Iranian Religious Judge Personally Hangs Girl, 16

[MMMMMM]

No lawyer permitted at any time. She was publicly hanged for having sex with an unmarried man. The religious judge put the rope around her neck himself.

About par for the mullahs' course, actually--they routinely execute minors and dissidents.



"Iran Focus

Neka (northern Iran), Aug 31 – The orphaned 16-year-old girl hanged in front of residents in this town close to the Caspian Sea on August 15 suffered years of brutal violence, exploitation and torture in the hands of relatives, local officials and plain strangers, and in a country where girls are the most vulnerable members of society, she had no one to go to for help.

The tragic picture emerges from dozens of interviews conducted by an Iran Focus correspondent with Atefeh Rajabi’s classmates, friends, relatives and neighbors in this humid, overcrowded industrial town that sits on a busy highway linking Tehran with the north of the country.

The hanging of Atefeh Rajabi has shocked the residents of Neka, who still differ widely in their assessment of the girl, but none voices support for the punishment that she has received. An air of tension and eerie silence hangs over the town’s smoke-filled tea-houses, or chaikhanehs, where men spend hours chatting quietly in clusters of three or four over tea. In a summer month like August, business should be booming in this town as thousands of Tehran residents flock to the sandy beaches of the Caspian. But right now, the visitors are for the most part not holidaymakers.

“There are lots of strangers who come and we are used to them,” says Askar, a young shopkeeper who sells a variety of citrus fruit jams. “But right now, all of them are asking about the girl. They want to know who she was and how she died.”

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.

The tragically short life of Atefeh Rajabi its brutal end are a reminder of the plight of millions of girls in a country where, according to state-owned newspapers, 75 percent of the population live below the poverty line, 66 percent of women are victims of some form of domestic violence, and over 70 percent of women suffer from varying degrees of depression. Iran remains, in the words of UN Human Rights Rapporteur Maurice Copithorne, “a prison for women.”

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

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
She was publicly hanged for having sex with an unmarried man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how much happiness her faith brought her... perhaps we should cross-post this in the psych forum.

~D

[ACPlayer]

I recommend that all death penalty cases be executed by the judge issuing the verdict. Perhaps the immediacy of the actua; event will help drive home the point that the death penalty is permanent.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I recommend that all death penalty cases be executed by the judge issuing the verdict. Perhaps the immediacy of the actua; event will help drive home the point that the death penalty is permanent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, but I'm sure you'll find a lot of high and mighty that will actually take enjoyment from it.

[Cyrus]

The Iranian theocracy is a direct result of American policy regarding Iran. People (mostly the neo-conservative fringe) tend to forget what happened in Iran and how we ended up with Ayatollah Khomeini running things. But it's a true and very instructive story, nonetheless.

Briefly, at the height of the Cold War, when the "best and brightest" of the State Department were seeing Red Bears everywhere, the CIA staged a coup in Iran. That was in 1953. The democratically elected, anti-communist, nationalist Mossadegh was deposed and the Shah was installed in his place.

The Shah, under direct CIA assistance and guidance (this is all part of the historical record), started a very successful program of eliminating all opponents to his regime that were to the left of the Religious Right. This left, by the early 70s, the regime without any secular opposition to which the Iranian middle and working class could turn to. So, when the time came that the Shah lost all support among the people and the agitation against him started in the streets, the Religious Right, once benign towards the Shah and always fiercely anti-communist, was the only alternative to the Shah for Iranians.

The rest is History.

Part of the blame for that poor young Iranian girl's assassination (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=137) lies squarely at the feet of all those who shaped the criminally short-sighted American foreign policy at the time. A criminal policy that continued unabated with America's enthusiastic support of Saddam Hussein’s aggressive war against the Iranians.

They'll never learn.

[ACPlayer]

... and the same short sighted thinking has set the stage for Iraq to end up as a theocracy, from a secular, successful state that it once was.

They really never learn.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Briefly, at the height of the Cold War, when the "best and brightest" of the State Department were seeing Red Bears everywhere, the CIA staged a coup in Iran. That was in 1953. The democratically elected, anti-communist, nationalist Mossadegh was deposed and the Shah was installed in his place.



[/ QUOTE ]

This grossly oversimplifies the situation. Mossadegh was rapidly becoming massively unpopular as he drove the Iranian economy into the gutter. We were faced with a Communist government which was formed and waiting in the north of Iran, or the Shah (the titular monarch at the time). Just what the Shah would do in future years was not clear, but the Communists would certainly oppress yet another country if they took over.

A tough choice we were faced with, a point that you conveniently overlook with the benefit of hindsight.

[nicky g]

"Mossadegh was rapidly becoming massively unpopular as he drove the Iranian economy into the gutter"

If he was so unpopular why did you have to engineer a CIA coup to overthrow him? Noone seriously argues he was some sort of oppressive dicator; if he was that unpopular the Iranians themselves could have overthrown him and put their own choice of leader in power instead of a vicious tyrant.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
if he was that unpopular the Iranians themselves could have overthrown him and put their own choice of leader in power instead of a vicious tyrant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mossadegh was replaced by another Prime Minister, the Shah was already the Shah at the time. You are comparing later developments of the Shah increasing his personal power with the immediate action of Mossadegh's replacement - a common practice in parliamentary systems.

[La Brujita]

Thank you for posting this artice. I had not heard of this case before and am very glad I got a chance to read it.

