• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The dominos are lining up for an invasion or bombing of Iran...

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
British embassy and staff residence were raided by Iranian "students" who appear to be in their 40's and 50's according to the Reuters photos:



from cbc

Hard-line Iranian students stormed the British diplomatic compounds in Tehran on Tuesday, bringing down the Union Jack flag and throwing documents from windows in scenes reminiscent of the anger against Western powers after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The mob surged past riot police into British Embassy compound two days after Iran's parliament approved a bill that reduces diplomatic relations with Britain following London's support of recently upgraded Western sanctions on Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

Less than two hours later, police appeared to regain control of the site. But the official IRNA news agency said about 300 protesters entered the British ambassador's residence in another part of the city and replaced British flags with Iranian ones. The British Foreign Office harshly denounced the melee and said Iran has a "clear duty" under international law to protect diplomats and offices.

"We are outraged by this," said the statement. "It is utterly unacceptable and we condemn it."

It said a "significant number" of protesters entered the compound and caused vandalism, but gave no other details on damage or whether diplomatic staff was inside the embassy, although the storming occurred after business hours.

The semiofficial Mehr news agency said embassy staff had left the compound before the mobs entered, but it also said those who occupied the area had taken six staff as hostages. It did not give their nationalities and the report could not immediately be confirmed.

Broke through police
The protesters broke through after clashing with anti-riot police and chanting for its takeover. "Death to England," some cried in the first significant assault of a foreign diplomatic area in Iran in years. More protesters poured into the compound as police tried to clear the site.

Smoke rose from some areas of the embassy grounds and the British flag was replaced with a banner in the name of 7th century Shiite saint, Imam Hussein. Occupiers also tore down picture of Queen Elizabeth II.

The occupier called for the closure of the embassy calling it a "spy den" -- the same phrase used after militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 hostages for 444 days. In the early moments of the seige, protesters tossed out papers from the compound and hauled down the U.S. flag. Washington and Tehran have no diplomatic relations since then.

The rally outside the British Embassy -- on a main street in Tehran downtown -- included protesters carrying photographs of nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari, who was killed last year in an attack that Iran blamed on Israeli and British spy services.

Outside the embassy, students from some universities and seminaries burned British flags on fire as clashing with police.

State TV reported that another group of hard-line students gathered at the gate of British ambassador's residence in northern Tehran, at the same time.

Britain's Foreign Office said it was in contact with embassy officials. Officials were still checking on the well-being of workers and diplomats, a spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity in line with standing policy.

Iranian mob storms British Embassy in Tehran - World - CBC News
 

WestsideWax

TRIBE Promoter
More to the point...

(can't take credit for sourcing - Praktik put it up on FB yesterday)

Wes Clark and the neocon dream - Salon.com

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (seven-minute excerpt in the video below) in which he denounced what he called “a policy coup” engineered by neocons in the wake of 9/11. After recounting how a Pentagon source had told him weeks after 9/11 of the Pentagon’s plan to attack Iraq notwithstanding its non-involvement in 9/11, this is how Clark described the aspirations of the “coup” being plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and what he called “a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for the New American Century”:

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

Clark said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”

The current turmoil in the Middle East is driven largely by popular revolts, not by neocon shenanigans. Still, in the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya (the latter leading to this and this), with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and escalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to South Sudan, and the active use of drones in six — count ‘em: six — different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it’s worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam’s rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz (or, as he would be called by establishment newspapers: “a person familiar with Jon Schwarz’s thinking on the subject who asked not to be identified”) put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:

As far as I can tell, there’s barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.

The difference between seven and four overt wars isn’t non-existent or unimportant, of course, but it’s a question of means. The neocon end as Clark reported them — regime change in those seven countries — seems as vibrant as ever. It’s just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.

