Iran arrests eight British Embassy workers

posted at 8:00 am on June 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The diplomatic feud between Iran and the UK deepened today as the war of words escalated.  Following the expulsion of two British diplomats from Iran and the reflexive expulsion of two Iranian diplomats from the UK, the regime arrested eight employees of the British Embassy in Tehran for their supposed role in the protests:

Iranian media reported Sunday that authorities have detained eight local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran for an alleged role in post-election protests, signaling a hardening of Iran’s stance toward the West. …

The semi-official Fars news agency reported Sunday that eight local employees of the British Embassy in Tehran were detained. The eight were suspected of having played a “significant role” in the recent unrest, Fars said in a report also cited by Iran’s English-language, state-run Press TV.

The reports, which could not be confirmed independently, gave no further details.

A spokeswoman for Britain’s Foreign Office said the British government is looking into the Iranian reports. “We’re not able to say any more at this stage, because the situation is obviously quite sensitive,” the spokeswoman said on customary condition of anonymity.

From the AP’s description, it appears those arrested are Iranian nationals, and not staff from the UK, which would be covered under diplomatic immunity.  Of course, we know that the Iranians do not observe the niceties of diplomatic immunity, and reportedly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself was part of the 1979 hostaging of American diplomatic staff, so that isn’t completely certain.  The British understandably haven’t given out many details.

Until Barack Obama finally started speaking out about the human-rights abuses of the regime during the unrest, the British, French, and Germans all had been accused by the regime of fomenting the unrest over the rigged election.  The clerics had focused especially on the British, despite their trading ties and uninterrupted diplomatic relationship.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added the US to the regime’s official list of conspirators, but since they already sacked our embassy, there isn’t much Ahmadinejad can do except repeat the same, tired, anti-American slogans of which Iranians have tired long ago.

Obviously, though, this is a rather transparent attempt to “prove” to Iranians that the protests that coalesced from their anger and disillusionment were nothing more than the manipulations of the West.  Will that work?  Possibly; the mullahs have sold variations of this for the last 30 years, and conspiracy theories hold a lot of power in that region.  However, one of the reasons people supported reform candidates like Mirhossein Mousavi was because they have tired of international isolation and living in a pariah nation.  As this forces the regime into further isolation, it only deepens the long-term rot in the support for the mullahcracy.

Mousavi himself may have decided to retreat from his unexpected position as a leader of the democratization movement:

‘Anyone who takes up arms to fight with the people, they are worthy of execution,’ Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami, a ranking cleric, said in a nationally broadcast sermon at Tehran University.

His call for merciless retribution for those who stirred up Iran’s largest wave of dissent since the 1979 Islamic Revolution came as Mir Hossein Mousavi, the nation’s increasingly isolated opposition leader, has been under heavy pressure to give up his fight and slipped even further from view.

Mousavi said he would seek official permission for any future rallies, effectively ending his role in street protests organized by supporters who insist he — not hard-line incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — won the June 12 election. And an aide said Mousavi’s Web site, his primary means of staying in touch with supporters, was taken down by unknown hackers.

The mullahs may have momentarily succeeded in repressing the street demonstrations and open defiance of the regime, but they lost their legitimacy over the last two weeks, and they know it.  That’s why they’re trying so desperately to frame the Brits for the protests, in an attempt to discredit them.  But when millions of people face off against the armed forces of a dictatorship, it’s usually at least the beginning of the end for the tyrants.  And as we’ve been saying, this stopped being about Mousavi after the first few days of the crisis.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami… call(s) for merciless retribution…

The calling card of the “religion of peace”. Barbarians.

Zorro on June 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM

The Triumph of Evil. Its going to get worse before it gets better, and it may not get better for the rest of our lives. I do hope the opposition has an ace up its sleave.

rob verdi on June 28, 2009 at 8:11 AM

Protesters, bloggers, embassy employees arrested, tortured, silenced. Obama heaves big sigh of relief.

CarolynM on June 28, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Western governments will do just what the folks in Iran are doing these days, hide under the bed.

Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 8:21 AM

Unfortunately, they’re going to have to do better than trying to frame the Brits. I suspect they’ll instigate a full blown international incident and maybe trade military strikes with someone, anyone, but Irael, the US, and the UK better be watching. They’ll try and consolidate the public with nationalistic fervor by providing a “common enemy”. It’s dictatorship 101 and when they’ve screwed things up this badly, they’ll want to get back to basics.

trubble on June 28, 2009 at 8:22 AM

“The response of the Iranian nation will be crushing. The response will cause remorse.”

The response of the West will be to rearrange the deck chairs so everyone is facing away from the approaching iceberg.

Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM

The response of the West will be to rearrange the deck chairs so everyone is facing away from the approaching iceberg.

Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Whats wrong with “diplomacy”..

the_nile on June 28, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Perhaps..(snicker)..we should (muffled giggle)..get the…
(laugh)…UN to help..( hysterical laughing)

Jeff from WI on June 28, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Maybe those nitwits at Columbia can invite all of the Mullahs next time.

rob verdi on June 28, 2009 at 8:42 AM

CarolynM,
it was a distraction for him.

rob verdi on June 28, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Subversion will be the new password.

However with this admin embracing Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, PLO etc it will be very difficult going forward for the protesters. The West won’t be very helpful over the next 3 1/2 years.

The only real question going forward, will the Iranians actually, use/facilitate the use of the “bomb” once they get it on Israel? I only ask because there is nothing that Obama can or will do to stop them from having it. All we are discussing at this point is when.

More disturbing still is the fact that China and Russia have no problems with Iran nor North Korea for that matter. That speaks volumes. The cold war never really did end.

patrick neid on June 28, 2009 at 8:48 AM

This may explain why Obama seeks to associate with the Iranian regime…

and this definately explains his distain for the British and the West.

Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign “isms”, instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html

katy on June 28, 2009 at 8:51 AM

More disturbing still is the fact that China and Russia have no problems with Iran nor North Korea for that matter. That speaks volumes. The cold war never really did end.

patrick neid on June 28, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Another rough state only gives those nations cover to suppress their own population and other countries.Tyrants stick together.

Obama doctrine is a tragedy .

the_nile on June 28, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Now they’ll get bitter and cling to their guns and religion. – B. Obama

Thunderstorm129 on June 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM

I think this is bigger than Mousavi. If it were not the mullahs would have already killed the man just to end it.

I am not sure if he is backing down, or changing tactics. I guess we will find out.

Terrye on June 28, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Another rough state only gives those nations cover to suppress their own population and other countries.Tyrants stick together.

Obama doctrine is a tragedy .the_nile

Precisely

rob verdi on June 28, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Will the Liberal artist hacks and street actors give up their orange jump suits and portrayals of the “tortured” with underpants on their heads to express the real evil on display in the streets of Iran?

Yah sure, when Barry gives up smoking……..

Hening on June 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Why are we even talking about this? Don’t you know that Michael Jackson died?

DrMagnolias on June 28, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Obama and the Iranians have the same hatred for the British and all things western.

If my quote above didn’t tantalize you maybe this will….

My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html

katy on June 28, 2009 at 9:05 AM

reportedly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself was part of the 1979 hostaging of American diplomatic staff, so that isn’t completely certain.

NatGeo this week had several new shows, one on the CIA hunt for Bin Laden, and one for the History of the West with Iran beginning with the 1979 hostage takeover. They showed pictures I had never seen of Mahmoud as a youth leading some of the youth groups.

What shocked me was that, he was actually AGAINST the embassy takeover but was overruled by others and they went without him. Apparently he didn’t want to be seen as a lame duck “leader” of the youth movement so he joined in after it had started.

broker1 on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

All these problem couldn’t have been avoided if Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) did not order a coup of an elected democratic Iranian government. This coup let Iran slip back into theocracy.

equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

it was a distraction for him.

rob verdi on June 28, 2009 at 8:42 AM

All foreign policy is a distraction to him, save for when he’s making a symbolic speech or apology.

CarolynM on June 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Ok, enough of the Smart Power, now Ogabe is going to drag out the Double Smart Power to deal with the Iranians.

