Don't Talk Back To Your Elders

[Claverhouse]

Neka (northern Iran), Aug 15th 2006

Atefeh Rajabi, 16-yr-old girl received the supreme penalty from the Republic of Iran.



The shock of Atefeh's execution has gone far beyond this town. Even in a country that has the highest number of executions in the world and routinely executes minors, Iranians across the nation have been bewildered by accounts of the hanging of a 16-year-old girl. The fact that the religious judge himself put the rope around her neck and the letters of 'congratulations' from the town's governor to the judge, commending him for his 'firm approach' have only added to the torment and pain many say they have felt.

"Atefeh was not a well-behaved girl, that's for sure. But do you hang a girl for having sex with an unmarried man?" asked Fariba, a girl in Atefeh's neighborhood, who like many others did not want to be identified.

According to judicial records, by the time Atefeh was 16, she had been convicted five times of having sex with unmarried men. Each time she spent some time in jail and was given 100 lashes (Under Iran's law, punishment for having sex with a married man would have been far heavier.)

Atefeh's father is an unemployed drug addict whose whereabouts are not known. Her mother died when Atefeh was still a child and she was left in the care of her octogenarian grandparents, which meant no care at all.

"She was abused by a close relative," says Mina, one of the few girls in Neka who identify themselves as Atefeh's friends. "But she never dared even to talk about it to anyone. Tell your teachers? They'll call you a whore. Tell the police? They lock you up and rape you. Better keep your mouth shut."

Mina sobs as she recalls her friend's tormented life, but many of these horrendous experiences are everyday facts of life for girls being brought up under a rigid theocratic regime that has institutionalized misogyny in its laws and practices.

"She sometimes talked about what these 'Islamic moral policemen' did to her while she was in jail. She still had nightmares about that. She said Behshahr Prison was the Hell itself."

Alijan, a local grocer with graying hair, said many parents did not want Atefeh to socialize with their kids, because they thought she would have a corrupting influence on other young girls.

"Who can blame them?" he said, with a deep sigh. "In this country, if you're a man and you go to jail, you can forget about having a future. Now imagine if a girl goes to jail. She was hopeless."

"I knew this girl very well and she did not deserve what they did to her," explains a middle-aged woman who once taught Atefeh in the local girls' school. "She was lively, intelligent, and, of course, rebellious. She wouldn't take injustice from anyone. But the authorities here equate these qualities in a girl to prostitution and evil. They wanted to give all the girls and women a lesson."

Hamid was one of those fathers in the neighborhood who did not want her two daughters to befriend Atefeh, but with hindsight, he feels the guilt of not having done anything to help the girl.

"I think the most devastating event in her life was the death of her mother," Hamid said. "Before that, she was a normal girl. Her mother was everything to her. When she died, she had no one to look after her."

A pharmacist, whose shop is not far away from the Railway Square, where Atefeh was hanged, recalls her final, painful hour. "When agents of the State Security Forces brought her to the gallows, I felt cold sweat running down my back. She looked so young and innocent, standing there in the middle of all these bearded men in military fatigues. Judge Reza'i must have felt a personal grudge against her. He put the rope around her neck and left her dangling on the gallows for 45 minutes. I looked around and everyone in the crowd was sobbing and damning the mullahs for doing this to our young people."

Atefeh had no access to a lawyer at any stage and her death sentence was upheld by a Supreme Court that is dominated by fundamentalist mullahs. Haji Rezaii, the religious judge, was reportedly so incensed with Atefeh's 'sharp tongue' during the trial that he travelled to Tehran to convince the mullahs of the Supreme Court to uphold the death sentence.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=137


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[omnirook]

Neka (northern Iran), Aug 15th 2006

Atefeh Rajabi, 16-yr-old girl received the supreme penalty from the Republic of Iran.



http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=137


Claverhouse :ph34r:
It's horrifying, yes - but I refuse to allow it to be used to whip me up for going to war. If the Iranians cannot get rid of their government and replace it w/one that they would be happier with, they have my sympathy - and that is all. I'm far from happy w/the government here, but I don't expect anyone to "come to our rescue" - especially since such an effort is only ever an excuse used by warmongers to whip up the public and get them behind a war ... So, the process begins - as always, villify and dehumanize the enemy, make him out to be a monster that must be destroyed: then sending in the boys and dropping the bombs becomes a fine thing, instead of the monstrous waste of men and material that it truly is.

[Serotonin]

Haji Rezaii, the religious judge, was reportedly so incensed with Atefeh's 'sharp tongue' during the trial that he travelled to Tehran to convince the mullahs of the Supreme Court to uphold the death sentence.

You go girl.

R.I.P.

[Ferrus]

Having heard Muslims speak about this issue and others of a similar nature frequently it appears that the most important posession of a female, in Islamic tradition, is "honour". Lack of honour is tantamount to being a useless non-entity in society. If she was expounding her lack of honour then she would be deemed to be deleterious to society and executed.

But of course, to the centre-left media Muslims are cuddly people who just want to engage in a happy liberal vision of a multi-cultural society without being oppresed by evil american fundamentalists.

[Sackanaka]

It's so sad that I thought, "That would make a great movie."
I mean it both ways.

[demagogic_schizoid]

It's horrifying, yes - but I refuse to allow it to be used to whip me up for going to war. If the Iranians cannot get rid of their government and replace it w/one that they would be happier with, they have my sympathy - and that is all. I'm far from happy w/the government here, but I don't expect anyone to "come to our rescue" - especially since such an effort is only ever an excuse used by warmongers to whip up the public and get them behind a war ... So, the process begins - as always, villify and dehumanize the enemy, make him out to be a monster that must be destroyed: then sending in the boys and dropping the bombs becomes a fine thing, instead of the monstrous waste of men and material that it truly is.


