Huge Protests In Iran Call for IRGC and Regime to Go After They Admit Shooting Down Plane

“I am one of the millions of oppressed women in Iran whom they’ve been playing for years... I wore whatever they told me and repeated whatever they ordered. Every sentence they ordered I repeated,” she wrote.

“None of us matter for them, we are just tools.”

On Sunday she appeared torn by her decision.

“Should I start with hello, goodbye or condolences? Hello oppressed people of Iran, goodbye noble people of Iran, my condolences to you people who are always mourning,” she wrote.

 

BREAKING: Iranian regime forces are opening fire on protesters. This woman was shot in Tehran’s Azadi Ave for protesting the regime's murder of 176 passengers. Time to topple this evil regime! #IranProtests2020
https://mobile.twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1216468151589900290

 

I really doubt there widespread protests.
Teheran has +8 million people. With a population that massive, there is always some group of 500 who is against ... you name it.


It sounds more like. This is what we want to read.
Hence we click the bait and get the feels.

 

JANUARY 12, 2020 / 8:34 AM / UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
Hardline militia rallies at UK embassy in Iran, demands closure: report

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran’s hardline Basij militia staged a demonstration outside Britain’s embassy in Tehran on Sunday demanding that it be closed, Iranian state media reported.

The rally by the Basij, affiliated to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, followed the brief detention of Britain’s ambassador to Iran during protests after the Iranian military admitted to mistakenly bringing down a civilian airliner in Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-in-iran-demands-closure-report-idUSKBN1ZB0DD

Iran's leadership seems to be going all in on dumb.

 

WTF? Iran executes dissidents. Any turnout to protest is humbling to watch, to see thousands, now that's inspiring.

How many "***** hats" who recently mobilized to protest Trump would venture beyond their bedroom to protest the Ayatollah were they in Iran?

There's no virtue in your words here notme.

 

Looks like the regime isn't happy with the Brits...

#IRGC affilated Basij chanting outside the #British Embassy; - “Death to the #UK” - “#British Ambassador must be expelled” -#British embassy must be closed”
https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1216342179871891456?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

1000's? I haven't seen anything near the crowds that gathered for the burial of their general.

Of course there is. You like what you read. You saw the article, and also the advertisements around it.
You didn't mind the advertisements. It's win win for all.

 

The "We're better than they are" argument isn't actually worth anything at all, regardless of whether it is true.

We need a plan consistent with our values - a plan that has the possibility of making progress.

We don't have anything even remotely like that. and if we think this is an important issue, our lack of a plan is on us.

There is no question that the recent assassination is not part of making progress of any kind.

 

Pelosi Dismisses Protests In Iran Against Regime, "Different Reasons Why People Are In The Street"

 

And Trumps latest tweet-

 

I said I was humbled by their bravery.

 

He's already been released after something like an hour. And no doubt he be kicked out of the country. For an ambassador to mingle in protests against a government he negotiates with, is such a flagrant violation of protocol. What on earth was that idiot thinking? lol

 

Well, as far as I know the law doesn't spell out precisely what does or does not constitute an adequate briefing. I'm not entirely sure whether Paul and Lee were concerned over the information in the briefing as much as they were not getting a definitive answer to their questions about whether or not the President would get congressional authorization before embarking on a more extended and comprehensive strike against Iran. This I can understand, as I am a firm believer that the Constitution gave the Congress the sole power to declare war. I believe that under the War Powers Act, the President may take necessary and limited actions to protect the homeland, U.S. troops, and civilian personnel. In my opinion, if Iran strikes us again - directly or through a proxy - and the President wishes to hit Iran in a major way, such as an extended bombing campaign, he should go to Congress first. I read an article that said that these issues were the major concerns of Paul and Lee, and they were frustrated that they were not getting definitive answers to their questions on this.

I do not think we could tell the Iraqis what we were planning to do in advance. Frankly, the government of Iraq is weak, and it is compromised. The government of Iraq is probably glad they were not told in advance because, by not telling them, they have deniability for any responsibility. And both the bombing attack on the Shiite militia base and the hit on Soleimani required secrecy, and the Iraqi government, if we're honest, could not be trusted with that information.

More likely, the U.S. is using the 2003 AUMF, which authorized force against Iraq, as congressional authorization to be in Iraq. Remember, this presence was restarted under the Obama administration, not the Trump administration. I believe the Obama administration cited that 2003 Authorization as legal grounds to re-enter Iraq to fight ISIS. I could be wrong on that. They might have cited the 2001 AUMF because that AUMF authorized us to go after Al Qaeda, and ISIS was an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Which ever one their using, both exist, and neither have ever been rescinded by Congress, so they are still in force. Granted, they are dated, and it's high time that Congress take up these issues.

 

Video: Two Pro-American Protesters Are Shot By Regime’s Security Forces In Iran
https://www.rightjournalism.com/vid...are-shoot-by-regimes-security-forces-in-iran/

 

He was arrested yesterday. Today the regime wants to close down the British embassy.

Also sounds like you believe the story of the regime over the ambassadors.

 

Closing down the embassy is Iran's right. And it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

And diplomats being detained... happens all the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mats-detained-military-test-site-severodvinsk
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...russian-diplomat-in-the-netherlands-1.1554159

Nobody denies he was at a protest as far as I know.

 

This last paragraph is weak in that we and Iraq signed the December 2007 SOFA that ended our right to carry out independent combat missions.

Obama's addition of troops was 1400, bringing our total complement to less than 3,000, with the stated mission as being support for the Iraqi military, including training - not independent combat missions.

 

Yup sounds like you are siding with Iran on this.

 

Trump tweet in Farsi 'the most liked Persian tweet' in history of Twitter
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ost-liked-persian-tweet-in-history-of-twitter

 

Recognizing the legal rights of Iran isn't "siding with Iran".

This kind of logic leads to ridiculous and unsupportable policy - not that we have ANY policy today.

 

I would suggest that we need a revolution in Iran.

However, it's unlikely that will happen by presenting the US as an external threat to Iran - something the Ayatollahs can point to as justification for unification in spite of internal disagreement.

We've done this before in Iran, causing them to retain radical leadership even when there was significant popular opposition.

 

What you say is true. Our bombing missions (thousands of them), artillery missions, intelligence missions, and training missions were all in support of Iraqi ground forces as they battled ISIS. But regardless of the technical legal grounds for our presence in Iraq, what I think you're forgetting is that our armed forces always have a right to self defense, and they may respond to attack. And I think it is worthwhile to remember that a Shiite militia is an extra-governmental entity. They are not Iraqi government forces, even if they fought against ISIS. The Shiite militia that killed and wounded Americans was not acting on behalf of the Iraqi government. The mission of those troops was to help the Iraqi government, and they had been invited into Iraq by the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Iraq is a messy place, isn't it? These militias are not controlled by the government of Iraq, and the Iraqi army and police are not strong enough to control them or disband them. That fact leaves it only to the U.S. to protect our troops. We cannot rely on anyone else to do that in Iraq. So if some extra-governmental para-military group attacks our troops, or our embassy, we have a duty and a necessity to defend ourselves. Otherwise, no one will, and our troops and our embassy personnel become sitting ducks.

Seth

 

Its a breech of diplomatic protocol to arrest an Ambassador.

Trumps policy is that the US will never allow Iran to get nukes, and that its people should not be attacked by the regime.

Its not military action, and its not supporting regime change-if Iran wants new leadership they will have to make it happen themselves.

 

Sounds like you're making a personal attack because you can't stand the argument.