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.

 

'Outraged' Brown and Obama condemn Iran as election crisis worsens

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

'Outraged' Brown and Obama condemn Iran as election crisis worsens


www.timesonline.co.uk

Britain and the United States tonight launched their fiercest attacks yet against Iran’s diminished hardline regime, 11 days into a democratic crisis that has paralysed Tehran.

President Barack Obama condemned violence on the streets of the capital, saying he was “appalled and outraged” by the beatings and arrests of demonstrators.

The President spoke a few hours after Gordon Brown confirmed that two Iranian diplomats had been expelled from London in a tit-for-tat protest measure after a pair
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Well hopefully that means no potential hostage crisis, but now there are no diplomats in each others country's, what happens if there's a military clash in the Persian gulf.

Things need to calm down, cooler heads can prevail, but at the moment it looks like it's heading for full blown confrontation.

But I do think it's time for stronger condemndation, and this has finally being given today by Obama and Brown.
www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Brown seems to have selective views as regards to the state beating its citizens.....
How about me and Brown go toe to toe and sort this mess out?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Here we go; the only difference this time is that unelected Brown with his cabinet of unelected Bilderberg thugs has wisely been advised not to put his foot firmly in the 'brown' again with another scorching blinder about 'democracy'.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't corrupt and tyrannical... I'm not saying I'd be sad to see Ahmedinejad hanging from a gibbet, I'm not saying I'd rather live there. I'm just saying 'let's play choose your govt'

1) A govt that delays and denies its people an election in a move defiant of hundreds of years of protocol during a period of considerable political instability; which then packs the entire system with fraudsters and cronies to milk it for all its worth before they sell the whole nation out to a supra-national union of pseudo-soviet republics; which, again, nobody voted for. To prepare for the inevitable backlash, they blow up their own citizens and launch a campaign of draconian and legally inexcusable legislation to curtail the liberties of the populace. Oh, and then the supra-national entity to which they answer plugs hundreds of millions of *insert currency* into the national media every year to smooth over the process, and denies any democratic decision on the matter on the basis of 'our people are too stupid'...

2) A govt with a relatively strong grip on the parliament; approved by the supreme leader of that nation, that foolishly and without care rigs an election to convey a message of unity and security to its people and the wider world. A government that operates under a theocratic basis supported, for better or worse, by a majority of its citizens. A government that fights for the sovreignty of the nation, and defends its citizens from imperialistic hegemony and corporate gerrymandering.

Either way, Iran sucks. If they have to be the next Anglo-American whipping boy for whatever insidious reason, I won't shed a tear.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Thus far Obama has been very circumspect and careful in his remarks, as he doesn't want America to be seen as directly meddling in Iranians' internal affairs. Too much interference could only backfire on the protesters, as they would be seen as mere puppets of the west.

But it's time now for him to be more forceful, as he and Gordon Brown have been. I note Obama has made no threats of reprisal or military action (at least not in the article you linked) but his remarks don't rule them out either.

It's good that Iran is made aware of the fact that much of the world is paying attention to what they do, and their actions toward the demonstrators have international repercussions.

IMO it's also good that Obama coordinated his remarks with Gordon Brown's. That reinforces the fact that at least two western nations are united in their condemnation.

I deplore the kind of "cowboy diplomacy" advocated by some politicians, but it is time to be more outspoken. Obama has been doing it right -- using diplomacy rather than outright aggression, at least at this point. It's very possible that the violence in Iran will continue to escalate, in which case he will need to make a stronger stand still.



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FMLuder
Here we go; the only difference this time is that unelected Brown with his cabinet of unelected Bilderberg thugs has wisely been advised not to put his foot firmly in the 'brown' again with another scorching blinder about 'democracy'.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't corrupt and tyrannical... I'm not saying I'd be sad to see Ahmedinejad hanging from a gibbet, I'm not saying I'd rather live there. I'm just saying 'let's play choose your govt'

1) A govt that delays and denies its people an election in a move defiant of hundreds of years of protocol during a period of considerable political instability; which then packs the entire system with fraudsters and cronies to milk it for all its worth before they sell the whole nation out to a supra-national union of pseudo-soviet republics; which, again, nobody voted for. To prepare for the inevitable backlash, they blow up their own citizens and launch a campaign of draconian and legally inexcusable legislation to curtail the liberties of the populace. Oh, and then the supra-national entity to which they answer plugs hundreds of millions of *insert currency* into the national media every year to smooth over the process, and denies any democratic decision on the matter on the basis of 'our people are too stupid'...