The fact that you read this article and end up using it as a way to have a pop at your president says a lot more about you than it does about him. Nobody said anything about going to war with Iran on this thread, it's as if just because they are enemies of America there can be no outright condemnation of them. Also, if you think what you are going through living under Bush is in any way way comparable to what the Iranians are going through you are living in a fantasy world.

[Biff_Loman]

The fact that you read this article and end up using it as a way to have a pop at your president says a lot more about you than it does about him.

Yeah: it says that he has a huge beef with the current administration. And rightly so, IMO.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Yeah: it says that he has a huge beef with the current administration. And rightly so, IMO.

But what has the article posted got to do with the current administration? It's one thing for someone to have their own issues with their government, but it's another thing when this prevents them from seeing anything outside of those terms - to me it looks more like such people are defined by being "anti" administration rather than having any beliefs of their own. I can't prove it, but I bet that if this happened in a pro-US country omnirook would have condemned it a lot more, or at least not changed the subject to something unrelated.

[Nemesis]

or at least not changed the subject to something unrelated.
These days in the United States, nothing even remotely political is unrelated to war.

[Serotonin]

I admit I was thinking along the same lines as Omnirook when I made my post as well.

Is this a case of reading "too much" between the lines? The Iranian regime is brutal and thuggish, and the sooner it implodes the better. The real question is whether the West has the moral authority and precipitate this implosion with military action. I'm leaning towards no. It sucks that this has happened to this girl, but after witnessing the beacon of peace and progression that is Iraq the West might want to consider other options first.

[Nemesis]

I admit I was thinking along the same lines as Omnirook when I made my post as well.

Is this a case of reading "too much" between the lines? The Iranian regime is brutal and thuggish, and the sooner it implodes the better. The real question is whether the West has the moral authority and precipitate this implosion with military action. I'm leaning towards no. It sucks that this has happened to this girl, but after witnessing the beacon of peace and progression that is Iraq the West might want to consider other options first.
First and foremost of those options is to just mind our own God damn business, like the old Republicans would have wanted.

Personally, I agree with you. The sooner the Iranian regime implodes the better, but I think it would be much better for the world and, more importantly, for all the Middle East if the Iranian regime was overthrown by Iranians.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Obviously it would be better, but it's not going to happen, at least not before the regime can do some serious damage.

[Nemesis]

Obviously it would be better, but it's not going to happen,
Why do you think this?

[demagogic_schizoid]

because they have a lot of support, money and power and there is no reason for them simply to implode.

[Nemesis]

because they have a lot of support, money and power and there is no reason for them simply to implode.
If the people want it badly enough, then absolutely nothing will stop them.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Of course it will look how Mugabe has ground the Zimbabweans down, and he has a lot less support, military power or wealth than the Iranian regime.

[Nemesis]

Of course it will look how Mugabe has ground the Zimbabweans down, and he has a lot less support, military power or wealth than the Iranian regime.
You say that as if one example ultimately proves that dictators are just meanies who can't be taken out by any means whatsoever, save a spanking from a superpower.

Ever heard of the America Revolution?

[Krill]

Ever heard of the America Revolution?

Largely succesful because of a) New military strategems (geurilla warfare) b) England really didn't think it was worth pouring money into past a certain point.

[Nemesis]

Largely succesful because of a) New military strategems (geurilla warfare) b) England really didn't think it was worth pouring money into past a certain point.
Still, they had to want it badly enough to initiate it, and carry through during the darkest hours.

[Krill]

Still, they had to want it badly enough to initiate it, and carry through during the darkest hours.

True. I think the French Revolution might have been better to cite (the American Revolution was very different). Then again, that got pretty ugly.

I don't know enough about Iranian culture to say anything much on the subject.

[Nemesis]

I don't know enough about Iranian culture to say anything much on the subject.
Well I think we can agree that American "help" would not exactly be welcome. Correct?

[Krill]

Well I think we can agree that American "help" would not exactly be welcome. Correct?

Probably not.

[Nemesis]

Probably not.
Well, although Iranians aren't Arab, wouldn't you think that we should take a bit of a lesson from Iraq?

[Krill]

Well, although Iranians aren't Arab, wouldn't you think that we should take a bit of a lesson from Iraq?

What lesson might that be?

[Nemesis]

What lesson might that be?
That the way we see ourselves and the way we're seen in the Middle East are two very different points of view, and I think they're different enough to make it a bad choice to try and play savior of the Iranians.

[Krill]

That the way we see ourselves and the way we're seen in the Middle East are two very different points of view, and I think they're different enough to make it a bad choice to try and play savior of the Iranians.

Good way of putting it. Unless Iran gets all uppity to us and threatens us directly, I think it would probably be a good idea to stay out of it.

I wish the UN would get off of its butt and do something about 'human rights'.

[Nemesis]

Good way of putting it. Unless Iran gets all uppity to us and threatens us directly, I think it would probably be a good idea to stay out of it.
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=10616

I wish the UN would get off of its butt and do something about 'human rights'.
That's why it sucks that they have absolutely no power, which is why they're the most frustrating and simultaneously sane governing body in the world.

[demagogic_schizoid]

You say that as if one example ultimately proves that dictators are just meanies who can't be taken out by any means whatsoever, save a spanking from a superpower.

Ever heard of the America Revolution?

you're putting words in my mouth, all I'm saying is that just because people might want something doesn't mean it will happen, there are lots of examples of dictatorships staying in power for many years despite being hated by a majority of their population, and anyway, the Iranian regime isn't all that unpopular. They have a lot of support from muslims outside of Iran too.

[Nemesis]

you're putting words in my mouth, all I'm saying is that just because people might want something doesn't mean it will happen, there are lots of examples of dictatorships staying in power for many years despite being hated by a majority of their population, and anyway, the Iranian regime isn't all that unpopular. They have a lot of support from muslims outside of Iran too.
I said badly enough, not some trivial passing fancy.