I feel a bit sick to my stomache right now after reading it.

[nicky g]

"Mossadegh was replaced by another Prime Minister, the Shah was already the Shah at the time"

Mossadegh was replaced after CIA-backed pro-monarcy forces stormed government offices by a CIA-linked general. You make it sound like he was voted off the local Golf Club committee. The Shah was in exile at the time. He was in control of the country within a year.

[Cyrus]

"This grossly oversimplifies the situation."

Does it?

Although I stated that I would be brief, what I posted was the truth about Iran and the US. You show yourself as only a little knowledgeable about the American gaffes in Iran - and you know the saying about a little knowledge.

I have an original copy of the issue of Fortune magazine whereby the CIA bureau chief boasts quite openly about what the Agency did! His byline! (Has a pic of him too!)

"A tough choice we were faced with, a point that you conveniently overlook with the benefit of hindsight."

What "tough choice"? What "hindsight"? Bollocks to all that. Mossadegh was a respectable, secular, democratic Prime Minister. His crime had to do with oil, baby. The guy wanted oil profits to go mainly to the Iranian Treasury rather than some outsiders. That was all there was to it - and the Americans hurriedly went to battle to install "their" guy. They thought that would be the Shah Pahlevi (ROTFL) with the opposition consisting of safe, anti-communist mullahs (ROTFLMAO)!

[vulturesrow]

Why are people so eager to place the US at fault for things like this? I understand the argument about the Iranian theocracy coming to power. Not sure I agree but I need to bone up on my history before I weigh in. The larger point here is that it is yet another illustration of the extremism that seems to come so easily to much of the Muslim world and the fact that, for whatever reason, these are the sort of people who may well soon have nuclear weapons capability.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The Shah was in exile at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Shah fled the country for a few days to avoid being assassinated by Mossadegh's goons. His later power consolidation was in part a reaction to his personal vunerability.

Mossadegh's reckless power grabbing while he was in power contributed mightily to Iran's later problems, yet he is always refered to by liberals as a "nice liberal nationalist democrat".

[ACPlayer]

You do realize that it was the Manhattan project that opened the Nuclear pandora's box. Guess which country that was in? Note I made it easy by asking country, not state or city.

Can you blame any country from trying to get it? Specially as terrorist states like Israel already have these weapons.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I have an original copy of the issue of Fortune magazine whereby the CIA bureau chief boasts quite openly about what the Agency did! His byline! (Has a pic of him too!)

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't going to say bad things about a descendant of Theodore Roosevelt are you?

Can't a guy have pride in his work?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that it was the Manhattan project that opened the Nuclear pandora's box. Guess which country that was in? Note I made it easy by asking country, not state or city.



[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize other countries were working on the same project. Thank God the US was first, and not Hitler or Stalin.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that it was the Manhattan project that opened the Nuclear pandora's box. Guess which country that was in? Note I made it easy by asking country, not state or city.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again. Lets assign blame as quick as possible. Fine we know how nukes got developed. Whats the point? Lets deal with here and now, ok?

[ QUOTE ]
Can you blame any country from trying to get it? Specially as terrorist states like Israel already have these weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if you want call Israel a terrorist state, fine. I dont particularly blame countries for trying to acquire them, but the fact that it could be a country like Iran that gets them is the scary part.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people so eager to place the US at fault for things like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

For Americans, it is taking personal, not sole, responsibility. I really thought that personal responsibility was a halmark of conservatism... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

"The Shah fled the country for a few days to avoid being assassinated by Mossadegh's goons."

No, he fled the country nearly a year prior to Mossadegh's overthrow.

"Mossadegh's reckless power grabbing while he was in power contributed mightily to Iran's later problems, yet he is always refered to by liberals as a "nice liberal nationalist democrat". "

Sure it did. That did not give the US carte blanche to undermine him and replace him with vicious reactionaries. Whatever Mossadegh was, he wasn't a mass torturer and murderer like the US's good friend the Shah.

[ACPlayer]

It would not be scary at all if we worked on building relations with Iraq rather than putting out rheteric like Axis of Evil which do nothing but get them working harder on their defences.

Most people here still dont realize where the Terrorist threat to the US comes from. Hint: it is not Iraq or Iran.

The thing about the Manhattan project -- a modest attempt at a little tongue in a little cheek.

[vulturesrow]

I certainly do believe in personal responsibility. I just dont think it applies in this case and my real problem is how quick people are to look for the "American connection." Sometimes, it is important to do so. Most of the time when people do it just because it gives them an opportunity to show how evil the US is.

[ACPlayer]

Part of personal responsibility is to critically and constantly examine your own behaviours. THis is true of your poker game and your politics. We spend way too much time critiquing others play while ignoring our own.

[elwoodblues]

I won't speak for others here, just myself. The reasons I look for American fault/connections are listed below (probably not an exhaustive list, just off the top of my head):
1) are what we are personally responsible for,
2) are easiest to correct/amend (because it is internal),
3) don't interfere with other nation's sovereignty,
4) don't fuel additional international resentment (i.e. if it appears America is trying to fix others' problems without fixing their own first)

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of personal responsibility is to critically and constantly examine your own behaviours. THis is true of your poker game and your politics. We spend way too much time critiquing others play while ignoring our own.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you don't presume the ability to predict the future. We must act based the information we have at the time - too many posts here presume we knew with certainty what the outcome of all our actions would be, and then blame us for those outcomes.

