'Cos That'll Help ...

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15936213

:sigh: Invading the embassy, burning the Union Jack and chanting "Death to England" ...

... but apparently their nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only ...

... forgive me if I don't believe you.

 

[granfire]

Didn't know they even had Union Jacks to burn....

But I am hoping that they are smart enough to know having the bomb is one thing, using it quiet another.

(and for all of those who love the 'peaceful' exploitation of nuclear power always opens that venue)

 

[Sukerkin]

They stole the one from the embassy as well as the portrait of the Queen..

 

[granfire]

pardon my early morning sarcastic outburst.

We are more used to having the stars and stripes go up in flames.
I am blaming lack of java for my missed wit.

(and yet, I always wonder where they get their flags...cheap nylon junk from china? I always hope they get massive burns from the melting plastic, but that is not even politically motivated)


But generally speaking these types of protests don't impress me.

And for some odd reason they always parade the women out there for protests. Puzzles me. Dressed like penguins, barely recognizable. It reeks of organized (paid?) protest to me. load them on a bus, tos a handful of Loonies at them (yes, it's a pun, cos they are nuts) have them chant and holler, take them back home after they were captured nicely by the 'news' cameras.

i would love to see the fringes of the protest, not just the narrow view the camera angle provides.

I think past protests - real protests - have shown that the population is not as anti west as the leadership will have you believe.

 

[Tez3]

Everyone shouts death to England even the Scots, Welsh and Irish. I doubt anyone in the FCO was actually outraged, it's more a case of 'here we go again'. I doubt there many places including America lol that haven't burnt the Union Flag at some time or other. (It's only a Jack when flown from a ship)

The protests are most definitely from 'rent a protest', I doubt the people are bothered other than making sure they don't get picked up by their secret police, tortured and held without trial for not showing enough 'hatred' towards their 'enemies'.

 

[oftheherd1]

At least they apparently haven't taken hostages.

 

[Sukerkin]

Flag and History Nerds Side Note:

The Union Jack is an equally proper name for the Union Flag of Britain -

http://www.flaginstitute.org/index.php?location=7.2

 

[WC_lun]

I think the leadership in Iran recognizes it might be in trouble, so they are trying to recreate what put them in power to begin with. Since there is no longer a US embassy, Great Britain got to play the honors of the Great Satan this time Like actions from leaders everywhere, I think this is a very short sighted stunt.

 

[Tez3]

Flag and History Nerds Side Note:

The Union Jack is an equally proper name for the Union Flag of Britain -

http://www.flaginstitute.org/index.php?location=7.2

You'll have the Navy chaps knocking at your door! The jack mast is where the flag is flown from making it a Union Jack! In the military we are taught that the Union flag is flown on land and the Union Jack at sea, it's taught in the Scouting and Guide movement too.!

Anyway, we Brits have a sanguine approach to foreigners bashing at our embassy doors.

 

[granfire]

Anyway, we Brits have a sanguine approach to foreigners bashing at our embassy doors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s?

 

[Sukerkin]

After a bit of a delay, we get a response from our government to the impromptu/staged (you decide) hostile antics of the Iranian 'radicals':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15955501

 

[David43515]

I`m guessing the British security detail was busy hustling the diplomats and office staff out the back while this was going on, but I have to admit I for one would have like to read about them shooting a couple of the first ones in the door. That kind of response may seem over-the-top or blood thirsty, but word spreads quickly and the rest of the crowd seems a little less motivated to enter. If we Americans had done that back when they stormed our embassy I think things would have gone quite a bit differently.

You`ll notice that no one ever storms the Russian embassy. They don`t play that game.

 

[Tez3]

I`m guessing the British security detail was busy hustling the diplomats and office staff out the back while this was going on, but I have to admit I for one would have like to read about them shooting a couple of the first ones in the door. That kind of response may seem over-the-top or blood thirsty, but word spreads quickly and the rest of the crowd seems a little less motivated to enter. If we Americans had done that back when they stormed our embassy I think things would have gone quite a bit differently.

You`ll notice that no one ever storms the Russian embassy. They don`t play that game.

The Royal Marine Commandos guarding the Embassy would put the safety of the staff first before shooting anyone. Killing a few demonstrators when hugely outnumbered in a foreign country wouldn't have been a bright idea really. The Russians do get attacked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_of_Russian_diplomats_in_Iraq

 

[Sukerkin]

More updates on this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15953876

Tez, does your training include the ins-and-outs of the law regarding the protection of diplomatic territory in foreign parts?

I ask because my impression was that, ultimately, the host country was responsible for the security of the embassies and that failing to protect them was a severe breach of the international agreements that make diplomacy possible? Likewise, are actions carried out within the embassy not subject to the laws of the host country?

If those suppostions are right, then the armed forces guarding the compound would technically have been in the right whatever they did to the mob (as long as it not break British law or the RoE). But there is indeed a gulf between what you can do and what is best to do. So, altho' viscerally I agree with David that it would have been good to see our embassy being more vigorously defended, it would very probably have been a bad thing to do in the end.

 

[granfire]

More updates on this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15953876

Tez, does your training include the ins-and-outs of the law regarding the protection of diplomatic territory in foreign parts? I ask because my impression was that the host country was responsible for the security of the embassies and that failing to protect them was a severe breach of the international agreements that make diplomacy possible?

After the 1980s...I think that assumption, especially in some countries - can be safely thrown out!

 

[Sukerkin]

At least (oh the irony) we sorted out the Iranian embassy siege back then - as always it seems only we play by the rules.

 

[Tez3]

More updates on this from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15953876

Tez, does your training include the ins-and-outs of the law regarding the protection of diplomatic territory in foreign parts?

I ask because my impression was that, ultimately, the host country was responsible for the security of the embassies and that failing to protect them was a severe breach of the international agreements that make diplomacy possible? Likewise, are actions carried out within the embassy not subject to the laws of the host country?

If those suppostions are right, then the armed forces guarding the compound would technically have been in the right whatever they did to the mob (as long as it not break British law or the RoE). But there is indeed a gulf between what you can do and what is best to do. So, altho' viscerally I agree with David that it would have been good to see our embassy being more vigorously defended, it would very probably have been a bad thing to do in the end.

I believe you're right about the host country being responsible for the safety of the Embassy but when besieged by a mob who while trashing the place aren't showing violence to people isn't a good idea to be violent in return. That many could easily turn on you as happened to the British Military Police in Iraq and tear them literally apart. often a mob especially a rent-a-mob will be saitisfied with wrecking the place and making a noise. If it were anything else a la Iranian Embassy it would have happened quietly before anyone could react. There will be a plan (we're British there's always a plan!) in cases like this, there'll be a safe room where the Bootnecks can defend the staff, the staff will have made sure all sensitive documents were out of the way and they will see how things go.
I have a suspicion the Embassy staff were warned, they got out of the way and the Iranian police turned up to sort things out before it went too far so that it managed to look like a spontaneous demonstration with the caring Iranian law and order doing the right thing and stopping it. I don't think it was ever going to come to real violence against people, it was too well choreographed for that. All part of the Game. The Embassy staff will have been picked for that particular place anyway, whatever is said by our lot a good many would be military officers.

 

[granfire]

At least (oh the irony) we sorted out the Iranian embassy siege back then - as always it seems only we play by the rules.

tsk tsk tsk....you start to sound like billi! :uhyeah:

 

[Tez3]

Iranian Embassy siege was a bit different in that it wasn't British nationals who took the Embassy hostage. The Iranians were as anxious as the British government to get it sorted.