[demagogic_schizoid]

yeah I think we've established that. again you are putting words in my mouth, no-one said anything about the Iranian opposition being a trivial passing fancy. I don't think the Zimbabwean or Chinese or Iraqi opposition to Saddam were/are a trivial passing fancy, but it doesn't change the fact that they failed totally, or have been doing so for several decades.

By the way it's normally a good idea to deal with what people say and not what you imagine they really mean.

[Nemesis]

yeah I think we've established that. again you are putting words in my mouth, no-one said anything about the Iranian opposition being a trivial passing fancy. I don't think the Zimbabwean or Chinese or Iraqi opposition to Saddam were/are a trivial passing fancy, but it doesn't change the fact that they failed totally, or have been doing so for several decades.
Well, I guess that's where you and I differ. I happen to think people can do anything. I guess you believe they always need help from a higher power.

By the way it's normally a good idea to deal with what people say and not what you imagine they really mean.
Not really, because people very rarely accurately represent their true intentions.

[demagogic_schizoid]

it's irrelevant whether or not people can do "anything", just as it's irrelevant whether or not they need help from a higher power. All that matters is that history shows that simply because a significant number of people want to overthrow a regime, doesn't mean it will necessarily happen.

[Nemesis]

it's irrelevant whether or not people can do "anything",
It's central to the argument. Wether or not people can do anything has just about everything to do with it. Wether or not history shows it's possible is only partially relavent. I don't care what road your taking, and I don't care how unbelievably rough it is or how many hairpin turns it has. There is always a way to get to the end. There is always a way to overthrow a government, wether you want to believe it or not. If the people in question want it badly enough, then they'll keep going until they're all dead, and then there will be no government.

[omnirook]

The fact that you read this article and end up using it as a way to have a pop at your president says a lot more about you than it does about him. Nobody said anything about going to war with Iran on this thread, it's as if just because they are enemies of America there can be no outright condemnation of them. Also, if you think what you are going through living under Bush is in any way way comparable to what the Iranians are going through you are living in a fantasy world.
That defies logic - just because what I'm "going through living under Bush" is in no way "comparable to what the Iranians are going through" (according to you, anyway) is NO argument for why I should continue to endure an inept, corrupt, and dangerous regime - especially since my society - unlike Iran's - touts itself as being so free and "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which is utter nonsense. "The guy next door didn't even get a piece of stale bread, so count your blessings - and, look, your piece of stale bread has mold - extra flavor - and some maggots crawling on it - protein! Now, say grace and eat w/relish!"

No one has to say anything about going to war: this country is gearing up for a war w/Iran, and one of the first steps in getting the public's support for war has always been to make the "enemy" seem as monstrous as possible. When the Iranians do it, when they call us "great Satan" and tick off the evils that characterize our society, well, they're just madmen - after all, they are they and we are we, and there couldn't possibly be anything wrong w/us: we, after all, live in God's own way and will have the Almighty on our side as we smash those infidel heathens!

I have made my feelings about Bush plain: he is the WORST "president" that this country has ever suffered under - worse by far than all the bad ones put together. If I were a public figure saying that - for instance, the Dean of the Presidential Press Core - I would suffer for it, as she did indeed suffer for saying it, so don't tell me that we're all that much better. The Bush Administration has used every means at its disposal to crush and silence its opposition, down to and including official harrassment and IRS audits. America claims to be so much better than any other country - that sets a much higher standard; falling short of that standard and pointing to how much less other countries are is NO justification - not when you started by insisting that you were indeed better.

[omnirook]

But what has the article posted got to do with the current administration? It's one thing for someone to have their own issues with their government, but it's another thing when this prevents them from seeing anything outside of those terms - to me it looks more like such people are defined by being "anti" administration rather than having any beliefs of their own. I can't prove it, but I bet that if this happened in a pro-US country omnirook would have condemned it a lot more, or at least not changed the subject to something unrelated.
Didn't you know? - nearly everything that we see and hear and read about is carefully sifted by the corporate controlled media to make certain that it suits the current goals of our rulers. It's called "propaganda" - and it's only ever as close to truth as suits the people who write it ... Sorry, again: because people elsewhere suffer is NO justification for our suffering, especially since we claim to be so much better. Given our claims, sending our jobs to India and elsewhere, not providing health care for 40 million plus, allowing the oil companies to rob and rape us, allowing an illegitimate junta to hand out government contracts to Halliburten and Bechtel, allowing "Homeland Security" to function as a gestapo - all that and much more - makes us as bad if not worse than the regimes that we are seeking to "change." It just does. It's rather like an Olympic athlete saying that he should not have to try so hard because a wheelchair-bound Special Olympics Athlete is not held to the same exact standards, even if he does indeed try even harder.

[omnirook]

because they have a lot of support, money and power and there is no reason for them simply to implode.
Sounds like our government!

[omnirook]

Largely succesful because of a) New military strategems (geurilla warfare) b) England really didn't think it was worth pouring money into past a certain point.
Oh, you've actually studied the history - congratulations!

Here's another little tidbit that would shock most Americans: w/the sole exception of France, no one dared recognize the existence of the United States until the United Kingdom had done so - the privileges of being a superpower. The scene has been dramatized several times. John Adams, the new ambassador of the United States to the Court of St James, was announced to King George III. Adams took off his hat, strode forward, and bowed deeply, waiting for the king's single nod, the traditional sign from a sovereign that he accepted an ambassador as the representative of a legitimate country. The pause seemed an eternity. Several foreign ambassadors who were present noted that they heard the king swallow audibly before before giving his nod. Everyone held his breath. Then the king nodded. It was at that moment that the United States became a nation among nations. It didn't matter what piece of parchment had been signed in Philadelphia.