2) A govt with a relatively strong grip on the parliament; approved by the supreme leader of that nation, that foolishly and without care rigs an election to convey a message of unity and security to its people and the wider world. A government that operates under a theocratic basis supported, for better or worse, by a majority of its citizens. A government that fights for the sovreignty of the nation, and defends its citizens from imperialistic hegemony and corporate gerrymandering.

Either way, Iran sucks. If they have to be the next Anglo-American whipping boy for whatever insidious reason, I won't shed a tear.


Reports on twitter of more street battles, and basij shooting more protestors.

Rafsanjani heads the opposition struggle between the clerics. He has the authority and the number of votes to remove Khamenei. What's he waiting for?! Something tells me that the top mullahs are all the same and whoever replaces Khamenei will be just as bad, and the mullahs who have deserted and joined the protestors have been shot at so I doubt the majority will desert.

But we need to stay out for now, let the internal battle play out.

If things gradually get worse and stronger condemnation doesn't work and the UN as hopeless as ever disagrees, then we may have to intervene, and so be it. It's time this vicious cowardly regime was taught a lesson and saw what it was like to fight an enemy who is also armed with guns.

Make sure we destroy the whole regime and the revolutionary guards & basij with one quick swoop, and then say to the Iranian people "here you go... you now have your opportunity for democracy". I would hope the Iranian army surrenders to the people & democracy if they have any sense. Preferably we hope they take on the Revolutionary guards & basij themselves, so we can don't have to get involved.

Of course I still want a peaceful resolution to it before any such civil war could break out, but I just don't see a non bloody ending to this. Only one side will win, and neither will give up on their goals of death to the regime, or for all Iranian's to live in even worse oppression. Neither side has a compromise anymore. The regime could have compromised 9 days ago before anyone died, had a re-run of the election and survived with Mousavi as president. It would have been an embarrassment, but the people wouldn't have been shouting death to khamenei. Unfortunately Khamenei is so blinded by his current power & title of supreme leader, that he thinks he is god.

I feel the women who die in this revolution will become bigger symbols of the revolution than Mousavi. Already Neda has become a martyr with many hundreds of other Iranian's, and her name is becoming just as well known or more well known than Mousavi's.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Doesn't want to look like he is meddling in Iranian internal affairs?...should stop funding terrorist groups along with the UK in Iran then.As for this,its all a dog and pony show.Brown and Obama couldn't give a flying monkey what happens to the Iranian citizens.Pawns in a much larger game.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I hate to be the odd one out here but doesnt' anyone else think this is hypocrisy?

how much police brutality happens in the country from which these two leaders lead?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Sestias
 


Doesn't want to look like he is meddling in Iranian internal affairs?...should stop funding terrorist groups along with the UK in Iran then.As for this,its all a dog and pony show.Brown and Obama couldn't give a flying monkey what happens to the Iranian citizens.Pawns in a much larger game.


Now which terrorist groups are these?

From what I can gather these are ordinary Iranian's protesting.

The Iranian regime backs many terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and I reckon they suicide bombed their own mosques in order to make the protestors look violent.

This regime is one of the biggest terrorists in the world, look at how the treat their own people, guns vs rocks. This is fact. You can't dispute the obvious. Please don't change the topic to someone like Israel or the US, as it does not change the facts we have at hand.

And if evidence came forth about US/UK backing, I would say well done good job lads. So I don't see the point of falling into the regime trap of thinking western involvement is taking place and so feeling sorry for them in any way at all. If it is so bloody what?!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I hate to be the odd one out here but doesnt' anyone else think this is hypocrisy?

how much police brutality happens in the country from which these two leaders lead?


The police brutality that may happen in the UK/US is not government backed!!!

Therefore there is a huge difference!

We punish police officers who break the law, we don't reward them or tell them this is your job.