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that it was the Manhattan project that opened the Nuclear pandora's box. Guess which country that was in? Note I made it easy by asking country, not state or city.

Can you blame any country from trying to get it? Specially as terrorist states like Israel already have these weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it weren't for the Chinese and that damn gunpowder ...

[elwoodblues]

There's certainly an aspect of that going on, but there's also something else. That something else is (to state it inartfully): if you do something that you shouldn't be doing and there are unintended/unforseen negative consequences, you are responsible. In criminal law there is something called the felony murder rule. The rule is, generically, that if you are committing a felony and someone dies in the commission of that felony (even if unintentional), you can be charged with murder. Even if the consequences weren't contemplated, you are held responsible because your bad actions got the ball rolling.

[nicky g]

Maybe instead of worrying about predicting the future you should stop meddling in other countries' internal politics.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe instead of worrying about predicting the future you should stop meddling in other countries' internal politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can call that the Bill Clinton Plan.

Then one day you wake up and discover that planes have been flown into some of our buildings.

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe instead of worrying about predicting the future you should stop meddling in other countries' internal politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

U.S. was on an isolationist footing until P.M. Chamberlain went and gummed up the works. If you limeys could have taken care of your own problems ... well hindsight is 20/20.

[ACPlayer]

.

[nicky g]

I'm not a limey.

Not interfering in other countries' domestic politics doesn't mean becoming an isolationist or not defending yourselve or your interests; it doesn't mean never going to war; it means minding your own business in matters that don't concern you eg who rules a foreign sovereign state. If every country took the attitude you and GWB did the result would be an endless world war. What gives the US the right to impose and depose leaders in Iran or anywhere else, especially dicatorial ones?

By the way GWB many take the view that it is precisely such meddling (in Afghanistan and the Middle East) that led to you waking up to those planes.

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a limey.

Not interfering in other countries' domestic politics doesn't mean becoming an isolationist or not defending yourselve or your interests; it doesn't mean never going to war; it means minding your own business in matters that don't concern you eg

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Why is it you cannot shut up about U.S. politics.

I was being light about the limey line ... I know you are Irish.

[nicky g]

"Interesting. Why is it you cannot shut up about U.S. politics."

Because I'm an argumentative loudmouth (and I enjoy this forum). When I start overthrowing governments and replacing them with Irish agents, I'll begin to feel like a hypocrite.

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]

"Interesting. Why is it you cannot shut up about U.S. politics."

Because I'm an argumentative loudmouth (and I enjoy this forum). When I start overthrowing governments and replacing them with Irish agents, I'll begin to feel like a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very, well, but it does not change the fact you already ARE a hypocrite.

Nevertheless, I thank you for the education. It just dawned on me that the difference between the U.K. and the U.S. is talk and action. You guys don't stop talking until the U.S. does something about it.

[nicky g]

I'm a hypocrite because I advocate states not meddling in the internal affairs of others while enjoying discussing US politics? And I'm back to being from the UK?

"It just dawned on me that the difference between the U.K. and the U.S. is talk and action. You guys don't stop talking until the U.S. does something about it. "

I'm not from the UK and I'm usually loathe to defend it, but I seem to remember them doing something about the Nazis a long time before the US did.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not from the UK and I'm usually loathe to defend it, but I seem to remember them doing something about the Nazis a long time before the US did.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree. Once they got rid of Chamberlain, the UK did a good job.

Once we got rid of Clinton and his terrorism policy, the US has started doing a good job too.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The Iranian theocracy is a direct result of American policy regarding Iran

[/ QUOTE ] wrong, the Iranian theocracy is a direct result of Britain's policy torwards Iran, and it had everything to do with Oil. True, the Americans were the ones who supported the coup, but they only did so after several years of appeals by the British foreign office. When Truman was in Office, he implicitly supported Iran and its quest for Nationalism. Britian on the other hand was worried over Mossagedeh's proposed policy of taking over the Pan-Arab Oil company and nationalizing it. This of course worried Britain because its easy access to cheap oil was threatened as well as the billions of money that could be lost.

Britain could have come into an agreement much like the U.S. did with Saudi Arabia, but the Brits were to stubborn and proud to ever compromise with "savages". This ultimately led to the eventual coup many years later.

I know its easy to blame solely the US for every problem in the U.S., but the should not fall on them solely. In many cases, the U.S. has been trying to fix problems caused by European Imperialism and the void left behind after the Europeans pulled or were kicked out. Remember it was the Brits who drew up many of the borders for many of the Middle Eastern countries, causing tribes of people to be forced to live in the same country with their bitter rivals.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
The Iranian theocracy is a direct result of American policy regarding Iran


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrong, the Iranian theocracy is a direct result of Britain's policy torwards Iran,

[/ QUOTE ]

It's both their of faults. But good points. If you ever want to read a sort of Chomskyesque attack on Britain's foreign policy, including the Mossadegh business, Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis is a decent read.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
It would not be scary at all if we worked on building relations with Iraq rather than putting out rheteric like Axis of Evil which do nothing but get them working harder on their defences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. I am not not overly concerned about Iran having nukes because I doubt Iran will use them. I believe in the MAD theory and for MAD to hold true other countries must believe that the US presents a credible threat. It is better for enemy states, like Iran, to be absolutely clear that they are the enemy. The world is a safer place with the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The world is a safer place with the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech.