[Stoned_Rider]

I am not sure how accurate this is but I heard it somewhere.. wasn't Morocco the first country to recognize the USA in 1777? I do realize it was no world superpower but hey! :p

Edit: Some links: http://www.usembassy.ma/usmorrelations/historicalbgrnd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan-American_Treaty_of_Friendship

[omnirook]

I am not sure how accurate this is but I heard it somewhere.. wasn't Morocco the first country to recognize the USA in 1777? I do realize it was no world superpower but hey! :p

Edit: Some links: http://www.usembassy.ma/usmorrelations/historicalbgrnd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan-American_Treaty_of_Friendship
1777 was during the Revolution. The US had no constitution, no official government.

[JAVO]

Note that Afghanistan and Iraq never threatened to "go nuclear" or to wipe another country off the map. On the other hand, they also didn't get much support or rhetorical defense from Russia or China.

If we ticked off Russia, there's a fear that maybe the Cold War would come back out of the deep freezer.

If we ticked off China, we'd be fighting with bows and arrows and living in the Second Stone Age, since probably 90% of all our products and gadgets and even a shocking amount of military stuff is produced there.

[omnirook]

Note that Afghanistan and Iraq never threatened to "go nuclear" or to wipe another country off the map. On the other hand, they also didn't get much support or rhetorical defense from Russia or China.

If we ticked off Russia, there's a fear that maybe the Cold War would come back out of the deep freezer.

If we ticked off China, we'd be fighting with bows and arrows and living in the Second Stone Age, since probably 90% of all our products and gadgets and even a shocking amount of military stuff is produced there.
China has kicked the shit out of us in 2 wars already, the "Korean" War and the "Vietnam" War - those wars were against China. We lost ... It's true - China is supplying most of the crap that Americans love to fill their homes with: going to war w/them would hurt the illusion of prosperity that our rulers are trying desperately to maintain. Russia, on the other hand, has probably finally gotten its point across to the numb-skulls that run (and have always run*) this country: that the US and Russia need to be allied to contain China - hence Russia's increasing prosperity. That and the Russians have oil - and quite a lot of it.

*Presidents that have understood - Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Clinton - have been few and far between and have always suffered attacks on their "maniliness" and "courage."

[demagogic_schizoid]

It's central to the argument. Wether or not people can do anything has just about everything to do with it. Wether or not history shows it's possible is only partially relavent. I don't care what road your taking, and I don't care how unbelievably rough it is or how many hairpin turns it has. There is always a way to get to the end. There is always a way to overthrow a government, wether you want to believe it or not. If the people in question want it badly enough, then they'll keep going until they're all dead, and then there will be no government.

Ah well hug a rainbow then, everything will be ok because nemi decided that "people can do anything". I'm so glad we live in such a simple world. :)

[demagogic_schizoid]

That defies logic - just because what I'm "going through living under Bush" is in no way "comparable to what the Iranians are going through" (according to you, anyway) is NO argument for why I should continue to endure an inept, corrupt, and dangerous regime - especially since my society - unlike Iran's - touts itself as being so free and "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which is utter nonsense. "The guy next door didn't even get a piece of stale bread, so count your blessings - and, look, your piece of stale bread has mold - extra flavor - and some maggots crawling on it - protein! Now, say grace and eat w/relish!"

No one has to say anything about going to war: this country is gearing up for a war w/Iran, and one of the first steps in getting the public's support for war has always been to make the "enemy" seem as monstrous as possible. When the Iranians do it, when they call us "great Satan" and tick off the evils that characterize our society, well, they're just madmen - after all, they are they and we are we, and there couldn't possibly be anything wrong w/us: we, after all, live in God's own way and will have the Almighty on our side as we smash those infidel heathens!

I have made my feelings about Bush plain: he is the WORST "president" that this country has ever suffered under - worse by far than all the bad ones put together. If I were a public figure saying that - for instance, the Dean of the Presidential Press Core - I would suffer for it, as she did indeed suffer for saying it, so don't tell me that we're all that much better. The Bush Administration has used every means at its disposal to crush and silence its opposition, down to and including official harrassment and IRS audits. America claims to be so much better than any other country - that sets a much higher standard; falling short of that standard and pointing to how much less other countries are is NO justification - not when you started by insisting that you were indeed better.

I didn't say you should support the Bush government, all I said was it's sad when you are so bainwashed that you can't even read about an atrocity in Iran without turning it round to attack your own government, which has been a consistent opponent of that regime. And you say that I'm the illogical one.:wtf:

[omnirook]

I didn't say you should support the Bush government, all I said was it's sad when you are so bainwashed that you can't even read about an atrocity in Iran without turning it round to attack your own government, which has been a consistent opponent of that regime. And you say that I'm the illogical one.:wtf:
I made my reason for doing so plain - I do NOT trust the media to give fair and accurate reports; I consider all the corporate controlled media - which accounts for most of what we see and hear and read - to be propaganda, aimed at supporting the current goals of the ruling elite.

I said that the people of Iran have my sympathy - if they, in fact, cannot get rid of a government that displeases them. That they got rid of the shah, despite American and European support for his government, tells me that the Iranians can get rid of governments that displease them. Perhaps they support what was done. If so, Iran is a sovereign nation: it's not our business to go in and force changes. Most countries in Europe have banned capital punishment; they consider us savages for having capital punishment: should they come over and try to force a change - forgetting, of course, that none of them is presently capable of matching our military and pretending that they could match our military?

As far as the nuclear weapons go - which country is the only country that has ever actually used a nuclear weapon? Oh, the United States! But it seems that we're the only ones who should be trusted not to use one. Makes sense ... We did not stop Israel from acquiring the bomb, even allow them to deny (wink, wink) having one - what makes them so much better than the Iranians?