[YOUTUBE]Ha1rEhovONU#![/YOUTUBE]

UPDATE: Those unreasonable, inscrutable Pakistanis are angry just because the U.S. entered their country by air and killed 30 of their soldiers today. As a result, they have demanded that the U.S. vacate its drone base on their soil. What an outrageous over-reaction: I’m sure the U.S. would be extremely understanding if a foreign nation came and killed 30 U.S. soldiers on American soil from the air.


...aaaand, here's the U.N., reporting from afar of the horrible injustices being levied upon the Syrian people, setting the stage for a compassionate and obviously necessary Western (where everyone wears white and sports shiny halos instead of hats) intervention. :rolleyes:

World News: Shocking UN report details murder, rape, torture by Syria

Torture, rape and murder are among the “crimes against humanity” found in a UN investigation into human rights violations by Syrian troops since the government crackdown on protesters began in March.

An independent panel interviewed 223 victims and witnesses of these violations, including civilians and defectors from Syria’s military and security forces. They detailed their findings in a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, released Monday.

Several male detainees testified that they had been anally raped with batons in detention facilities, and that they had witnessed boys being raped.

One man said he saw a 15-year-old boy being raped in front of his father. Another saw three security service officers raping an 11-year-old boy.

“I have never been so afraid in my whole life,” he said in the report. “And then they turned to me and said, ‘You are next.’”

A 20-year-old university student, who experienced sexual violence in detention, told the panel: “If my father had been present and seen me, I would have had to commit suicide.”

Others reported genital beatings, forced oral sex and cigarette burns to the anus. Detainees were also regularly forced to undress and stay naked.

Detainee torture, including severe beatings with batons and cables, electroshocks, and deprivation of food, water and sleep was commonplace, the report revealed. Detainees were tortured whether or not they confessed to committing a crime.

The probe also found violence against children, with at least 256 killed by government forces as of early November.

One military defector said he wanted to defect after witnessing the shooting of a 2-year-old girl in August. The officer who shot the girl said that he “did not want her to grow into a demonstrator,” the report said.

Witnesses also told the panel that children were beaten or shot, sometimes to death, during demonstrations in cities across the country.

Government forces “shot indiscriminately at unarmed protesters,” and snipers targeted others in the upper body and head to quell protests, the report said, adding that they were given “shoot to kill” orders to crush demonstrations.

The UN commission of inquiry has demanded an end the “gross human rights violation” and the release of those rounded up in mass arrests since March.

More than 3,500 people have been killed since the popular uprisings began.

Despite repeated requests, the Syrian government did not allow the panel to access the country, the report said.

Syrian officials blame the violence on armed groups targeting civilians. Government security forces say 1,100 of their members have been killed.


(doesn't all of this manufactured and manipulative BS belong in the politricks forum?)
 

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
Their women obviously stay at home while the men are out ransacking and pillaging embassies.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I still think there won't be a military strike on Iran but given that incident a few years back in the Straits of Hormuz my biggest fear isn't a planned pre-emptive strike by Israel or the US, but rather an escalation borne of misunderstanding by actors brought together by happenstance (say passing boats near Iranian coastal waters again, issue with a plane nearing their airspace, etc)

Admiral Mike Mullen retired recently and had this to say on Iran in a recent speech:

MULLEN: We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right — that there will be miscalculation which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world. [...]

QUESTION: Are you specifically talking about military to military contact, or a broader set of engagement between the two countries?

MULLEN: I’m talking about any channel that’s open. We’ve not had a direct link of communication with Iran since 1979. And I think that has planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate, you can escalate and misunderstand. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing. [...]
My own experience is, it sort of depends on the country what the most effective channels are. Some of them are diplomatic. Some of them are political. Some of them are mil-to-mil. Some of them are economic. But we have not had a clear channel to Iran since 1979.
[...] Any channel would be terrific and I don’t have a preferred one based on what the hopes would be.​
 