Expect a single sheet, double spaced denunciation of Iran and its barbarity using really big words, maybe even a Latin phrase or two.

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:14 AM

All these problem couldn’t have been avoided
equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

(((snicker)))

Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM

All these problem couldn’t have been avoided if Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) did not order a coup of an elected democratic Iranian government. This coup let Iran slip back into theocracy.
equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

You meant “could” right? If you are going to get hysterical, at least pay attention to your own screed.

Sure, today’s problems might have been avoided, or they might be worse considering that the pre-shah government was heading towards communism. One of the worlds big oil producers as a vassal of the Soviets, oh what a joy that would have been.

Then again, today’s problems might also have been avoided if Jimmy Carter (Demorat) hadn’t been such a weak sister in his response to the Iranian revolution and their sacking of our embassy.

The word “might” in this context is a fun intellectual exercise but ultimately useless as a current tool to deal with Iran.

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM

All these problems could have been avoided if that asteroid had arrived 65 million years later.

Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM

CarolynM on June 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Exactly. His priority is destroying the US…

ladyingray on June 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM

He was a weak sister. He released Billions to the Mullahs that were locked down in order to get the hostages back before Reagan took office. He was in the Whitehouse for days near the phone waiting to hear that they were released.

They were on the airplane for 24 hours and he kept waiting to hear of their release, and the Mullahs waited until 30 seconds after Reagan took office just to put it in Carters face. They not only got the billions they wanted but then they slapped him around like an errant schoolboy. Thats what negotiating with terrorists get you.

broker1 on June 28, 2009 at 9:27 AM

katy on June 28, 2009 at 8:51 AM

I heard Rush talk about this on Friday and I thought it was Baldilocks. She has been telling us pretty much the same thing since the return of the Churchill bust and the DVD debacle.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Exactly. His priority is destroying the US…

ladyingray on June 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM

I really believe that he wants his legacy to be governments hand in everything we do. He wants to fundamentally and irreversibly change the relationship between government and the people.

CarolynM on June 28, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM

The Shah was acting about as bad as the Mullahs are today. So we are mad at Jimmy Carter for not propping up the dictator and mad at Obama for not supporting the protestors.

Repression is repression. No matter if it is our boy or some scumbag mullah.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM

equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

You should do a score card. I would love to have liberals show me the country who has been error free in their history, then go live there. Or is there some extra fun in this self-flagellation? Knock yourself out.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM

In the lefty world of unintended consequences…

FDR(Democrat) tells Stalin that the U.S. has no interest in Poland.

Truman(Democrat) doesn’t believe the Chinese will cross the Yalu.

Kennedy(Democrat) adandons his mercenaries at the Bay of Pigs.

Kennedy(Democrat) sends 2,900 special forces to train the army of South Vietnam.

Carter(Democrat) allows American diplomats to be imprisoned and tortured.

Clinton(Democrat) blows up an aspirin factory and a Chinese Embassy.

Gee it is fun to play this Unintended Consequences game.

Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM

And you know who is really smiling over all this…Bibi!

The Israelis have to be laughing their butts off over the actions of President Tricycle. This whole deal in Iran made his Cairo speech look like the ravings of a lunatic, and if Israel was so inclined to take out the nukes; they would look justified. Of course they have to do it! Mad Mahmoud the election stealer is in control!

Clue to President Skateboard, do not mess with the Israelis!

I would bet the Iranian protester types are regrouping. This is not over.

freeus on June 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM

He was a weak sister. He released Billions to the Mullahs that were locked down in order to get the hostages back before Reagan took office. He was in the Whitehouse for days near the phone waiting to hear that they were released.

They were on the airplane for 24 hours and he kept waiting to hear of their release, and the Mullahs waited until 30 seconds after Reagan took office just to put it in Carters face. They not only got the billions they wanted but then they slapped him around like an errant schoolboy. Thats what negotiating with terrorists get you.

broker1 on June 28, 2009 at 9:27 AM

There’s only three ways I know of to negotiate with hostages… guns… bombs… and nukes.