[/ QUOTE ]

One word: [b]Libya



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/thebuzz/Friends.gif

[Boris]

Given our current involvement in Iraq it's probably a very good idea to revisit recent history and examine the results of past US actions. To simply deny that the US has ever made a foreign policy blunder (like arming the Mujahadeen/Taliban) is not constructive. Specifically, the past policies of supporting our enemy's enemy have definitely had a very real and severe downside for the US in this region. It would seem that abandoning this policy in the future might be a good idea.

[MMMMMM]

"I feel a bit sick to my stomache right now after reading it."

Yeah, I felt about the same way after reading it and while posting it last night, and again after waking up and remembering it today.

[Chris Alger]

Or let's see that letter you wrote Bush or Clinton protesting their failure to condition aid to Pakistan ($3 billion over the next few years) on a government crackdown on the same kinds of atrocities(rape=adultery laws, capital punishment for blasphemy, routine honor killings of women, etc.). A few years ago, a 14-year-old illiterate Pakistani kid was condemned to death for publishing "blasphemy." Do you have enough of a problem with that to rethink your support for a country that coddles and supports rulers who support these crimes? Of course you don't. Since you only mention human rights when it applies to official enemies, your crocodile tears should be taken for what they are.

It follows that if the U.S. forcibly intervened and overthrew the government of Iran (which you've advocated) and installed a regime that paid the same sort of lip service to human rights that Pakistan does, the new Iranian leaders could hang all the teenagers they want without a peep fom you. Iran under the hammer, you'd move on to creating pretexts for mass violence in the next country on the enemies list. Just like your GOP heros who complained that Saddam was getting a "bad rap" on rights until he refused to follow orders. After that, hundreds of thousands of dead became a small price to rid the world of the tyrant, what with his mass graves and all.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Indeed its both their faults, but ultimately Britain is the one with the egg on their face, so to speak, in regards to Iran.

I read Steven Kinzer's book All the Shah's Men , its pretty interesting and doesn't go easy on anyone, not even Mossagedeh.

[MMMMMM]

" A few years ago, a 14-year-old illiterate Pakistani kid was condemned to death for publishing "blasphemy." Do you have enough of a problem with that to rethink your support for a country that coddles and supports rulers who support these crimes? Of course you don't."


When the hell did I say I support Pakistan? In fact I have condemned much of what goes on in many of their madrassas as well as suggesting that their intelligence service/soldiers may have been negligent or complicit in allowing al-Qaeda to escape various situations (Tora Bora, more recently when they claimed to have surrounded a "high-value" target in Peshawar(?)along with some hundred or more fighters). I have also posted articles detailing the significant problems women face in Pakistan, including so-called "honor killings".

Just because Chris Alger would condition aid to Pakistan on various things, does NOT imply that anyone who does not suggest--out of the blue--that thew USA ought to do that is pro-Pakistan. For that matter, you are even presuming that conditioning aid is a viable strategy. Just because someone does not SUGGEST, on their own, something which you favor, DOES NOT imply that which you think it shows about their views. You really are quite an illogical, presumptive, piece of work.


Also, do you EVER address an issue without turning it around in some form of counterattack?


"It follows that if the U.S. forcibly intervened and overthrew the government of Iran (which you've advocated) and installed a regime that paid the same sort of lip service to human rights that Pakistan does, the new Iranian leaders could hang all the teenagers they want without a peep fom you."

No, that does not "follow" at all.

As far as your posts overall--and over the years--are concerned, I would guesstimate that about half of the time you say something "follows", it simply doesn't. Why don't you learn how to think logically in a rigorous manner before you make more erroneous presumptions which you think somehow "follow". I'll bet you could do it in 3 months if you actually took a course or two in Logic (instead of in 'Political "Science"'--a misnomer if there ever was one). Really, you are an embarrassment to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Logic and Set Theory--and this deficiency causes you to grossly misjudge everyone who disagrees with your poolitical views (and your political prescriptions for cure, since in your world, anyone who does not agree with your prescriptions for cure must also necessarily disagree with your underlying assessments.

If you knew how to think a tad better you might realize that some share much more of your underlying views even if they don't agree with your prescriptions. However you frequently trace the path backwards, starting with whether they agree with your prescriptions, and using that as a basis for making assumtions about their underlying deeper assessments. You have used such faulty reasoning in the past, particularly in discussions involving Israel.

In short: learn how to friggin' think, then come back and talk to me. I am tired of being unfairly attacked due to your not knowing the difference between what truly "follows" and what doesn't. Further you might find that some of your world views, or your views of others, might change if you were able to make such logical discernments.

[Zeno]

Instead of looking at the core issue in the article this entire thread has reduced to finding blame, 'who is at fault', the political shenanigans of despots, and past foreign policy practices of different countries.

Why not try a little thought experiment? Say you are an Iranian male of moderate tone and means. You are not thrilled with the current government but think with some changes it would not be too bad. You meet with business friends at your home and the hanging of the young woman (girl) is discussed. What would you talk about - what would your reaction be? Would you be discussing the past acts of the U.S., Britian, and the Shah? Or would your immediate attention be on the issue at hand? Was it justified? Should more understanding and mercy been shown? Legal and womans rights issues and etc.

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

"When the hell did I say I support Pakistan?"