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
The UK just announced it is expelling all Iranian diplomats and pulling all their mission staff out of Iran.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Still, you can understand why there might be some anti-british sentiment in Iran:
- British oil interests dominated Iran in 1st half of the twentieth century
- British/US machinations placed the Shah of Iran on the throne, and supported his brutal police state for decades so they could reliably access Iranian oil
- Britain has been America's lapdog in recent Middle East (mis)adventures

I know here in North America what happened last month is ancient history, but the shah was only overthrown in 1979, the year before I was born. A lot of people have a living memory of that US/UK backed period of appalling brutality. Sure, they've gone on to impose their own police state internally once they overthrew the western stooges, that doesn't change the fact people are going to hate on the guys behind the Shah for some time after he was deposed....
 

silver1

TRIBE Member
"students" who appear to be in their 40's and 50's


"Ahoy, there, Dean. I understand you're taking suggestions from students, eh? Well, me and my fourth form chums think it would be quite corking if you'd sign over your oil well to the local energy concern."
 

Bacchus

TRIBE Promoter
He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”
wow. this is causing some flashbacks.

I had a friend with a brother who's highly ranked in the US Military. He named those identical 7 counties right after the invasion of Afganistan. (i even found my post-911 conspiracy blog postings on the matter).

After i started learning to think Critically, I stopped believing the conspiracy ramblings of this American friend, but looks like he was right on this one.
 

Lojack

TRIBE Member
Oh so a bunch of neocon hawks had some wet dreams - big surprise
There are hawks on both sides - the R2P crowd is just as bad. Personally I think Ron Paul has it right that the US should just stop interfering.

Remember my buddy Pat? Back when the US-Iraq war was in full swing he was going on about it, saying that the US had no reason to invade. I agreed, and pointed out that if the US really wanted to go after a state known to support terrorism, they could have gone after Iran. Just an observation, not a suggestion. Forgot Pat was Iranian. Opps. Hasn't spoken to me since.
 

wayne kenoff

TRIBE Member
Ron Paul is awesome.

so obvious that the military industrial complex needs its next victim and Iran is up next. the media hype has already begun and we know how this story ends. the only way to prevent invasion, is for Iran to come up with a nuclear deterrent. they'd have to be stupid NOT to be building nukes.
 

derek

TRIBE Member
ron paul says some whacky things but then he also has some wickedly insightful remarks more than occasionally.

like when he was debating with perry about a fence on the mex / usa border and commented he wasn't sure if it was to keep mexicans out or americans from leaving. that's some foreword thinking there.
 

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Oh so a bunch of neocon hawks had some wet dreams - big surprise
They're trying to prevent the eventual fall of modern day rome (USA).

I Think they will be successful but it will still eventually collapse, If we learned anything from history it's that everybody has their time.

These are less wet dreams and more a mandate IMO.
 

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Ron Paul is awesome.

so obvious that the military industrial complex needs its next victim and Iran is up next. the media hype has already begun and we know how this story ends. the only way to prevent invasion, is for Iran to come up with a nuclear deterrent. they'd have to be stupid NOT to be building nukes.
Iran has nukes DIWC told me so
 

Lojack

TRIBE Member
Iran has nukes DIWC told me so
There have been rumours for years that they obtained a few from the nuclear black market that spiked in the years immediately after the Soviet Union collapsed. Not necessarily usable, but enough to reverse engineer.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
They're trying to prevent the eventual fall of modern day rome (USA).

I Think they will be successful but it will still eventually collapse, If we learned anything from history it's that everybody has their time.

These are less wet dreams and more a mandate IMO.
Still read some PNAC docs from back in the day now and you start to realize how much of a wankfest foreign policy was for the few years where the neocons had their turn at the reigns.

Iran is and always has been a bogeyman. The villification now is just a higher gear of something that has been cooking since 1979 - when Americans started to learn where the fuck Iran was after being unwitting partners in the meddling of US/UK intelligence with Iran for decades... Takes a revolution to do that sometimes...