Chaz706 on June 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Yes, and this article helps to explain much of what we are seeing coming from the WH.

He is pathological in his hatred of the US… and to think we, as a country ( the ignorant, utopian-godless, blind americans) could have come so far from our foundations that we/they put in a leader who seeks to destroy 233 years of hard work, sweat, blood, scarifice and providence.

katy on June 28, 2009 at 9:45 AM

I would like to know if the reports last week of embassies taking in injured protesters were true and what became of them.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Repression is repression. No matter if it is our boy or some scumbag mullah.
Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Eh, we do what we have to do and deal with the world as it is, sometimes unfortunately. Was the Shah a scumbag, yep, to the tune which Mubarak is today, but we deal with him because the alternative looks so much worse; a sad reality but that’s the way it is.

Americans don’t regard Carter as a coward for not propping up the Shah, but because he sat on his thumb after our embassy, our territory, was invaded and our citizens abjectly humbled. It was humiliating and he did nothing.

At Ogabe had to do was offer words of encouragement to the protesters, something to help inspire them, instead he too sat on his thumb and worried about which way the political wind was blowing.

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM

there are still patriotic Brits alive in their military (at least this is my fantasy). combined with the ever patriotic & freedom-loving Israelis, they will get those embassy workers free.

kelley in virginia on June 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Even the very popular, secular opposition in Egypt is anti-US. I wonder why? Oh yeah, because we have been propping up their assbag dictator since the 80′s

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM

katy on June 28, 2009 at 9:45 AM

It’s interesting that I have heard (read) this thinking from two different sources now and I think it’s safe to say that it is a perspective totally out of the mainstream. I think it reinforces not only the bias of the MSM but also their ability to think outside of the box. Although they have no hesitation of glorifying our president’s unique history, they are too lazy to delve into the bigger picture of what it means. I assume that they think his father wasn’t around enough to really have an impact on Pres. Obama’s thinking.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM

The response of the West will be to rearrange the deck chairs so everyone is facing away from the approaching iceberg.
Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Sedatives administered via the major media. Get yours before ObamaCare kicks in and shortages abound.

Friendly21 on June 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Even the very popular, secular opposition in Egypt is anti-US. I wonder why? Oh yeah, because we have been propping up their assbag dictator since the 80’s

Sure, secularists who would get crushed to dust by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood were a power vacuum to suddenly appear in Egypt.

Like I said, there is the way things are and the way we would like them to be. Mubarak goes under and Egypt falls apart at the seams; at least with Mubarak we can nudge him here and there towards what we would like to see. The MBrothers in control, not so much.

Bishop on June 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added the US to the regime’s official list of conspirators, but since they already sacked our embassy, there isn’t much Ahmadinejad can do except repeat the same, tired, anti-American slogans of which Iranians have tired long ago.

It’s a good thing this all happened before Obama had the chance to reestablish an embassy there.

Disturb the Universe on June 28, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Whats wrong with “diplomacy”..
the_nile on June 28, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Other than 30 years in which diplomacy with Iran has utterly failed – nothing at all. Fool me once, fool me twice, but fool me for 30 years?

Friendly21 on June 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM

***
Lampposts. Ropes. Mullahs.
***
Some assembly needed.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on June 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Clinton(Democrat) blows up an aspirin factory and a Chinese Embassy.
Limerick on June 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Clinton (Democrat) gives the Chinese the klystron switch used to detonate thermonuclear weapons and neutron bombs as an act of good faith.

Friendly21 on June 28, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Even the very popular, secular opposition in Egypt is anti-US. I wonder why?
Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Because they are muslims and we are not. Also, not enough tourists drop by for them to kidnap and hold for rensom.

Friendly21 on June 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM

***
Lampposts. Ropes. Mullahs.
***
Some assembly needed.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on June 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Here’s the assembly manual.