Every U.S. citizen supports Pakistan, or do you suppose that U.S. aid to Pakistan really comes from Mars? Are you a felon precluded from voting? Do you imagine that the U.S. is a totalitarian state where citizens have no influence or say over their government, or otherwise without responsibility for its actions?

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Chris Alger would condition aid to Pakistan on various things, does NOT imply that anyone who does not suggest--out of the blue--that thew USA ought to do that is pro-Pakistan.

[/ QUOTE ]
You (and I) and all Americans are necessarily "pro-Pakistan" only to the extent of their control over the federal government. I never suggested anything more. While we can quibble over how much control that amounts to, it is undeniable that U.S. citizens individually give more support to Pakistan than Iran. Therefore, to criticize Iran while doing nothing about our support for Pakistan is hypocrisy. It is particularly hypocritical coming from someone who openly advocates "wiping out" organizations and regimes, only a few of whose members engage in terrorism, on the grounds that all people should be deemed to "support" terrorism.

Also, when I accuse you of "doing nothing" about Pakistan, this is putting it nicely. You are an outspoken defender of Pakistan's biggest defender, a state whose critics you castigate with obscenities. You are also an outspoken defender of the political faction withint the U.S. that most desires to give aid to Pakistan. If it weren't for people like you, the U.S. wouldn't be giving aid to Pakistan.

[ QUOTE ]
No, that does not "follow" at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it does. When one's condemnation of foreign states fails to acknowledge one's support for foreign states guilty of the same or similar crimes, the condemnation can't be accepted as an honest statement. It's as logical as it gets. Indeed, you've effectively proven it here, when you questioned whether conditioning aid might be a "viable" strategy. This is the sort of comment that you'd find sickening if someone applied to Iran.

[ThaSaltCracka]

good point.

I would think they would be frightened and worried. The people in Iran have probably witnessed countless dispicable acts.

The main thing I would think they would discuss is : could this happen to one of us? Iran seems to be a country where the majority are controlled by the minority, and that minority is a group of ruthless thuggish fundamentalist. These thugs kill at will, destroying their "enemies", most of the people there probably realize this, thus I think something will happen.

I remember reading in All the Shah's Men that Iranian's are traditionally revolutionary people. They have an intense contempt for inept and ruthless leaders. Part of this is based upon their form of Islam and part of this is based upon their history. Iran has long been an area which has been ruled by either foreigners or ruthless dictators, although there are a few exceptions. I think the Iranians will rise up, and when they do the entire international world should let them control their own county, after all thats what they want, and thats what they thought they were going to get when they overthrew the Shah.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you be discussing the past acts of the U.S., Britian, and the Shah?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the discussion turned, as it likely would at some point, to the question of how your country got to where it's at, these would be hard topics to avoid.

Another likely subject is this: how do we fight against the current regime without appearing to lend support to foreign states who try to exploit us for their own ends, which are inimical to ours? Every dissident group faces issues like this, and in Iran its even more critical because so many right-wing Americans are openly supporting U.S.-driven "regime change" in Iran to expand American power and enlarge American wealth.

[ACPlayer]

An interesting take on the situation.

It is certainly true that Iran is more likely to be prepared for a Bush led assault than Iraq ever was. No doubt the Axis of Evil speech has made sure that they spend whatever effort is needed to be ready.

[ACPlayer]

You guys have lived sheltered lives. If you travelled through Asia, Africa, and parts of South America, you will realize that the world is not all sugar and spice.

If you looked in your own backyard you would find similar examples of (in)humanity.

[ACPlayer]

I am tired of being unfairly attacked

So, cant take the heat ....
So, can dish it out but ....

[MMMMMM]

So I respond civilly to Chris (perhaps even a tad more civilly than his attacks warranted); and for that, I get this truly inapropos personal attack from you.

Words really do speak volumes, ACPlayer...about the speaker.

[Cyrus]

"I believe in the MAD theory and for MAD to hold true other countries must believe that the US presents a credible threat. It is better for enemy states, like Iran, to be absolutely clear that they are the enemy. The world is a safer place with the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech."

The MAD concept of mutual deterrence assumed the assurance of mutual destruction. It was an appropriate strategy for the Cold War, nuclear era. It is, most probably, not applicable today and this is why even the most idiotic hawks in Washington do not toss it up.

The current situation is one where one nation, the US, is the absolute and global superpower. Its ability to withstand an attack (even a nuclear one) and retaliate by total annihilation of its opponent is a given fact. No one doubts this. In so many words, the policies of such a superpower must reflect both that imbalance of power and the fact that the superpower's interests lie in being a welcome trade partner around the globe. (Item: A significant portion of America's income derives from sales of movies and software abroad. Therefore, it pays to have a "friendly audience" out there, as well as a "friendly gov't" that will not allow pirating the hell out of your products. Spell "Chinese computer users" and you will understand why, among other reasons, the US looks the other way when China behaves as it behaves.)

As to the "Axis of Evil" speech, I fail to understand its usefulness. This is no time for Cold War-era rhetoric. In the fight against terrorism and "renegade regimes", it is counter-productive to push them to a corner. That process further radicalizes the regimes, rallies all its population around the nat'l leadership (even the political opponents) and limits American options.

Only an ideology-driven, fanatical, fundamentalist, absolutist regime would act as Tehran does. Same applies to Washington, currently.

[MMMMMM]

"In the fight against terrorism and "renegade regimes", it is counter-productive to push them to a corner. That process further radicalizes the regimes, rallies all its population around the nat'l leadership (even the political opponents) and limits American options."