Iran has been an organizing principle of US foreign policy since that time when it changed from a pliable client state to an irrepressible enemy. The Shiite bogeyman has basically kept players like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others firmly in the US orbit. In fact, Saudi Arabia is among the loudest out there clamoring for military action.

But what is really the wet dream is fucking gizz balls like:

- The road to peace in Jerusalem goes through Baghdad.
- The "flowering" of democracy (read: US friendliness) that was to follow Iraq
- Visions of Iraq being a great stepping stone to greater things. Some of the most disturbing tracts from Wolfowitz/Perle/et al talk about how after the great example of American force that was to come with all the super awesome shit that was about to happen in Iraq, America would have greater freedom to pursue its whims with force cause we'd all be like: "fuck ya America! Go spread us some more freedom!" Then we get the laundry list of "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran"...

All that shit is really a wet dream. Whatever is going to happen in Iran, the world just got a real good re-learning of the lesson everyone should have learned after Vietnam: the application of American military power is actually fraught with risk and likely to turn sour.
 

Lojack

TRIBE Member
All that shit is really a wet dream. Whatever is going to happen in Iran, the world just got a real good re-learning of the lesson everyone should have learned after Vietnam: the application of American military power is actually fraught with risk and likely to turn sour.
I think that's true for every "power" that meddles in the affairs of others, whether it is the American's, the Soviet's/Russian's, the Chinese (regionally), Iran (regionally), Pakistan (regionally) .. the list goes on and on.
 

Bacchus

TRIBE Promoter
there are hawks on both sides - the r2p crowd is just as bad. Personally i think ron paul has it right that the us should just stop interfering.

Remember my buddy pat? Back when the us-iraq war was in full swing he was going on about it, saying that the us had no reason to invade. I agreed, and pointed out that if the us really wanted to go after a state known to support terrorism, they could have gone after iran. Just an observation, not a suggestion. Forgot pat was iranian. Opps. Hasn't spoken to me since.
dsp?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I think that's true for every "power" that meddles in the affairs of others, whether it is the American's, the Soviet's/Russian's, the Chinese (regionally), Iran (regionally), Pakistan (regionally) .. the list goes on and on.
Yep but things change with ideological developments and personnel changes, I'd argue the PNAC crowd was especially wank-ish...;)
 

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Still read some PNAC docs from back in the day now and you start to realize how much of a wankfest foreign policy was for the few years where the neocons had their turn at the reigns.

Iran is and always has been a bogeyman. The villification now is just a higher gear of something that has been cooking since 1979 - when Americans started to learn where the fuck Iran was after being unwitting partners in the meddling of US/UK intelligence with Iran for decades... Takes a revolution to do that sometimes...

Iran has been an organizing principle of US foreign policy since that time when it changed from a pliable client state to an irrepressible enemy. The Shiite bogeyman has basically kept players like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others firmly in the US orbit. In fact, Saudi Arabia is among the loudest out there clamoring for military action.

But what is really the wet dream is fucking gizz balls like:

- The road to peace in Jerusalem goes through Baghdad.
- The "flowering" of democracy (read: US friendliness) that was to follow Iraq
- Visions of Iraq being a great stepping stone to greater things. Some of the most disturbing tracts from Wolfowitz/Perle/et al talk about how after the great example of American force that was to come with all the super awesome shit that was about to happen in Iraq, America would have greater freedom to pursue its whims with force cause we'd all be like: "fuck ya America! Go spread us some more freedom!" Then we get the laundry list of "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran"...

All that shit is really a wet dream. Whatever is going to happen in Iran, the world just got a real good re-learning of the lesson everyone should have learned after Vietnam: the application of American military power is actually fraught with risk and likely to turn sour.

I agree, the US is screwed. I like the comparison to Vietnam it's quite comparable to how things will finalize. IMO the US is daft if they think they'll walk into Iran and walk out unscathed. Like Russia in the 80's in the region they will be worn down
 
Top