Chaz706 on June 28, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Although they have no hesitation of glorifying our president’s unique history, they are too lazy to delve into the bigger picture of what it means. I assume that they think his father wasn’t around enough to really have an impact on Pres. Obama’s thinking.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM

I do not think they assume because it would not take a rocket scientist to realize there is a good bit of his father’s influence in his thinking because of the absence. It is as if he is constantly trying to prove himself worthy of his father’s approval. If the media would examine for 10 seconds the people Obama surrounded himself with, they would see reflections of Obama Sr., and even others in the Obama family who held very similar beliefs about the British, and the fight for Muslim dominance in Kenya.

They also ignore Khalidi, Mansour, Said, Odinga, Marshall-Davis, Sutton, Farrakhan, and Wright who all contributed to what we are seeing unfold. His mother and father may have created a radical Lefty, but the others gave us a cold-hearted, American hating, Jew hating, radical extremist. All the media had to do is listen to the words of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi, and listen to one Wright sermon. I believe they did, and decided to ignore ALL of it. The media KNEW full well who Obama is, and where he is taking the world. I think they like it.

freeus on June 28, 2009 at 10:12 AM

freeus:

i listened to some of Obama’s speeches (until i could take no more). I knew how dangerous he is.

the media is complicit. ignore them or fight against them by boycott–whichever you prefer.

we must carry on without the media & without the total idjits in Congress.

We know what America should be.

kelley in virginia on June 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami minus his theocracy would be considered nothing less than secular tyrannical dictator or an absolute ruler. His oppressive government treats the citizenry almost to the relegation of slavery. By his decrees and dictates the people are only allowed to act by being demeaned to an inferior status positions. My way or the highway. In this case, it is Khatami way or you will brutilized at a minimum or you will die. He is treating the protesters like domestic terrorist when all the protesters want is a stronger voice in their everyday lives and greater freedoms. In Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami’s mind this is treason to what he considers the Iranian national interest. Khatami’s rational is the benchmark of Iranian’s pride of his country or so he would like the populous to think so. As the world keeps on getting smaller, these irrational thoughts by tyrants should be or will be their own undoing. Why else kick out or shut down the news services? It’s easy, keep the outside world out from seeing this catastrophe and vanquish all those who are considered dissenters from the inside. It is an simple formula really. Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami has regained his formula for tyranny once again.
.
OT sort of:
I find it to be truly inglorious of President Obama to have taken so long to condemn the Iranian regimes documented actions of violence. Somehow, it is what I can not specify today but just what were the ultimate schemes behind his prior rhetoric? In a way, we’ve learned to not listen to what Obama says but to actually watch what he does to a point of fracture and sometimes to his own remediation. I find this is the topic of other threads that addresses his inadequacies of truly satisfying the role of POTUS.
,
Am I the only one that sees this happening?

Americannodash on June 28, 2009 at 10:16 AM

freeus and Cindy…
Read this paper from Obama’s father at FR. Barak is carrying out his fathers dream. Hence… Dreams of my Father.

3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1998112/posts

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:24 AM

freeus on June 28, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Although it is easy to discount the Oprah-like theory of trying to please an absent father, I have seen it up close and personal so I know it exists. The abdication of the press and the fawning coverage given to our president by “elites” on both sides of the political spectrum added to the unscrupulous and inept running of major business has made me totally cynical of most the “professional” pundits. Not that they care how they are viewed as long as they get face time on the cameras.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Iran’s actions in taking the British embassy personell are a direct result of Precedent Hussein’s moronic attempt to excuse his ineptness with his talk about “not meddling” in Iran’s internal affairs. Hussein, the traitorous moron, opened the door by even insinuating that there might be some “meddling” going on and the Iranians are running with it.

That’s what happens when there is a traitorous retard occupying the White House, flailing in attempts to make sense of his idiotic policy towards Iran and his continued defense of the impenetrably stupid desire to hold negotiations with the savages (who are about on Precedent Hussein’s same level).

The longer it takes to remove this idiot from the White House, the more dangerous it gets for all of us.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:24 AM

But here they can vote Republican and only be taxed 95%. See! All better.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I am sure the Brits will ask Obama to issue a stern statement…

JIMV on June 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:24 AM
.
I e-mailed all that I could find to Rush prior to his winning of the election. This included my thoughts concerning Obama’s desire to fulfill all his father’s notions of governing and or ruling from those articles wrote by Obama Sr. in magazines and papers from Africa. Apparently my connecting the dots way back then could not be substantiated. So they were ignored. Well, now there is no doubt about it now. The template that guides Obama Jr can be found in those documents. Thanks Katy for also bringing them up again and into this conversation.

