Here’s a brief CNN report on the events. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
Interestingly enough, the Iranian government initially said that six hostages had been taken at the embassy, but that report was quickly withdrawn. According to Reuters:
Iranian Protesters Storm British Embassy
(Reuters) - Iranian protesters stormed two British Embassy compounds in Tehran 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.
The attacks followed the rapid approval by Iran’s Guardian Council of a parliamentary bill compelling the government to expel the British ambassador in retaliation for the sanctions. A lawmaker had also warned Sunday that angry Iranians could storm the British Embassy as they did the U.S. mission in 1979.
Several dozen protesters broke away from a crowd of a few hundred protesters outside the main embassy compound in downtown Tehran, scaled the embassy gates and went inside.
Protesters pulled down the British flag, burned it, and put up the Iranian flag, Iranian news agencies and news pictures showed. Inside, the demonstrators threw stones and petrol bombs. One waved a framed picture of Queen Elizabeth, state TV showed.
Others carried the royal crest out through the embassy gate as police stood by, pictures carried by the official Fars news agency showed.
15 comments:
On a side note, there sure are a lot of "students" in Iran. I wonder what they're majoring in. Beheading Studies, perhaps?
Attacking and occupying British Embassy in Iran is an act of war. Government of Iran failed to protect Britain. Britain should pull out and severe all/any ties with Iran. First step should be to kick out Iran's embassy out of Britain, followed by all its citizens, all immigrants and end all commerce.
i agree w/ anonymous's comment at 1:15 p.m.
One wonders if imanutjob was part of this willfull invasion too?
Very true. It is time to clarify what we do and do not mean by "war". When another nation invades and destroys an embassy by force, that should open a state of purely military hostility.
War means destruction. Destruction of all military assets and all infrastructure that has military application, regardless of whether it could also be used for peaceful purposes. In war, you don't refrain from shooting armed enemy soldiers just because they might take up farming when the war is over. And you don't refuse to bomb a power-plant or factory either.
None of this fighting by means of humanitarian efforts nonsense either. It was an amusing notion to play with back in the day, but we've tried it and seen that it absolutely doesn't work. You don't put your soldiers in harm's way to impress the enemy with how kind and generous they are. You put them on the ground to hunt and kill the enemy no matter where they try to hide.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Iran is trying to distract the Iranian populace from all those explosions at the nuke facilities. As for 1979 it is worse because we have a President not just content to give aid and succor to one islamofacist regime, Iran, but to such regimes in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria. The US will long regret placing the CinC in the hands of a hardwired leftist antiamerican President.
showbiz111, not half as much as the rest of the world is gonna regret it!
"War" was also my first thought when i could see the photo and text on the video
Now, I see you all have the same feeling/association.
The war is, actually, there, but the media keep covering up, so it is supposed not to look like war and be recognized as such.
What? No arrests?
How close would a peaceful group of EDL members with protesting placards get to the Iranian embassy?
In 1979, the attack on the American Embassy should have been seen as invasion and conquest and dealt with accordingly.
Now, the same has occurred with Britain.
In both cases, the response is not resistance but surrender.
Unforgivable.
I hope all the chickenhawk counterjihad intellectuals will be the first boots on the ground in a war.
Quote:
I hope all the chickenhawk counterjihad intellectuals will be the first boots on the ground in a war.
end
How dare you say that to me.
I served in the military.
In fact, every generation of my family has served in the military.
But you seem a little misled.
The conflict with Islam is never really military in nature-- it isn't confined to who has the monopoly on the greatest firepower.
It truly is about whose stance is the most valid-- Islam derives theirs from "divine forces", and the West derives its stance from humanism.
We had a politically engaged church in the Middle Ages, yet developed nothing like Sharia law.
Why?
Because we chose to place ourselves in each other's hands and to create law from reason instead of deriving it from unclear revelations.
Our civilization cannot stand by physical strength alone, just as man does not live by bread alone.
How un-nuanced you are.
I really expected better.
Like goethechosemercy, I served in the military and inspired several of my family to follow suit.
Not only that, but I have further put my life on the line to defend freedom in civilian life. So, in every sense that matters (including the literal sense), my boots are already on the ground.
However, I do not hold the view that only those who have put their own lives on the line in defense of their country's freedom have a right to express opinions as to the best means of furnishing that defense. I think that it is unfortunate in the extreme that cowards can freely espouse national surrender to genocide but are forbidden to take the other side. Physical courage is perhaps a component of that freedom of intellect that enables really rigorous thought, but if a person is of weak body that does not mean their thoughts cannot have any value.
To say that one's position in a debate must be decided by one's physical attributes is to disdain the idea of logical argument altogether.
I therefore hope that Lavard and all others who thus refute the idea of argument by reason would be willing to come settle their disagreements with me in hand to hand combat.
Put up or shut up, Lavard. There are exactly two ways to settle a disagreement. Force, and reason. If you refuse the one, then come and meet me with the other.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
I agree that it is long past time to define what an act of war is, and to muster up the fortitude and the manpower to act accordingly whenever and wherever an act of war has been perpetrated.
Our founders are turning in their graves, as is poor old King George III.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.