely. It's really a coin flip between Mohammed and Elvis !

[Baron Von PWN]

If they're angry about sanctions then they should have thought about the potential consequences of their actions before they pissed off our Government. The UK isn't actively taking something from Iran - they are denying Iran access to something that they have no entitlement to anyway.

They are only lying in the bed they have made for themselves.

So if the US were to say to the UK. "give up all your nukes or we will impose sanctions". and the British subsequently refused, It would then be the fault of the British government that sanctions were imposed?

Let's at least be honest with ourselves here, the Iranian protesters were pissed the British government imposed coercive measures(rightly or wrongly) on their country.