Americannodash on June 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM

All these problem couldn’t have been avoided if Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) did not order a coup of an elected democratic Iranian government. This coup let Iran slip back into theocracy.

It’s always a Rebublican’s fault, huh? The coup was actualy fomented by the Brits because Mossadeq naionalized the Anglo Iranian Oil Company and the Brits lost a huge investment and lots of income. Eisenhower was led to believe that Massadeq would form an alliance with the USSR. We did a lot of necessary things that have come back to haunt us.

Pelayo on June 28, 2009 at 10:42 AM

equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

– Alexis de Tocqueville

Loxodonta on June 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Americannodash on June 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM

You need to “meet” baldilocks. Like the author of this article she shares Pres. Obama’s heritage and has great insight. I will try to find a link to her site.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Baldi’s site

http://www.luoamerican.com/baldilocks/

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM

You are the best.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Americannodash, Keep it up. I’m sure, if it was read, planted a seed in Rush’s mind. That’s how it works. Then when things begin to manifest, it clicks much faster.

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM

;)

katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM

The requirement that a US president be “natural born” is not some clause that was pulled out of a hat. It was meant to ensure that a President would not have divided loyalties. Obama has an ax to grind, and it involves retribution for British Colonialism. He is more Kenyan than American.

It is going to be a long hot Summer followed by a bitter Winter, then a year before hopefully a Republican Congress can stop the Kenyan President from destroying what took more than 230 years to create.

Pelayo on June 28, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Friendly21 on June 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Yeah that is it, all muslims hate us, got it.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Yeah that is it, all muslims hate us, got it.
Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Not all, but more than enough. The Quran does teach hatred and contempt for non-Mohammedans.

Pelayo on June 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2009 at 10:45 AM
katy on June 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM

.
My thanks to both of you. I have known about Baldi for over a year now. She is one smart lady. I wish she would run for office.

Americannodash on June 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Pelayo on June 28, 2009 at 10:51 AM

The “natural born” clause has outlived its real usefulness. Being natural born is no more a certification of loyalty than anything else.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Pelayo on June 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM

And how many Mulsims “hate america” bacause the Quran tells them to. Give me a G-d damn break. It is about society, poverty and culture. Islam is just a convenient crutch.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Yeah that is it, all muslims hate us, got it.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM
.
I wonder about some of the people commenting here t HA.
.
You have just put yourself in the category of being prejudging all muslims. Yet, it is the exreme Islamist who requires your censure and not the entire population of muslims themsevles. Think about it, read about & join those who see a world outside of your predisposed bubble. Become a scholar who is knowledgeable about history and not an a@shole who shows their ignorance without any subtlety argument.

Americannodash on June 28, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Pelayo on June 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Pelayo, Dealing with Mr. Squid is above your paygrade… actually looking at the last comment… it’s above my puppy’s paygrade.

Time to release the squid and throw him back….

katy on June 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM

The “natural born” clause has outlived its real usefulness. Being natural born is no more a certification of loyalty than anything else.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 11:01 AM

LOL. You say that as the only person ever to sit in the White House who is not natural-born, due to his dual/mutiple citizenship, is obviously a traitor intent on destroying the US.

Good timing, there.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM

All these problem couldn’t have been avoided if Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) did not order a coup of an elected democratic Iranian government. This coup let Iran slip back into theocracy.

equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Quit looking backward little troll

Obama is large and in charge

Seriously you need help

You would rather sit by and blame the sins of the past than to stand up for the IRanian people. That says much about you .

CWforFreedom on June 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM

All these problem couldn’t have been avoided if Dwight Eisenhower(Republican) did not order a coup of an elected democratic Iranian government.

If Mossadeq hadn’t stolen the oil fields and played footsie with the Soviets then this would not have been necessary. but he did and it was.

