It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House denies visa to Iran's pick for UN ambassador

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Dirty Tactics ? Looks that way!

It seems everytime Iran reaches out Diplomatically the USA just wants to slap em down again..


Text The latest decision out of Washington comes in the midst of urging from Congress to keep Aboutalebi, a former member of the Muslim Students Following the Imam's Line, from becoming an ambassador to the UN. In 1979, that group occupied the US Embassy in Tehran and held dozens of American citizens hostage for over a year, though Aboutalebi has since insisted that his role within the organization was limited to “translation and negotiation.”


Big deal if he was a "student" whats he going to do hold the UN hostage ?


Text Current members of the US Congress disagree, however, and the US Senate voted overwhelmingly on Monday this week to bar Aboutalebi from entry to America over what that measure’s author, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), called a “deliberate and unambiguous insult to the United States.”



Awww and insult ... i am not insulted ? Anyone els ?






Text Aboutalebi, 56, has previously served as Iran’s ambassador to three countries and the European Union.


Yup.... Dirty tatics indeed




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Makes sense we won't allow this person in but we have no problem allowing politicians from other nations that was in charge when they attacked America. Ol Ted got almost 75 grand from AIPAC and like a good bootlicker he wants to earn it.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I'm insulted. Someone is part of a group that did that, and that is who they choose? They expect the US to give him entry? Slap in the face, I am glad they said no. If Iran was interested in actual diplomacy they would not have chosen him, doing so is proof they are interested in lip service and games.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Dirty tactics? Yep... Iran

Have to say though, I'm rather surprised they denied the visa (or are they just not going to act on it?) in any case, now Iran gets to play "victim" by claiming the US violates international law, conveniently forgetting that the US has in the past denied visas to former Iranian appointees to the UN who were also found to have had roles in the hostage crisis...
edit on 12-4-2014 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I can accept the US denying access if this guy was going to be their US Ambassador, they have the right to do so.

But to tell Iran who they can and can't have as Ambassador to the UN is just plain wrong.

The UN should pack its bags and find another country to set up its base of operations.

US is way too big for its boots.

P



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
 


A very very bad response by the US.

This guy, regardless of what he did or did not do in the past, was chosen as the Ambassador to the UN. If the US and Iran had diplomatic relations, and this guy was chosen as the Iranian Ambassador to the US, then I could see a valid rejection.

Since its for the UN I don't think the US should meddle with it.

** This is what I get when I read the op and then click the reply button - The post above making the same points **

Sorry bout that.

The other positive is pheonix358 and I actually agree on the topic. There maybe hope after all.
edit on 12-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

pheonix358
I can accept the US denying access if this guy was going to be their US Ambassador, they have the right to do so.

But to tell Iran who they can and can't have as Ambassador to the UN is just plain wrong.

The UN should pack its bags and find another country to set up its base of operations.

US is way too big for its boots.

P


So you think if it was in Russia and a terrorist who was involved in the kidnapping and holding or killing of Russian citizens was made a UN ambassador that Russia/Putin would welcome them in? No. The US isn't telling them who they can have as an ambassador .. but there are consequences when they make a ridiculous choice.
edit on 12-4-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Xcathdra
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
 


A very very bad response by the US.

This guy, regardless of what he did or did not do in the past, was chosen as the Ambassador to the UN. If the US and Iran had diplomatic relations, and this guy was chosen as the Iranian Ambassador to the US, then I could see a valid rejection.

Since its for the UN I don't think the US should meddle with it.

** This is what I get when I read the op and then click the reply button - The post above making the same points **

Sorry bout that.

The other positive is pheonix358 and I actually agree on the topic. There maybe hope after all.
edit on 12-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I disagree. I think you don't make someone the UN ambassador knowing about these issues unless you are playing games. As I stated above, if there was a UN meeting in Russia and someone was involved with kidnappying Russian citizens I fully expect and support Russia denying them a visa.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I disagree... I think it sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the United Nations. The guy, whether we agree with Irans decision or not, was sent by the Iranian government.

If the UN were located in Iran, and Iran refused to allow access to our Ambassador, the US would go mental.

Had he been suggested for the US I would agree that rejection is appropriate.

Since he is not then he should be allowed to fulfill his appointment. His past can always be used at some point in the future when Iran takes a stand on an issue and credibility is in question.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.

Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.

UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.

I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.

Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).

The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.

Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?

The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics. Cowards hiding behing the imagery of a bully. In reality a bully is a small little child crying inside.





edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Xcathdra
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I disagree... I think it sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the United Nations. The guy, whether we agree with Irans decision or not, was sent by the Iranian government.