[Stoned_Rider]

Omnirook, dude, no one in this thread even hinted that you should endure your "inept, corrupt and dangerous regime" before you brought up this topic... So what on earth are you talking about?

Anyways, what about Michael Moore? What about all those anti-war, anti-Bush demonstrations in the US? What about the clear anti-war, anti-bush political message that most of today's American mainstream music is conveying? How do you think they are being silenced?

The US is not perfect, that's for sure.. but dude, try going to Riyadh and declare that the Saudi King is the worst the country has ever seen. I assure you that you will then thoroughly enjoy the rest of your life!

Your country is not that bad. You know, there is a good reason why there are millions of people whose wish is to immigrate, live in the US, and be US citizens.

Oh, there is also a good reason why Bush is currently the president of the USA: People VOTED for him, twice. He won the popular vote in the second time as well. And the good news for you is, his term is ultimately coming to an end, very soon. You will not have to endure his ugly mug for the rest of your life. Compare this to some people in some countries who have absolutely NO SAY whatsoever in who they want to rule them. I would rather endure four (or eight, whatever) years of an "inept, corrupt and dangerous regime" than endure such a regime for the rest of my life.

[Stoned_Rider]

I made my reason for doing so plain - I do NOT trust the media to give fair and accurate reports; I consider all the corporate controlled media - which accounts for most of what we see and hear and read - to be propaganda, aimed at supporting the current goals of the ruling elite.

I don't think this applies anymore today, in the age of Internet news and independent weblogs.
PS - Iran Focus is a website run by IRANIANS.

[omnirook]

Omnirook, dude, no one in this thread even hinted that you should endure your "inept, corrupt and dangerous regime" before you brought up this topic... So what on earth are you talking about?

Anyways, what about Michael Moore? What about all those anti-war, anti-Bush demonstrations in the US? What about the clear anti-war, anti-bush political message that most of today's American mainstream music is conveying? How do you think they are being silenced?

The US is not perfect, that's for sure.. but dude, try going to Riyadh and declare that the Saudi King is the worst the country has ever seen. I assure you that you will then thoroughly enjoy the rest of your life!

Your country is not that bad. You know, there is a good reason why there are millions of people whose wish is to immigrate, live in the US, and be US citizens.

Oh, there is also a good reason why Bush is currently the president of the USA: People VOTED for him, twice. He won the popular vote in the second time as well. And the good news for you is, his term is ultimately coming to an end, very soon. You will not have to endure his ugly mug for the rest of your life. Compare this to some people in some countries who have absolutely NO SAY whatsoever in who they want to rule them. I would rather endure four (or eight, whatever) years of an "inept, corrupt and dangerous regime" than endure such a regime for the rest of my life.

If you had really read what I had written, you would have seen that I had anticipated and dis-allowed your point before you made your point: telling me how bad it is elsewhere does NOT make how bad it is here acceptable. Here is supposed to be - far better than it is! And, in our national pride, we go about shouting that it is better than it is, much better. Ever hear of Helen Thomas? - the Dean of the US Presidential Press Corps? Bush didn't like what she said about him, so she was banned from Presidential Press Conferences - until every paper in the world raised such a stink that Bush had to back down. Point is - a US President even dreaming of silencing opposition is not supposed to happen - especially since that president has made "freeing" the Iraqi people his (bullshit, lying) mantra.

Again - I do not trust the media. Lately, there has been an increase in the reports of how rotten the Iranians are - why? Because we care? Tell that to the 50-cents per day workers in the Maldives, a US Territory where US labor laws - for some mysterious reason, say US Congresspeople taking bribes - do not apply. Do we really care about the girl who was hanged? No. Nobody in power gives 2 shits about her or any other poor slob that suffers. So, when I hear and see and read this stuff, I take it for what it is - propaganda!

And, no, not ever - never, ever - will I swallow that conditions elsewhere amount to a free pass for conditions here to be one bit less than they are supposed to be, especially not what they could be.

[omnirook]

I don't think this applies anymore today, in the age of Internet news and independent weblogs.
PS - Iran Focus is a website run by IRANIANS.
Yeah - there's the Internet. Problem is - so much of what's on it is biased and corrupted to the point that believing it is no wiser a thing than believing the corporate media, which, at least admit it, has a greater effect on people.

And let's not forget that governments all over the world are working feverishly to devise ways of getting control over the Internet - hence all those frighten the shit out of you by threatening your kids moves - all the shit about predatory child molestors lurking in every email.

[omnirook]

Oh, there is also a good reason why Bush is currently the president of the USA: People VOTED for him, twice.
Bullshit. Florida, Ohio - where the 2000 and 2004 elections were STOLEN respectively. The stench of the elections tampering was so rank that the whole fucking world held their noses. "Le Monde," which had credentialed observors on the ground in Ohio, actually went through the trouble of reporting to US authorities that their people had witnessed huge numbers of Democratic ballots being tossed in the trash. Ashcroft's response? "We'll look into that after the inauguration" - wow! Was it ever looked into? No.

[omnirook]

Oh, yeah, on what do I base my acceptance of reports of elections fraud? Call it a gut feeling, bolstered by this weigh up on the scales: corporate interests v the interests of groups who are concerned w/fair elections and human rights - those who care for people v those who care only for their own wallets. I'm far more willing to accept the word of those who fight for human rights over the word of those who smash people like bugs to increase their own profits.

[Heleuiski]

First and foremost of those options is to just mind our own God damn business, like the old Republicans would have wanted.

Personally, I agree with you. The sooner the Iranian regime implodes the better, but I think it would be much better for the world and, more importantly, for all the Middle East if the Iranian regime was overthrown by Iranians.

I agree. I hope they can. Iran has a very young population.
These laws, they are so backward, so medieval, so outdated to a Western viewer.