This coup let Iran slip back into theocracy.

equality on June 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Know much history, you nitwit? Blame Carter for the theocracy.

You are too stupid for words … as is usual with libs. You are all despicable, lying scum with the few brain cells you do have.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Alas, this is likely going to have to wait till someone occupies the White House who possesses the vertebrae to quietly authorize the provision of intel, logistics, and ordnance to the anti-regime elements within Iran.

Fair to say the present occupant does not fit that description.

Noocyte on June 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Equality, instead of blaming Presidents who died over 40 years ago, how about the Dims try to work constructively?

Speedwagon82 on June 28, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I’m a security paranoid (former active duty MP that worked in a hostile country). The British need MI6 to investigate everyone that was arrested to insure that’s what really happened. They also need to get the SAS IN-country on HOT standby. They also need their Royal Marines and Navy in the Persian Gulf, ALSO on hot standby, on a carrier. If the Iranians have enough useful idiots left, we could be looking at another embassy-storming/hostage-taking crisis. Then, the Iranian government can get in the limelight and try getting on the world’s ‘good side’ by by ‘netotiating’ the hostages’ release, or even storming the embassy with government troops and/or loyalist militias. I put NOTHING past these people.

Virus-X on June 28, 2009 at 12:41 PM

The British need MI6 to investigate everyone that was arrested to insure that’s what really happened. They also need to get the SAS IN-country on HOT standby. They also need their Royal Marines and Navy in the Persian Gulf, ALSO on hot standby, on a carrier.

Unfortunately, the British made a huge mistake by bowing to the mullahcracy during the last hostage crisis with Brits. I fear they will just repeat their same mistakes.

Iran likes to grab Brits from wherever they find them, and they do so with impunity. At some point, I would think that the Brits would start considering action, but I just don’t think the Iranians are worried about that. And the Iranians know that Precedent Hussein will do nothing but blame Israeli settlement activity for causing all these problems, while he begs the mullahs to sit down and talk to him.

If the Iranians have enough useful idiots left, we could be looking at another embassy-storming/hostage-taking crisis. Then, the Iranian government can get in the limelight and try getting on the world’s ‘good side’ by by ‘netotiating’ the hostages’ release, or even storming the embassy with government troops and/or loyalist militias. I put NOTHING past these people.

Virus-X on June 28, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Yep. That sounds about right … sadly.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

[Merciless Retribution:] The calling card of the “religion of peace”. Barbarians.

Zorro on June 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM

Truly.

Bush at his best was making the decision to arrange a fitting place to kill 50,000 or so of these wretched devils. Bush at his worst was constantly blathering on about this supposed “religion of peace”.

Jaibones on June 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Bush at his worst was constantly blathering on about this supposed “religion of peace”.

Jaibones on June 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Do you suppose that might have been an attempt to find common ground with moderate Muslims? Or perhaps an attempt to make American Muslims feel more at ease after 9/11?

What did you guys want him to say? He was their president, too.

capitalist piglet on June 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Do you suppose that might have been an attempt to find common ground with moderate Muslims? Or perhaps an attempt to make American Muslims feel more at ease after 9/11?

No. It was due to his misunderstanding of the arab/persian/muslim world and of islam, in general.

What did you guys want him to say? He was their president, too.

capitalist piglet on June 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM

He should have stated the truth about islam. That’s not too tough. Islam is not a religion of peace. Quite the opposite. The evidence is replete through history, for anyone to see. Lying about islam doesn’t change it, at all, and doesn’t help us.

As to muslims in America, there were never more than a handful – save the black muslims who were really nothing more than a weird cult that adopted islam because it was the most anti-American thing they could find. It’s interesting that blacks glommed onto islam, when the whole African slave trade was started by muslims and the islamic world is about the only place left where slavery is culturally accepted. Very odd.

As to regular muslims, we only started importing muslims in numbers, for some strange, stupid and unknown reason, in the 90′s. That, of course, was a huge mistake.