If the UN were located in Iran, and Iran refused to allow access to our Ambassador, the US would go mental.

Had he been suggested for the US I would agree that rejection is appropriate.

Since he is not then he should be allowed to fulfill his appointment. His past can always be used at some point in the future when Iran takes a stand on an issue and credibility is in question.

If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Xcathdra
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I disagree... I think it sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the United Nations. The guy, whether we agree with Irans decision or not, was sent by the Iranian government.

If the UN were located in Iran, and Iran refused to allow access to our Ambassador, the US would go mental.

Had he been suggested for the US I would agree that rejection is appropriate.

Since he is not then he should be allowed to fulfill his appointment. His past can be used at some point in the future when Iran takes a stand on an issue and credibility is in question.

If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.


Which is why the UN should be a place of neutrality, if you cannot talk, you cannot exist in politics.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   

pookle
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.

Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.

UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.

I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.

Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).

The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.

Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?

The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics.



edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)

Ummm no, or maybe you can show me where we annexed part of Iran. If you can't your analogy and entire post is invalidated and rendered worthless. You hate America, we get it.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

pookle
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.

Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.

UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.

I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.

Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).

The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.

Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?

The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics.



edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)

Ummm no, or maybe you can show me where we annexed part of Iran. If you can't your analogy and entire post is invalidated and rendered worthless. You hate America, we get it.


You hate Iran, we get it. Not man enough to talk.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

pookle

OccamsRazor04

pookle
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.

Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.

UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.

I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.

Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).

The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.

Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?

The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics.



edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)

Ummm no, or maybe you can show me where we annexed part of Iran. If you can't your analogy and entire post is invalidated and rendered worthless. You hate America, we get it.


You hate Iran, we get it. Not man enough to talk.


You are bringing hatred of a certain country into this thread, I am not. I don't care which country is which, any country who did this I would lambaste them.

So now we can agree your analogy is proven false and your irrational hatred makes you blind to all things related in any way to America.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.


Let me try it this way..

Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.


I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.

IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Xcathdra

OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.


Let me try it this way..

Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.


I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.

IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?

If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.

Fact is this person has to deal with the US if he is the UN ambassador, and sending him signals they have no interest in actual diplomacy. We are not talking about someone denied entry for views or beliefs, but actual actions, and I support this 100%.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Xcathdra

OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.


Let me try it this way..

Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.


I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.

IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?

If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.

Fact is this person has to deal with the US if he is the UN ambassador, and sending him signals they have no interest in actual diplomacy. We are not talking about someone denied entry for views or beliefs, but actual actions, and I support this 100%.


Ohh please dude ,get over your self already !
what's the big deal ? I shall i point out all the criminals within our own government? and the crimes against humanity? and your worried about this guy who was Not directly involved in a hostage situation in his home country years ago ?

Get real !

You don't know the all circumstances behind
the hostage situation in Iran . Nor do i ,and because of that i am open minded about this situation and his status .


What's the big deal tell me ? Since you have an issue with it ? Do you feel like he's a threat to your safety?

SMH......



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   

LightningStrikesHere

OccamsRazor04

Xcathdra

OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.


Let me try it this way..

Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.


I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.

IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?

If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.

Fact is this person has to deal with the US if he is the UN ambassador, and sending him signals they have no interest in actual diplomacy. We are not talking about someone denied entry for views or beliefs, but actual actions, and I support this 100%.


Ohh please dude ,get over your self already !

When did this become about me? Why are you trying to derail your own thread?

what's the big deal ? I shall i point out all the criminals within our own government? and the crimes against humanity? and your worried about this guy who was Not directly involved in a hostage situation in his home country years ago ?

There are lots of murderers, so should we forget about rapists? What do criminals in our government have to do with anything on topic? Nothing? Thought so. As far as being worried, where did I say I was worried? He was engaged in kidnapping and hostage taking against Country X, Country X denied him a visa to enter their country .. seems right to me.

Get real !

As opposed to being fake? Maybe like your fake outrage about a situation which you are using to launch a thinly vieled attack?


You don't know the all circumstances behind
the hostage situation in Iran . Nor do i ,and because of that i am open minded about this situation and his status .

So you admit you have no clue what he did, but you are angry he was denied a visa? Fake is right I guess ...


edit on 12-4-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.

That is not what is happening with Iran.

Canada send ambassador to S. Africa -

Federated states want it stopped because the ambassador was involved in atrocities in Micronesia. Why should Micronesia be able to block the ambassadors appointment when that appointment does not involve Micronesia.

Its cool though.. not trying to be difficult or anything like that. The action just makes no sense to me..



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join