[MyDogHasFleas]

Here's a thought experiment. The article posted to start this thread has the same content, but instead of being about a 16-year-old girl in Iran under Muslim rule, it's about a 16-year-old girl in the USA whose family were members of a fundamentalist Christian church, and they threw her out of the church and the family. (I'd like to say "condemned and executed her" but that's inconceivable here in the USA.) Now what's your reaction?

Here's another one. It's a suicide bomber. But, instead of a Palestinian blowing up an Israeli nightclub, it's a fundamentalist Christian blowing up an abortion clinic. Now, what's your reaction?

I submit that if you feel differently about the outcome in either case, you are a hypocrite and have hidden agendas.

[cafe]

Here's a thought experiment. The article posted to start this thread has the same content, but instead of being about a 16-year-old girl in Iran under Muslim rule, it's about a 16-year-old girl in the USA whose family were members of a fundamentalist Christian church, and they threw her out of the church and the family. (I'd like to say "condemned and executed her" but that's inconceivable here in the USA.) Now what's your reaction?

Here's another one. It's a suicide bomber. But, instead of a Palestinian blowing up an Israeli nightclub, it's a fundamentalist Christian blowing up an abortion clinic. Now, what's your reaction?

I submit that if you feel differently about the outcome in either case, you are a hypocrite and have hidden agendas.
I don't condone ostracizing young girls or bombing buildings, but I do think there is a major difference between taking a person's life and destroying their property or ostracizing them.

My agendas are not hidden and you can call me a hypocrite if you want to. People whose opinions I care about have called me worse.

Why do you think condemning and executing young girls for promiscuity is inconceivable in the US?

[MyDogHasFleas]

I don't condone ostracizing young girls or bombing buildings, but I do think there is a major difference between taking a person's life and destroying their property or ostracizing them.


duh...



My agendas are not hidden and you can call me a hypocrite if you want to. People whose opinions I care about have called me worse.


cool...



Why do you think condemning and executing young girls for promiscuity is inconceivable in the US?

ummm.... why would you think it's conceivable? Oh I get it. We are headed to being a POLICE STATE! The NAZI PIG FASCIST RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN BUSH REGIME! Am I close?

you need a reality check.

Also... how about addressing the points I actually made? Don't focus on the name-calling so much -- you are an INTP right?

[cafe]

duh...



cool...



ummm.... why would you think it's conceivable? Oh I get it. We are headed to being a POLICE STATE! The NAZI PIG FASCIST RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN BUSH REGIME! Am I close?

you need a reality check.

Also... how about addressing the points I actually made? Don't focus on the name-calling so much -- you are an INTP right?
Um, I'm actually what some might call a fundamentalist christian and an INFJ. I think you are making your point poorly.

[Nemesis]

Also... how about addressing the points I actually made? Don't focus on the name-calling so much -- you are an INTP right?
What points? All I saw was you saying a whole lot of nothing about what the norm is (not) here in the United States.

[ptGatsby]

Here's another one. It's a suicide bomber. But, instead of a Palestinian blowing up an Israeli nightclub, it's a fundamentalist Christian blowing up an abortion clinic. Now, what's your reaction?


Hmm, you mean like this? (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/18/rudolph.sentencing/) Or a few others, I guess (24 murders and 179 bombings (incl. attempts) between 1989-2004. And some 21,000 threats, etc)





Why do you think condemning and executing young girls for promiscuity is inconceivable in the US?


I guess that would depend how much you'd allow the militant religious groups (who want to use the OT to set up government, similar to the Torah or Qu'ran) access to policy.

There are already groups that are dangerously close to that kind of a view... but fortunately, we are mostly moderate enough not to stone people to death over minor infractions.

[MyDogHasFleas]

ptGatsby, good link and stats on abortion clinic terrorism.

My whole point was that terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists against Israel should be condemned as harshly as terrorism by Christian fundamentalists against abortion clinics. And the desire by Islamic fundamentalists to set up a religious-ruled Sharia government should be condemned as harshly as the desire by Christian fundamentalists to set up a religious-ruled government here in the USA.

Often, I see left-wing AND right-wing viewpoints sway based on who is performing the terrorist acts or trying to establish the religious government.

I'm just trying to point out that inconsistency.

[MyDogHasFleas]

What points? All I saw was you saying a whole lot of nothing about what the norm is (not) here in the United States.

try my post just above and see if that makes more sense to you. I'm actually interested in what you have to say... believe it or not. I'm trying to coax you into a response. Let's see if it works.

[ptGatsby]

My whole point was that terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists against Israel should be condemned as harshly as terrorism by Christian fundamentalists against abortion clinics.


They aren't equal though... and that's the problem. One is a very narrow religious viewpoint - the other has huge social undercurrents... stuff like war, poverty and the like.

In that sense, both should be condemned - but they need to be dealt with differently. You can arrest those that bomb abortion clinics (or whatever is the current fad)... but you can't arrest an entire popular movement. It needs to be dismantled and its root causes removed. Some of this is religious fanatacism (well, more like ideological brainwashing - we saw it with political ideologies too!), but I wouldn't even call it a significant amount.

I think a lot of people are against terrorism as a crime - but terrorism is often the poor man's war. That blurs the line... especially when we all tend to relate with opressed people! True or not, of course.

None of which makes it excusable - but failing to differentiate them also means no solution to certain brands of terrorism.



And the desire by Islamic fundamentalists to set up a religious-ruled Sharia government should be condemned as harshly as the desire by Christian fundamentalists to set up a religious-ruled government here in the USA.


Now that I agree with.

But should the UK invade the US to overthrow an overly religious president? I can denounce one all I want... but that's not the same thing.



In concept, I agree with what you are saying. Both of us, I'm sure, would like to see an end to it - to all types. But there is a difference... a complicated nebulous one that causes a lot of divides!

[CEOofRawness]

It's so sad that I thought, "That would make a great movie."
I mean it both ways.

Maybe we should. Ignorance of this kind of thing is what causes it to happen in the first place. The middle east is so screwed up sometimes I wish we'd drop one big bomb and start over. Then again sometimes I think we should do that with humanity, period.

And the people of Iran won't rebel. People have an affinity for complacency, so I'm sure most of the women wouldn't rebel out of fear of a harsher reality. And the men? Ha! Why would the men rebel against that? To them, women are objects. What happened to the 5 unmarried guys that girl allegedly slept with? I doubt THEY went to jail. Their system is completely locked into place and probably won't change. And quite honestly I can't respect anyone that holds tradition over logic. Fuck Iran and their foundamentalists.

[wildcat]

Maybe we should. Ignorance of this kind of thing is what causes it to happen in the first place. The middle east is so screwed up sometimes I wish we'd drop one big bomb and start over. Then again sometimes I think we should do that with humanity, period.

And the people of Iran won't rebel. People have an affinity for complacency, so I'm sure most of the women wouldn't rebel out of fear of a harsher reality. And the men? Ha! Why would the men rebel against that? To them, women are objects. What happened to the 5 unmarried guys that girl allegedly slept with? I doubt THEY went to jail. Their system is completely locked into place and probably won't change. And quite honestly I can't respect anyone that holds tradition over logic. Fuck Iran and their foundamentalists.
And who, fooled by the disinformation bureau of the KGB, let the mullahs ascend to power? The question for the KGB was: How to decisively weaken the western power in the ME?
Bring the mullahs to power.
In 1978, Jimmy Carter fell flat into the trap. He failed to see that the threat that faced Reza Pahlavi was not only his.
The cause of the mullahs was hailed by the western liberals.
America did nothing to help its best friend in the ME in his time of trouble. Was Iran a land of freedom? Yes. Was it a democracy? No.

Carter was mislead by the KGB.
The administration of Bush mislead itself. The problem with Iraq was but corruption of an ignorant peasant family in the position of absolute power. The terror was not systematized. It was not a tradition. It was never an order inbuilt in the custom.
The mullahs did not invent the custom.

[Nemesis]

try my post just above and see if that makes more sense to you. I'm actually interested in what you have to say... believe it or not. I'm trying to coax you into a response. Let's see if it works.

ptGatsby, good link and stats on abortion clinic terrorism.

My whole point was that terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists against Israel should be condemned as harshly as terrorism by Christian fundamentalists against abortion clinics. And the desire by Islamic fundamentalists to set up a religious-ruled Sharia government should be condemned as harshly as the desire by Christian fundamentalists to set up a religious-ruled government here in the USA.

Often, I see left-wing AND right-wing viewpoints sway based on who is performing the terrorist acts or trying to establish the religious government.

I'm just trying to point out that inconsistency.
Okay. I understand what you're saying, however I disagree with one fundamental point to this post (pun intended), which is that I don't think the bombings in Israel are being comitted by Islamic Fundamentalists exclusively. I think that the attacks are being carried out by disillusioned people who are rightfully pissed off that their land was taken away from them. I know that some people think that the creation of Israel was for purely altruistic reasons, but I disagree. I think that Israel was created by the Allies at the end of the Holocaust as a way to increase their influence in the Middle East, as a way to feed oil to the booming American economy, under the guise of trying to help the Jewish community recover after the Nazi regime in Europe.

Now, I know that I'll come under fire for this, so let me give you an example of how I think they feel. Please keep in mind that all of this is entirely hypothetical, and that it's the situation that counts, not the semantical restructering of current politics. Imagine that tomorrow, a second Holocaust began against the Native American community in Mexico. The regional powers of Central and South America, Europe, China and Russia all wage war against Mexico for doing so. The U.S., for whatever reason, doesn't involve itself in the ensuing battles, and when the war is over, the countries who defeated Mexico decide that they want influence in the ports of North America, so they forcefully take away California, Louisiana, and the entire Northeast Corrider from the United States, and make them into seperate countries made specifically to give the scattered Native American survivors a place to rebuild their way of life.

Now, if you were an American living in New York City, Los Angeles, Boston or New Orleans (hypothetical remember), wouldn't you be pissed off that you were forcefully removed from your home to make way for victims of a war that you didn't even have a part in?

Now, lest I come off as not making a point, THAT is why I sympathize more with Palestinians than with Israelis. On top of which, Israel is backed up financially and militarily by the G8, while the people of Palestine are poor and have virtually no malitia to fight to get their homeland back.

If a country with money and military weapons, like Iran, offered you money and weapons to take back your homeland, wouldn't you take them up on their offer? I'm just sayin'.

[Stoned_Rider]

Nemesis, here are several things you missed:

- Palestine was never a country to begin with.

- Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of Arabs (Jordan & Egypt) for almost 20 years (1948-1967) before they decided to attack Israel, yet NO ONE called for a Palestinian state back then.

- Many Palestinians willingly sold their lands to immigrant Jews before the creation of Israel and made quite a nice profit. I wouldn't call that "forcefully removed from their homes".

- The land was under the control of Britain after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

[wildcat]

Nemesis, here are several things you missed:

- Palestine was never a country to begin with.

- Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of Arabs (Jordan & Egypt) for almost 20 years (1948-1967) before they decided to attack Israel, yet NO ONE called for a Palestinian state back then.

- Many Palestinians willingly sold their lands to immigrant Jews before the creation of Israel and made quite a nice profit. I wouldn't call that "forcefully removed from their homes".

- The land was under the control of Britain after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Very true. Nemesis should read more and write less posts.

[Stoned_Rider]

The FPC has calculated that the Palestinians have received up to $10 billion in international support since 1993. According to Nigel Roberts of the World Bank, this is '...the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere.'

However, even if the sums are increased very significantly, they will not alleviate poverty, unless accompanied by profound democratic reforms in the Palestinian economy and judiciary. The World Bank clearly states that "55% of those who receive emergency assistance are not needy.... 32% of the needy do not receive emergency assistance." In other words, previous aid has either been misdirected or diverted.

Secondly, the World Bank points out that poverty can be substantially reduced by acts taken on the ground. The first measure is the lifting of restrictions and closures by the Israelis.As the World Bank acknowledges, this can only happen in full, when the threat of terror is permanently rescinded.
Source (http://www.eufunding.org/Realpolitik/DirectAid.html)
Edit: The report is dated 1st of March 2005

And when they had the choice, who was it again that the Palestinians voted for?

[MyDogHasFleas]

They aren't equal though... and that's the problem. One is a very narrow religious viewpoint - the other has huge social undercurrents... stuff like war, poverty and the like.


Ah, bullshit. There have been many, many examples of war and poverty, and they don't lead to the maniacal, religious-driven desire to eradicate the "oppressors" (Israel). Not to mention the fact that Israel would be quite happy to live in peaceful coexistence if the Palestinians and the various Iranian-state-sponsored terror groups would stop doing what they do.



In that sense, both should be condemned - but they need to be dealt with differently. You can arrest those that bomb abortion clinics (or whatever is the current fad)... but you can't arrest an entire popular movement. It needs to be dismantled and its root causes removed. Some of this is religious fanatacism (well, more like ideological brainwashing - we saw it with political ideologies too!), but I wouldn't even call it a significant amount.

You're simply revealing your biases -- by calling it a "popular movement" and somehow excusing the behavior. This is exactly what I was trying to point out.



I think a lot of people are against terrorism as a crime - but terrorism is often the poor man's war. That blurs the line... especially when we all tend to relate with opressed people! True or not, of course.

None of which makes it excusable - but failing to differentiate them also means no solution to certain brands of terrorism.

There you go again... "oppressed people".



But should the UK invade the US to overthrow an overly religious president? I can denounce one all I want... but that's not the same thing.


"Overly religious" ??? come on. We are not talking about whether the president is religious or not. We are talking about whether the president openly declares that the UK should be "wiped off the map" and follows it up by overt acts of war against the UK. (Obviously I am making an Iran-equivalent example.)



In concept, I agree with what you are saying. Both of us, I'm sure, would like to see an end to it - to all types. But there is a difference... a complicated nebulous one that causes a lot of divides!

It's not really all that complicated. Sometimes there is a good and a bad side. This is one of those cases.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis, here are several things you missed:

- Palestine was never a country to begin with.

- Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of Arabs (Jordan & Egypt) for almost 20 years (1948-1967) before they decided to attack Israel, yet NO ONE called for a Palestinian state back then.

- Many Palestinians willingly sold their lands to immigrant Jews before the creation of Israel and made quite a nice profit. I wouldn't call that "forcefully removed from their homes".

- The land was under the control of Britain after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Reguardless, you missed the point of the post. Despite the fact that I told you it wasn't the actual state of politics which was the point of what I was trying to get across, that's what you focused on.

Also, I wasn't really talking about before the creation of Israel, so I don't know why you brought that up.

[LongSilence]

Reguardless, you missed the point of the post. Despite the fact that I told you it wasn't the actual state of politics which was the point of what I was trying to get across, that's what you focused on.

Also, I wasn't really talking about before the creation of Israel, so I don't know why you brought that up.

You can kinda see how he missed your "point" and chose to instead to highlight your misunderstandings about the creation of Israel, which was the inspiration for your hypothetical annexation of lower America.

Anyway, so as long as the terrorists personally had some land taken from them, they have more justification for their actions? Thats understandable but I very much doubt that the terrorists would cite that as their reasoning behind their attacks.

Moreover, its kinda hard to really get to know the history of a guy who has just blown him and numerous other people in bits.

[Nemesis]

Anyway, so as long as the terrorists personally had some land taken from them, they have more justification for their actions? Thats understandable but I very much doubt that the terrorists would cite that as their reasoning behind their attacks.

Moreover, its kinda hard to really get to know the history of a guy who has just blown him and numerous other people in bits.
I hate that word: "Terrorists." I'm okay with any other denotation like Islamic Fundamentalists, Extremists, but when people say "the terrorists," it just sounds cheap and trashy to me. It's just trying to dehumanize the other party, which is never true.

Anyway, I don't think that their situation justifies what's been done, I'm just saying I doubt I'd do something much different if I were in their situation.

[macr0]

Oh, there is also a good reason why Bush is currently the president of the USA: People VOTED for him, twice. He won the popular vote in the second time as well. And the good news for you is, his term is ultimately coming to an end, very soon. You will not have to endure his ugly mug for the rest of your life.

We like to tell ourselves this. With a government the size of the United States, who knows? Comparatively speaking, it's not bad at all. However, some people like to care about the future of the country they live in.

Some people in the states are afraid that they will be under an oppresive regime soon. Liberty taken away piece by piece by one hand and being patted on the back by the other hand. You know how people like to make fun of disinformation from Al Jazeera? CNN, Fox and the AP are well on their way.

For the record, I am not one of these people.

[Claverhouse]

I wonder if America is a solipsistical nation ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[wildcat]

I don't condone ostracizing young girls or bombing buildings, but I do think there is a major difference between taking a person's life and destroying their property or ostracizing them.

My agendas are not hidden and you can call me a hypocrite if you want to. People whose opinions I care about have called me worse.

Why do you think condemning and executing young girls for promiscuity is inconceivable in the US?
The Flea Dog resembles me of Chomsky. To respect IQ as intelligence is dangerous.