It’s interesting how you never heard much of anything about muslims in the US until after 9/11. Before that they kept their mouths shut, but after 9/11 they found their voice and suddenly started trying to impose their will (and odd cultures) on the US. You know, pre-9/11 you generally saw arab issues addressed by arab orgs, like the Arab Anti-Defamation League (interesting in that arabs stole the title from the Jewish organization, the same way Mohammed stole stories from the Torah and New Testament to plagiarize and twist them for his koran), but after 9/11 you never hear from arab orgs. Now all you hear from are muslim orgs, even when they are arab issues being discussed, not muslim issues.

So, 9/11 freed American muslims to start imposing themselves on the rest of us. Great. Part of that was because of the idiocy of Bush’s “religion of peace” mantra. If he wanted to call islam anything, he should have called it by its very name, the “religion of submission”.

On top of all that, islam is not even a religion, but a political ideology with an attendant mythology.

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM

progressoverpeace on June 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM

+1

Disturb the Universe on June 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Hey Obama,

Good luck working with this regime. Here’s a quote from the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (Harper’s, April, 1985, p. 17) you might want to glance at before reformulating your policy:

If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and thus stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him. For if he remains alive, he will become more and more corrupt. This is a surgical operation commanded by God the all-powerful.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

At least we can be sure that they won’t be waterboarded.

Akzed on June 28, 2009 at 6:02 PM

It is about society, poverty and culture. Islam is just a convenient crutch.

Squid Shark on June 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Q1: What culture would that be?
A1: A culture that is subservient to Islam and thinks that an ignorant, cruel, lying, murderous, thief whose emotional level was such that he found greatest comfort in the body of a 9-year old girl, is the pinnacle of humanity and the primary role model for their society.

Q2: Which of the Arab oil states is experiencing poverty?
A2: None

Q3: Why is Iran experiencing poverty, despite owning a very large percentage of the world’s oil reserves?
A3: Because they are economically incompetent.

Q4: Why is Iran economically incompetent.
A4: Because they have a dysfunctional culture. See answer A1, above.

Q5: The Arab states have an annual convention to discuss their affairs and which is most notable for never managing to agree accomplish anything of any significance whatsoever. Why is this?
A5: Because they have a dysfunctional culture. See answer A1, above.

Q6: Which of the four men, all British citizens, who attacked public transport 2005-July-07 in London was experiencing poverty?
A6: None of them.

Q7: Most countries have had significant conflicts in their histories but most nations have kissed and made up rapidly once the conflict was over. Europe for example was able change conflict into co-operation within a year or two after the end of WW2. Why can’t the Muslim countries manage the same thing?
A7: Because they have a dysfunctional culture. See answer A1, above.

Q8: If violence and a desire to see the Death to America, Death to Britain and Death to Israel is a function of poverty, why are these same sentiments not expressed in Burma or in non-Muslim communities in Africa?
A8: Trick question! It has nothing to do with poverty, these sentiments are purely a function of Islam.

Q9: Why are Islamic societies comprehensively dysfunctional, apart from the reasons given in answer A1 above?
A9: Because they have put their trust in a book which is very obviously false for anybody who bothers to study it and the texts to which it refers. They prefer wilfull ignorance over progress.

Q10: There are approximately 50 countries in which more than 50% of the population are followers of the beautiful message of Mohammed, a message that was sent to clarify all errors and is, apparently, given in clear language in order that it should not be misunderstood. How many of these countries are successful, fruitful, stable and non-oppressive?
A10: It is a subjective topic so all answers are acceptable if they can be justified. I reckon two to four countries meet the criteria, perhaps a couple more on their better days.

YiZhangZhe on June 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Ayatollah + streetlamp = Liberty.

profitsbeard on June 28, 2009 at 7:26 PM

Hey Squid, you don’t think things through very well do you. If Mubarek is gone and replaced by an Islamic gov’t, do you realize it will breaks its “peace deal” with Israel? Are you sure that the Egyptians will want a true democracy/republic? I doubt that will ever happen. Most muslim nations are either a dictatorship or a hateful Islamic state and it will hate the USA because of its friendly ties to Israel. Even if BHO puts Israel under the bus they will still hate the Yanks.

garydt on June 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM