BREAKING - Iranian protesters storm British embassy in Tehran, take hostages

RobitTV

Iranian protesters stormed two British Embassy compounds in Tehran on Tuesday, smashing windows, hurling petrol bombs and burning the British flag in a protest against sanctions imposed by Britain, live Iranian television showed.

Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency said protesters took six British diplomatic staff hostage from an embassy compound in the north of the city but it withdrew the story from its website minutes later without giving any explanation.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Iranian-protesters-storm-British-embassy-in-Tehran-take-hostages/articleshow/10921725.cms

Jaafa

The hostages were freed by police and the crowd has been dispersed.

The protest was originally held to commemorate the murder of an Iranian nuclear scientist who, according to the Iranian government was killed by MI6 and Mossad. Just some back-story for people.

constantg

Don't the Foreign Embassies have armed British Guards as well as armed Iranians? Why did the British not defend sovereign British soil??

JustinDee

constantg wrote: »

Don't the Foreign Embassies have armed British Guards as well as armed Iranians? Why did the British not defend sovereign British soil??

Have a guess.
What do you think the effect of shooting at an Iranian in Tehran would have have been?

Mr.Micro

TBH I was surprised to discover that the British still had an embassy in Tehran considering the animosity of the British towards Iran. Some of the staff have left now it appears.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15956946

Sierra Oscar

William Hague has just announced that all Iranian diplomats are to be expelled from the UK , with the Iranian embassy in London to be closed immediately.

UK to expel all Iranian diplomats over embassy attack

The UK is to expel all Iranian diplomats following the storming of its embassy in Tehran, Foreign Secretary William Hague has announced.

Killer Pigeon

Another stepping stone towards a war with Iran, I imagine.

pacquiao

Some context is in order.


The first shipment of Iranian crude oil has been sold on Iran's international oil bourse on the Persian Gulf island of Kish, an Iranian official says.

The Iranian oil bourse was officially inaugurated on July 14, 2011 on the Kish International Commodity Exchange, as a tool to strengthen Iran’s position in the international markets. Iran possesses the world’s second largest gas reserves and third largest oil reserves.

Fratton Fred

pacquiao wrote: »

Some context is in order.


The first shipment of Iranian crude oil has been sold on Iran's international oil bourse on the Persian Gulf island of Kish, an Iranian official says.

The Iranian oil bourse was officially inaugurated on July 14, 2011 on the Kish International Commodity Exchange, as a tool to strengthen Iran’s position in the international markets. Iran possesses the world’s second largest gas reserves and third largest oil reserves.

So this is the reason why Iranian students attacked the British embassy??

pacquiao

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So this is the reason why Iranian students attacked the British embassy??

Yes. It is directly linked.
George Osborne's decision to force UK banks to cease trading with Tehran has inflamed diplomatic tensions.

Cardinal Richelieu

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Another stepping stone towards a war with Iran, I imagine.

War! Iran ain't a flat desert like Iraq and the Persian War/Lebanon did give Iranian military commanders combat experience. Scientific development in Iran is way ahead of other Islamic nations and Ireland. Surprised they just don't flood the country with more drugs from Afganistan, already a serious drug problem in Iran.

Fratton Fred

pacquiao wrote: »

Yes. It is directly linked.
George Osborne's decision to force UK banks to cease trading with Tehran has inflamed diplomatic tensions.

Aah right, not because they are using the money to build nukes then?

Ellis Dee

In the days when virtually all of the British Lunchtime O'Boozes posted to Belfast spent most of their time in the bunker-like interior of the Europa Hotel and dutifully posted the handouts that the British Army press office gave them as "fact", Robert Fisk was that rarest of rare things: a journalist who got out and about and reported what he saw, factually and non-tendentiously. He was often criticised for being "pro-Irish", when in fact he is just "pro-truth".:)

Now that Iran is the next target of choice for the USA and its more subservient allies, who fear it will break the nuclear monopoly that the zionazi terrorist rogue entity that calls itself Israel has in the Middle East, Robert Fisk is again at our service with objective reporting. His article in today's Independent (UK) is well worth a read:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-sanctions-are-only-a-small-part-of-the-history-that-makes-iranians-hate-the-uk-6269812.html

Extract:

"The mass of US secret documents found after the American embassy was sacked following the Iranian revolution proved to the Iranians not only Washington's attempts to subvert the new order of Ayatollah Khomeini but the continued partnership of the American and British intelligence services.

The British ambassador, almost to the end, remained convinced that the Shah, though deeply flawed, would survive. And British governments have continued to rage about the supposedly terrorist nature of the Iranian government. Tony Blair – even at the official inquiry into the Iraq war – started raving about the necessity of standing up to Iranian aggression."

It's hardly surprising that Iran - a country that last launched a war of aggression in 1768 - may now be feeling it needs nukes.:eek:

Paddy Samurai

Looks like things are hotting up.Iranian embassy staff have got their marching orders

The UK is to expel all Iranian diplomats following the storming of its embassy in Tehran, Foreign Secretary William Hague has announced.
He said he had ordered the immediate closure of the Iranian embassy in London.

"If any country makes it impossible for us to operate on their soil they cannot expect to have a functioning embassy here," Mr Hague told MPs

no messing with the brits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15966628

Mr.Micro

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

Looks like things are hotting up.Iranian embassy staff have got their marching orders





no messing with the brits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15966628

Getting ready for another war then? Blair had his and not to be outdone Cameron wants one as well? It will take peoples minds off a possible recession in the UK. Cut backs on health, welfare, benefits, programmes etc but there is always billions for a war and the continuing campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq...disgusting. Sort the UK out before going into another country Cameron.


I do not condone the attack on the British embassy but openly hostile to Iran does not help relations.

The Outside Agency

Fratton Fred wrote:

Aah right, not because they are using the money to build nukes then?

Yes, it's all about nukes, of course

Fratton Fred

nivekd wrote: »

Yes, it's all about nukes, of course

So the UN are in on this big oil conspiracy are they?

Btw, the Germans recalled their ambassador to Iran today in protest.

Sunnyisland

So has france.






http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=recalled%20their%20ambassador%20to%20iran&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FenergyOilNews%2FidAFP6E7LO02320111130&ei=Ym_WTpGBF5KKhQfH_dVt&usg=AFQjCNHRq8hfE1NVyps8Wtes_5UF4q3OlQ

Cardinal Richelieu

realies wrote: »

So has france.






http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=recalled%20their%20ambassador%20to%20iran&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FenergyOilNews%2FidAFP6E7LO02320111130&ei=Ym_WTpGBF5KKhQfH_dVt&usg=AFQjCNHRq8hfE1NVyps8Wtes_5UF4q3OlQ

Its the whole EU, they usually do these things with a united front thesedays. Of course we are ahead of the game with our closer of the Iranian embassy in Tehran.:D

n900guy

Well in through the side entrance - Syria - is the plan. Especially as Japan has been taken out of the picture after they originally agreed to process uranium for Iran in February 2010. Now they have their own nuclear disaster (again) which will bankrupt them so they will not be doing any external uranium processing. Iran is a good chunk of the Greater Israel borders.

Plus, they said nasty things about the Israeli government.

And Iran are too quiet. Need to kick start some chaos and replace the government of a stable republic with a chaotic islamic terrorist group, like Libya.

pacquiao

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah right, not because they are using the money to build nukes then?

Lets hope they are building a nuke. Just like Pakistan,Israel and India which also developed the bomb on the sly.

Sunnyisland

n900guy wrote: »

Well in through the side entrance - Syria - is the plan. Especially as Japan has been taken out of the picture after they originally agreed to process uranium for Iran in February 2010. Now they have their own nuclear disaster (again) which will bankrupt them so they will not be doing any external uranium processing. Iran is a good chunk of the Greater Israel borders.

Plus, they said nasty things about the Israeli government.

And Iran are too quiet. Need to kick start some chaos and replace the government of a stable republic with a chaotic islamic terrorist group, like Libya.

Could you explain what this post means please.:)

Sunnyisland

pacquiao wrote: »

Lets hope they are building a nuke. Just like Pakistan,Israel and India which also developed the bomb on the sly.

Iran will not be allowed build or get nuclear weapons,There will be a war or some sort of attack to stop them.imo.

The Outside Agency

So the UN are in on this big oil conspiracy are they?

There are 2 possibilities here.

1. You're being intellectually dishonest.
2. You're badly informed.

Which is it?

When you say "UN" who exactly are you referring to?
US and EU? Would that be it?

Can you list me those countries in favour of bombing Iran?
I'd imagine it's pretty short, for obvious reasons you can't comprehend.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Btw, the Germans recalled their ambassador to Iran today in protest.

But of course, the Germans don't need hydrocarbon energy... why would they? They run all their oil powered machinery on water.

Let's forget the fact that most industrialised countries would collapse tomorrow if there was suddenly no oil left.

It's amazing how little history you war cheerleaders actually know.

Study the history of Iran, you can start with UK/US sponsered coup of 1953 then look at earlier and later events such as Iranian Revolution in 1979

Iran/Iraq war and the role of UK support / US support of Iraq for invading Iran.

Look at previous economic recessions and how they correlate with lack of cheap energy.

Do you really believe the west would spend trillions of dollars invading countries to promote democracy?

Try avoid being intellectually dishonest on the only reason the west is interested in Iran, it's got nothing to do with nuclear weapons just as the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with chemical weapons.

Mr.Micro

nivekd wrote: »

Do you really believe the west would spend trillions of dollars invading countries to promote democracy?

I agree. No country is that altruistic. The US owes billions in debts so why is it still paying for the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan and soon more than likely Iran? Such monies would be better spent on its own problems and its massive debts. Of course its not about oil is it? Its about protecting Israel? What is the real reason?

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree. No country is that altruistic. The US owes billions in debts so why is it still paying for the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan and soon more than likely Iran? Such monies would be better spent on its own problems and its massive debts. Of course its not about oil is it? Its about protecting Israel? What is the real reason?

There is no magic singular reason really. As with anything is complex. Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld felt they could take advantage of the post 911 anti-terrorist climate (partly manufactured by themselves) and push to rid the world of Saddam, thrust democracy into the centre of the Middle East, and on paper it ticked all the typical 18th century war boxes - strategic, geopolitical, resource, etc. Deeply unpopular, based on several lies and exaggerations, despite the hemorrhage of human life and vast sums of money - once in they couldn't just turn tail and leave. Change of administration - they are "phasing out" of Iraq, just another term for gradual retreat.

Ironically that type of "situation" would have had a much higher chance of success in '91, but the US was still suffering Vietnam syndrome.

Afghanistan, a stick and carrot war really, the US was going to show the bad guys (after 911), and then turn their country in democratic model. Was abandoned to a skeleton crew for half decade whilst Bush went on jaunt to Iraq - Taliban poured back over the Tora-Bora - now largely in control

Bush and Blair have left a legacy of hideous mistakes. That no country can be "pre-emptively" forced to change ideology, no matter how bad the previous system.

Genuine change comes from within.. and takes time. The Arab Spring is a good example of this.

I am not going to speak for the Israelis, but no one wants a war with Iran, not least the Iranians. The sabre-rattling is what keeps their population distracted from the regime's god awful domestic policies and masks their waning popularity with patriotism.

charlemont

nivekd wrote: »

Yes, it's all about nukes, of course

That's unfortunately what the sheep will go along with..

Jonny7

charlemont wrote: »

That's unfortunately what the sheep will go along with..

and unfortunately there are those who simply back Iran because they have developed a deep distaste for US foreign policy. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

Just like Saudi Arabia, the Iranian regime needs no apologists (that'll test you).

JustinDee

I do love when folk attempt the intellectual superiority mode over others on internet forums.
No need for them to be so smug. Its not like they're speaking from first-hand experience. All they're doing is retroactively and very selectively plucking links from google searches and/wikipedia.
Their armchair and anonymous moniker qualifies them no more than anyone else.
Had to say this, as some of the posters should realise that the armchair or barstool in conjunction with internet connection is hardly the Temple of Secrets and they're not experts (not referring to previous post, by the way). As with others, unless copper-branded in this field, all they're giving is OPINION.

Fratton Fred

nivekd wrote: »

There are 2 possibilities here.

1. You're being intellectually dishonest.
2. You're badly informed.

Which is it?

When you say "UN" who exactly are you referring to?
US and EU? Would that be it?

Can you list me those countries in favour of bombing Iran?
I'd imagine it's pretty short, for obvious reasons you can't comprehend.



But of course, the Germans don't need hydrocarbon energy... why would they? They run all their oil powered machinery on water.

Let's forget the fact that most industrialised countries would collapse tomorrow if there was suddenly no oil left.

It's amazing how little history you war cheerleaders actually know.

Study the history of Iran, you can start with UK/US sponsered coup of 1953 then look at earlier and later events such as Iranian Revolution in 1979

Iran/Iraq war and the role of UK support / US support of Iraq for invading Iran.

Look at previous economic recessions and how they correlate with lack of cheap energy.

Do you really believe the west would spend trillions of dollars invading countries to promote democracy?

Try avoid being intellectually dishonest on the only reason the west is interested in Iran, it's got nothing to do with nuclear weapons just as the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with chemical weapons.

Who said anything about bombing Iran?

Iran attacked the British embassy, it has widely condemned.

Now apparently this is a demonstration of the west's desire to get Irans oil, because that is the only reason they do anything.

Fratton Fred

n900guy wrote: »

Well in through the side entrance - Syria - is the plan. Especially as Japan has been taken out of the picture after they originally agreed to process uranium for Iran in February 2010. Now they have their own nuclear disaster (again) which will bankrupt them so they will not be doing any external uranium processing. Iran is a good chunk of the Greater Israel borders.

Plus, they said nasty things about the Israeli government.

And Iran are too quiet. Need to kick start some chaos and replace the government of a stable republic with a chaotic islamic terrorist group, like Libya.

Is this the stable republic whose president lost the last election, but thanks to religious leaders and the army he remained in power?

The Outside Agency

JustinDee wrote: »

I do love when folk attempt the intellectual superiority mode over others on internet forums.
No need for them to be so smug. Its not like they're speaking from first-hand experience. All they're doing is retroactively and very selectively plucking links from google searches and/wikipedia.
Their armchair and anonymous moniker qualifies them no more than anyone else.
Had to say this, as some of the posters should realise that the armchair or barstool in conjunction with internet connection is hardly the Temple of Secrets and they're not experts (not referring to previous post, by the way). As with others, unless copper-branded in this field, all they're giving is OPINION.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, have you thought about setting up a blog?

Fratton Fred

nivekd wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, have you thought about setting up a blog?

Hi Pot, meet Mt Kettle.

The Outside Agency

I'd be happy to provide you and your friends historical facts that back up my own opinion but unfortunately I don't have the time.

Well, to be honest, I just can't be bothered because I've read through previous posts and it's clear what you believe already so I'd be wasting my time.

My own opinions are derived from history and economics and I believe in them. You believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat to Israel.

I believe the only interests the NATO have in Iran is energy, just like China and Russia, 2 other global powers.

For me, the interests of Israel are not the same as the US and I think that's where many many people get confused about what exactly the NATO are doing in the middle east.

I've no idea what Israel wants and don't really care..it's a non-issue.
The NATO objectives in the region has very little to do with Israels security.

China and Russia are doing lots of business with Iran and they don't give a **** about Israel nor ever have.

I'm not anti-semitic, I do not support Iran and do not think the US is "Great Satan" ... these are childish arguments.

Palmach

nivekd wrote: »

I believe the only interests the NATO have in Iran is energy, just like China and Russia, 2 other global powers.

For me, the interests of Israel are not the same as the US and I think that's where many many people get confused about what exactly the NATO are doing in the middle east.
.

NATO are not in Iran or the ME.

Border-Rat

Left-wing kleptocratic Britain has invaded Iran twice in the past century. In WW1, again with their leftist-Communist Allies in the mass murdering USSR, and then wanted to do the same again in 1951 but were stopped by the USA.

And yet this Country, which has invaded 2 of Irans neighbours (Sorry, the USA did all the work, the UK tagged along like the bully's cowardly friend)... is pontificating over Iran. What a joke, the UK is a nuclear-armed menace.

Border-Rat

Palmach wrote: »

NATO are not in Iran or the ME.

NATO is in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Azerbaijan. The only reason they're not in Iran is because NATO is an air-power, its ground forces are useless against Iran, they can't fight.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

Left-wing kleptocratic Britain has invaded Iran twice in the past century. In WW1, again with their leftist-Communist Allies in the mass murdering USSR, and then wanted to do the same again in 1951 but were stopped by the USA.

And yet this Country, which has invaded 2 of Irans neighbours (Sorry, the USA did all the work, the UK tagged along like the bully's cowardly friend)... is pontificating over Iran. What a joke, the UK is a nuclear-armed menace.

Thank you. That is a very, even handed appraisal of the situation and adds loads to the discussion.

Mr.Micro

JustinDee wrote: »

I do love when folk attempt the intellectual superiority mode over others on internet forums.
No need for them to be so smug. Its not like they're speaking from first-hand experience. All they're doing is retroactively and very selectively plucking links from google searches and/wikipedia.
Their armchair and anonymous moniker qualifies them no more than anyone else.
Had to say this, as some of the posters should realise that the armchair or barstool in conjunction with internet connection is hardly the Temple of Secrets and they're not experts (not referring to previous post, by the way). As with others, unless copper-branded in this field, all they're giving is OPINION.

Smug like your post I must say. Maybe we should all desist from airing any opinions at all, as we are not experts and leave it all to you, who is clearly an expert. Why do I feel so patronized after reading the above?

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thank you. That is a very, even handed appraisal of the situation and adds loads to the discussion.

Incapable of rebutting the points because they are facts. Leave me with your sarcasm or try to defend your Country's previous and current policies. Again, Britain has invaded Iran twice in the past one hundred years, engineered an end to their Democratic regime in the 50's, invaded two of their neighbours in the past decade and is threatening to attack them in the present.

So, you see, the Iranians have every right to be upset.

Border-Rat

A simple comparison. If Iran invaded Ireland, then France. Then threatened to bomb the nuclear plant at Sellafield... I wonder what the UK response would be? Why, according to the supporters of kleptocracy, the response, naturally, would be to permit Iran to install a Government in London to its liking. That would be the just, and fair thing to do. Anyone saying otherwise is a mad supporter of 'duh terrorasts'.

Laughable.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

Incapable of rebutting the points because they are facts. Leave me with your sarcasm or try to defend your Country's previous and current policies. Again, Britain has invaded Iran twice in the past one hundred years, engineered an end to their Democratic regime in the 50's, invaded two of their neighbours in the past decade and is threatening to attack them in the present.

So, you see, the Iranians have every right to be upset.

Upset about what?

HicksLennon

Nuff said!!

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Upset about what?

I'd say they're not as upset as they used to be, Britain couldn't take 5 square inches of Iran. Britain's day of being a threat to Iran is over, they're now confined to jeering from the space between America's (Bankrupt, wobbly) legs.

They've been talking trash now for 5 years about hitting Iran. It hasn't happened because they learned lessons in humility in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'd say they're not as upset as they used to be, Britain couldn't take 5 square inches of Iran. Britain's day of being a threat to Iran is over, they're now confined to jeering from the space between America's (Bankrupt, wobbly) legs.

They've been talking trash now for 5 years about hitting Iran. It hasn't happened because they learned lessons in humility in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tl:dr version.

Nothing to say, just having a rant about Britain.

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Tl:dr version.

Oh, come on. Its about the same number of words you'll find on the side of a beercan.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

Oh, come on. Its about the same number of words you'll find on the side of a beercan.

Aah, may contain nuts.

BlaasForRafa

Border-Rat wrote: »

Left-wing kleptocratic Britain has invaded Iran twice in the past century. In WW1, again with their leftist-Communist Allies in the mass murdering USSR, and then wanted to do the same again in 1951 but were stopped by the USA.

And yet this Country, which has invaded 2 of Irans neighbours (Sorry, the USA did all the work, the UK tagged along like the bully's cowardly friend)... is pontificating over Iran. What a joke, the UK is a nuclear-armed menace.

Left-wing kleptocratic britain? Could you get any more cliché if you tried, perhaps if you put on a tinfoil hat I guess.

Anyway, in actual news, just to confirm the bleedin obvious, a report that the Iranian regime staged the ransack of the british embassy to distract from the Syrian situation.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-iran-authorities-behind-attack-on-u-k-embassy-1.399006

Proof of their involvement was in the media coverage, according to the sources. Photographs of the attack show troops from the Basij forces taking part, as well as members of the al-Quds Brigade.

In addition, two official state television channels, directly controlled by Khamenei – Press T.V. and al-Alam News Network - managed to broadcast the attack live. No official news channels are permitted to broadcast life without Khamenei's permission, the sources told Al-Arabiya.

charlemont

Jonny7 wrote: »

and unfortunately there are those who simply back Iran because they have developed a deep distaste for US foreign policy. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

Just like Saudi Arabia, the Iranian regime needs no apologists (that'll test you).

Is that the best you can do ? Next best thing to accusing me of being Anti-American because I don't want to see a bloodbath in Iran, Come back when you read some detailed information about Iran..You mention Saudi Arabia too, sure the Americans love the their ruling family, Saudi Arabia is a harsher country to live in then Iran anyway.

Jonny7

charlemont wrote: »

Is that the best you can do ? Next best thing to accusing me of being Anti-American because I don't want to see a bloodbath in Iran, Come back when you read some detailed information about Iran..You mention Saudi Arabia too, sure the Americans love the their ruling family, Saudi Arabia is a harsher country to live in then Iran anyway.

Didn't you just label people sheep.. or were you talking about sheep in general?

I know plenty about Iran and Ahmadinejad and I base my opinion on that, not jumping on some bandwagon.