Khamenei declared war on his people in his speech last week. What more can be said for you to accept the regime is a nasty piece of work. Far far worse than any democratic government on this planet. When democractic governments treat people badly it's because they are dealing with worthless scum such as these. Give blame to those who start conflicts, not to those who end them.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Ahhh. the fake outrage of politicians, what an art form.

If Obama and Brown were really, really, really, outraged as they stay, they would nuke Iran to save the citizenry. See, that is real outrage, which I why I miss George Bush; not only would he bomb anyone to save them, but he also brought God back into this country, which is what were sorely need, such as....



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
The police brutality that may happen in the UK/US is not government backed!!!


Of Courseeeee it's Govt.-backed!
of course it is.....

All these new laws being put into place and police enacting on it.
DHS says that concerned citizens are potential terroists and police look out for these people, MIAC Report says look for campaign for liberty bumber stickers and police look out for them, alarming increase of police brutality and govt. does nothing not even make a response or anything.

Of courseeee it's govt. backed!

Not being able to take pictures of police officers is govt-backed.

I think your stuck in the matrix bro



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by john124
The police brutality that may happen in the UK/US is not government backed!!!


Of Courseeeee it's Govt.-backed!
of course it is.....

All these new laws being put into place and police enacting on it.
DHS says that concerned citizens are potential terroists and police look out for these people, MIAC Report says look for campaign for liberty bumber stickers and police look out for them, alarming increase of police brutality and govt. does nothing not even make a response or anything.

Of courseeee it's govt. backed!

Not being able to take pictures of police officers is govt-backed.

I think your stuck in the matrix bro


Well if that's the case is it not an own goal to make the people angry and revolt, unless they want that to happen!

Anyway you're talking about the US, I should have just kept my comments about the UK, as I don't really know what happens in the US.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by john124
 


Ahhh. the fake outrage of politicians, what an art form.

If Obama and Brown were really, really, really, outraged as they stay, they would nuke Iran to save the citizenry. See, that is real outrage, which I why I miss George Bush; not only would he bomb anyone to save them, but he also brought God back into this country, which is what were sorely need, such as....


A little "way-out" there, don't you think ? But then again, with your "Zen",
you'd like to offer up another helping of nuking, wouldn't you ?
Is it saturation with sarcasm or numbing with nuking ?

I feel that because the violence has continued for six days straight, these
two world leaders are feeling pressure from their own people to openly
state their outrage and that of their countrymen. Someone has to let them
know that we're mad as hell.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Master Shen long
Brown seems to have selective views as regards to the state beating its citizens.....
How about me and Brown go toe to toe and sort this mess out?


Get in line!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
haha I will wait in line too

Hopefully between us we can sort out his dodgy jaw



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
We have a president who sits down to pee, and if he's "outraged" it's only because the Iranian situation is pushing his latest "love me" photo opportunity from the front page of the news.

We only ended the Somali hostage situation because his weakness was effectively overruled by an in-theater commander. The only thing more dangerous than a warmonger is someone who avoids all forms of conflict.

World, I'm afraid we appear to be disengaging from everything (except Afghanistan), let's see how that works out.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Let's just start "Fight Club" with all the world leaders and let'em fight it out.
Sounds simple!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
We have a president who sits down to pee, and if he's "outraged" it's only because the Iranian situation is pushing his latest "love me" photo opportunity from the front page of the news.

We only ended the Somali hostage situation because his weakness was effectively overruled by an in-theater commander. The only thing more dangerous than a warmonger is someone who avoids all forms of conflict.

World, I'm afraid we appear to be disengaging from everything (except Afghanistan), let's see how that works out.


It's a damn good thing we have freedom of speech, be that as it may.
Are some of you people outraged that he hasn't declared war on Iran yet ?
Gee, it must be difficult to live up to your standards of . . . what ?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIEGE

It's a damn good thing we have freedom of speech, be that as it may.
Are some of you people outraged that he hasn't declared war on Iran yet ?
Gee, it must be difficult to live up to your standards of . . . what ?


Well then what would you suggest we do??? Keep saying "Bad Iranian government, BAD." Guess what, talking is not going to do "squat"
(Sorry had to use that word since someone said Obama sits to pee hahaha
) If Obama is as "outraged" as he wants people to think he is thhen I suggest he do something rather than get his sound bite in for the week.

I am so glad I did not vote for Obama, I had not part in the demise of the U.S.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join