Yes, Cyrus...pushing the evil leaders into a corner and then letting them get out does exactly as you have described above.

The proper approach is to push them into a corner and then blow that corner to hell (as we should have in Tora Bora).

[ACPlayer]

Boy, it must be really easy to get you on tilt on a poker table. A little needling and you get in a huff.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that it was the Manhattan project that opened the Nuclear pandora's box. Guess which country that was in? Note I made it easy by asking country, not state or city.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that it would have been figured out within years anyhow by another country. See I didn't give it away since I said country, and not union of republics.

Blame those bastards Bohr and Feynman. They invented nuclear weapons. That big yellow warm thing you see every day doesn't know anything about nuclear reactions. I didn't give that away either because I said big yellow warm thing; it could be an Asian chick with implants too.

Acting as if people who figured things out are the ones who created whatever bad came from the ideas is naive. Blame gravity on Newton, or the round Earth on Eratosthenes instead.

~D

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Or let's see that letter you wrote Bush or Clinton protesting their failure to condition aid to Pakistan ($3 billion over the next few years) on a government crackdown on the same kinds of atrocities(rape=adultery laws, capital punishment for blasphemy, routine honor killings of women, etc.). A few years ago, a 14-year-old illiterate Pakistani kid was condemned to death for publishing "blasphemy." Do you have enough of a problem with that to rethink your support for a country that coddles and supports rulers who support these crimes? Of course you don't. Since you only mention human rights when it applies to official enemies, your crocodile tears should be taken for what they are.

It follows that if the U.S. forcibly intervened and overthrew the government of Iran (which you've advocated) and installed a regime that paid the same sort of lip service to human rights that Pakistan does, the new Iranian leaders could hang all the teenagers they want without a peep fom you. Iran under the hammer, you'd move on to creating pretexts for mass violence in the next country on the enemies list. Just like your GOP heros who complained that Saddam was getting a "bad rap" on rights until he refused to follow orders. After that, hundreds of thousands of dead became a small price to rid the world of the tyrant, what with his mass graves and all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris

I'd like to see a copy of the letter you wrote to Clinton and/or Bush concerning the 14 year old pakastani condemned to die for blasphamy(or other atrocities committed by Pakistan).

Stu

[Chris Alger]

For years, I've contributed money to groups that pressure the U.S. to refrain from assisting repressive governments across the board, including Pakistan. (One of them, AI, was the source for this story). These groups refuse to countenance repression according to principled criteria which they spell out in detail and at least attempt to apply objectively.

I grant that this isn't much, but compare it to the typical protests of M, U.S. officials and the mass media. The common denominator for their targets are states opposed to U.S. interests unrelated to human rights. They sneer at applying objective rules and utterly ingore U.S. complicity and responsibility for the very things they purport to protest. Indeed, they denounce those who try to hold the U.S. responsible for its conduct as anti-American, pro-communist, pro-terrorist and so forth.

[MMMMMM]

"The common denominator for their targets are states opposed to U.S. interests unrelated to human rights."


It's a bit odd, Chris, don't you think, that many of the states most opposed to U.S. interests (or opposed to 'free world' interests) are generally also amongst the world's worst human rights violators as well? North Korea, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, China, etc. all come to mind. Of course, I also castigate backwards totalitarian regimes which are bad human rights violators, such as those of Saudi Arabia, and Sudan--as well as the many infamous madrassas of Pakistan which prepare jihad warriors--it is strange, too, how selective your memory seems to be. I recall that you even castigated me for supporting Kasparov's view that Riyadh, as well as Tehran and Damascus, would have to be dealt with.

There is also the pragmatic fact which people such as yourself seem loathe to acknowledge: given that many regimes are horrible human rights violators, and given that we have limited resources, some additional attention must be given to those regimes which are both horrible human rights violators and are also acting against our own interests. If money and time didn't exist in some fantasy world, we could afford to try to remedy ills equally everywhere based solely on how bad those ills are--but given real-world constraints, some degree of bias towards our own interests must exist, and is even prudent--if we are ever to find a way to PAY for all the good things we are trying to do around the world.

Now, that doesn't mean that purely humanitarian issues should be entirely ignored where we have no interest--but I suggest it is impractical to think that we can operate solely on ideals without taking into account pragmatics as well--and that does include our own interests.

I'll also echo Zeno's point that this thread has been turned quite away from the original issue. You in particular have quite a knack for such tactics, although I'm sure you just think that it all "follows", and that this diversion is more important than the original issue.

By the way, you haven't even bothered to castigate the mullahs or that religious judge in this thread, or to discuss or express sympathy the girl who was hanged--or for the countless Iranians who are terrorized and oppressed by those mullahs--or to discuss whether allowing the mullah's regime to continue is really in the interests of anyone other than the mullahs themselves. But why should you concern yourself with such matters, when you have so many more pressing issues to pursue in this thread?

[Stu Pidasso]

Chris,

I'd like to know your opinion on the US support for the Soviet Union during WWII. If you were alive back then and had the means would you have protested that support as well?

Stu

[Chris Alger]

No, because the Soviet Union, like Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan, were victims of foreign military aggression, one the worst imaginable crimes.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because the Soviet Union, like Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan, were victims of foreign military aggression, one the worst imaginable crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Soviet Union was a perpetrator of some of the worst crimes imaginable. I find it a bit hypocritical on your part to accuse and condemn MMMMM of blanketly looking the other way or even supporting certain regimes that commit human rights abuses when you have just admitted that in certain senarios you find it permissable to do the exact same.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a bit odd, Chris, don't you think, that many of the states most opposed to U.S. interests (or opposed to 'free world' interests) are generally also amongst the world's worst human rights violators as well? North Korea, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, China, etc. all come to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't "odd" because American clients are also "amongst the world's worse human rights violators." There isn't a human rights common denominator, which is my point. If you disagree, try refuting the facts set forth by critics of that support instead of repeating the same "lesser evil" assumptions of the mass media.

Nicaragua under the Sandanistas was one of the more democratic countries of Central America, and certainly had a much better human rights record than U.S.-supported Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, all of which were worse on their populations than Castro. U.S.-armed Indonesia under Suharto was as bad as Iraq under Saddam. U.S.-supported Saddam in 1985 was actually worse than Saddam in 2002. Chile under Allende was more democratic than Brazil and Argentina under the generals, so guess who we supported and who we helped turn into another military dictatorship?

The U.S. probably killed more people in Vietnam than Saddam killed in Iraq, Iran and Kuwait combined, and indeed bears primary responsibility for the war's entire death toll of around 2 million. The Shah's Iran and Saudi Arabia right now were and are every bit as tyrannical as Syria. Turkey killed as many Kurds with U.S.-supplied weapons of mass destruction as Saddam did with poison gas. Israel owes its military might to the U.S. but is a world class human rights violator. So is Colombia. So are the Central Asian countries destined to become the next big U.S. client states.

As for the U.S. and Chinese interests being "opposed," don't make me laugh. The right blows a lot of hot air about trade preferences for China while falling over itself to support the same politicians who fall over themselves to keep them safe, like Bush and Cheney.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I also castigate backwards totalitarian regimes which are bad human rights violators, such as those of Saudi Arabia, and Sudan

[/ QUOTE ]
But you've also denied that the U.S. has any responsibility for the effects of its support for countries like Saudi Arabia, which makes these protests worthless. Instead, you couch your protests against Islamic and Arab countries in racist terms about "backwards" and "barbaric" cultures and religions. (Which you've tried to justify on the idiotic grounds that mass group pejoratives based on perceptions of culture aren't the same as perjoratives based on genetics, making your smears technically not "racist").

[ QUOTE ]
and given that we have limited resources, some additional attention must be given to those regimes which are both horrible human rights violators and are also acting against our own interests

[/ QUOTE ]
Given limited resources, we'd be better off not giving them to countries that abuse human rights instead of doing that and also, on top of that, devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to expand U.S. military might throughout the Near East and Southern Asia, and launching wars against Iraq, Iran and whomever. More pertinently, the failure of the U.S. to advance human rights by saving money is pretty good evidence that it has no intention of advancing human rights by spending more.

And what do you mean by "our own" interests? Who's "us?"

[MMMMMM]

The topics just keep getting further and further away from the original post--and point--of the thread. I could envision it ever expanding, to book-like length, or bneyond--without ever discussing the principal focus of the thread

How about you start a new thread--if you really care to--discussing some of those issues...instead of continually diverting the focus from the hanged girl, the mullahs, Iran, and the Iranians.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Once we got rid of Clinton and his terrorism policy, the US has started doing a good job too.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a funny one. Do you have any more whoppers to tell?

Clinton actually had a terrorism policy, Bush didn't until after 9/11. Clinton's NSA told the Bush administration that the #1 threat would be terrorism. It was ignored by the Bush administration. Clinton had been pushing for a Dept. of Homeland Security, Bush thought it was a bad idea (until 9/11).

[Chris Alger]

When those who actively ignore, defend and promote aggression and other human rights abuses complain about the same, the charge of hypocrisy is a fair and relevant reply.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it a bit hypocritical on your part to accuse and condemn MMMMM of blanketly looking the other way or even supporting certain regimes that commit human rights abuses when you have just admitted that in certain senarios you find it permissable to do the exact same.

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured you'd have to distort what I said. I said I wouldn't protest U.S. support for the Soviet defense against German aggression. That doesn't mean or imply that I'd "look the other way" or "support regimes" that violate human rights. If a fellow prisoner attacks Charles Manson and a guard tries to protect Manson, is he guilty of "supporting" a mass murderer? When the U.S. supplied the guns that Indonesia used to invade and slaughter some 200,000 people in East Timor, it wasn't helping defend Indonesia against Timorese aggression. Don't be stupid.

[MMMMMM]

"When those who actively ignore, defend and promote aggression and other human rights abuses complain about the same, the charge of hypocrisy is a fair and relevant reply."


So which do you think: this thread is about me, or is about the hanged girl and her murderers?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I said I wouldn't protest U.S. support for the Soviet defense against German aggression. That doesn't mean or imply that I'd "look the other way" or "support regimes" that violate human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You omitted that caveat from your answer to my question about the US providing support to the Soviet Union during WWII. Was it necessary to include that caveat in your answer? I don't think so. A reasonable person should come to the conclusion that U.S. support for the Soviet Union after they were invaded by Germany, doesn't imply that we in the US were "looking the other way" or supporting regimes that commit human rights violations.

A reasonable person should also be able conclude that MMMMM's omission of a condemnation against Pakistan in the originating post of this thread does not necessarily imply that he supports similar Human Rights committed in that country.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't being stupid. I was trying to manipulate you into making my point. Which is:

Not protesting providing support for a country does not necessarily imply that one is "looking the other way" or supporting regimes that commit human rights abuses.

You made that point much more eloqently than I could have done myself.

Thanks Chris


Stu

[hetron]

Taking a break from my residency, I come back to read this gem:

It's a bit odd, Chris, don't you think, that many of the states most opposed to U.S. interests (or opposed to 'free world' interests) are generally also amongst the world's worst human rights violators as well? North Korea, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, China, etc. all come to mind. Of course, I also castigate backwards totalitarian regimes which are bad human rights violators, such as those of Saudi Arabia, and Sudan--as well as the many infamous madrassas of Pakistan which prepare jihad warriors--it is strange, too, how selective your memory seems to be. I recall that you even castigated me for supporting Kasparov's view that Riyadh, as well as Tehran and Damascus, would have to be dealt with.

For Iraq and its oil, there are (seemingly) unlimited resources. For the Kurds in southeast Turkey, for the people of Darfur, for the Cypriots who were kicked out of their homes in Northern Cyprus, for the East Timorese who were slaughtered throughout much of 80's in Indonesia, there is nothing but lip service.

There is also the pragmatic fact which people such as yourself seem loathe to acknowledge: given that many regimes are horrible human rights violators, and given that we have limited resources, some additional attention must be given to those regimes which are both horrible human rights violators and are also acting against our own interests. If money and time didn't exist in some fantasy world, we could afford to try to remedy ills equally everywhere based solely on how bad those ills are--but given real-world constraints, some degree of bias towards our own interests must exist, and is even prudent--if we are ever to find a way to PAY for all the good things we are trying to do around the world.

This is bogus. It's not a matter of just "pragmatism" it's a matter of supporting those who are willing to do what you want. You want me to cite proof of the US government supporting lackey dictators in the last 30 years?

[MMMMMM]

"This is bogus. It's not a matter of just "pragmatism" it's a matter of supporting those who are willing to do what you want. You want me to cite proof of the US government supporting lackey dictators in the last 30 years?"

That would not controvert my assertion that humanitarian concerns can be more fully addressed if self-interests also give cause for involvement.

I suspect you may be misinterpreting my point somehow. I am not saying all self-interested actions of the US have also involved humanitarian concern (obviously that is not the case); rather I am saying that self-interest enables greater or broader involvement. In other words, we don't have the resources to rectify every wrong everywhere, even were that was our goal; but we can more effectively address humanitarian concerns where involvement also benefits us.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You omitted that caveat from your answer to my question about the US providing support to the Soviet Union during WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a "caveat" I omitted, you added an additional wrinkle -- of ignoring Soviet rights abuses -- to the notion of Soviet support.

[ QUOTE ]
A reasonable person should also be able conclude that MMMMM's omission of a condemnation against Pakistan in the originating post of this thread does not necessarily imply that he supports similar Human Rights committed in that country.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't "imply" that MMMMMM supported Pakistan because he condemned Iran, I affirmatively stated that he supported Pakistan because that's what he does. All Americans support Pakistan. MMMMMM is more outspoken than most in because he's so flagrantly, even fanatically supportive of U.S. foreign policy, of Pakistan-loving Bush in particular (not the Kerry would change anything), and because he constantly denounces those who criticize U.S. policy on human rights grounds.

[ QUOTE ]
Not protesting providing support for a country does not necessarily imply that one is "looking the other way" or supporting regimes that commit human rights abuses.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the absence of the exceptional circumstance where the bad country is being invaded by an even worse one, of course it does. Or do you believe that if Saddam had given material support to al Qaeda, it wouldn't even "imply" that he supported al Qaeda terrorism?

[Chris Alger]

It's about an atrocity supporter complaining about atrocities.

[MMMMMM]

M: "So which do you think: this thread is about me, or is about the hanged girl and her murderers?"

Chris Alger: "It's about an atrocity supporter complaining about atrocities."


No, that isn't what this thread is about. That's what Chris Alger would like to divert the discussion to be about, however.

Chris, you get an "F" on the most important reading comprehension question of the entire thread.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't "imply" that MMMMMM supported Pakistan because he condemned Iran, I affirmatively stated that he supported Pakistan because that's what he does. All Americans support Pakistan. MMMMMM is more outspoken than most in because he's so flagrantly, even fanatically supportive of U.S. foreign policy, of Pakistan-loving Bush in particular (not the Kerry would change anything), and because he constantly denounces those who criticize U.S. policy on human rights grounds.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you actually said was

[ QUOTE ]
Or let's see that letter you wrote Bush or Clinton protesting their failure to condition aid to Pakistan ($3 billion over the next few years) on a government crackdown on the same kinds of atrocities(rape=adultery laws, capital punishment for blasphemy, routine honor killings of women, etc.). A few years ago, a 14-year-old illiterate Pakistani kid was condemned to death for publishing "blasphemy." Do you have enough of a problem with that to rethink your support for a country that coddles and supports rulers who support these crimes? Of course you don't. Since you only mention human rights when it applies to official enemies, your crocodile tears should be taken for what they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is you accused MMMMM of supporting countries that "coddles and supports rulers who support human rights violations". You give MMMMM the option to exonerate himself if he can provide letters which show he protested US support for such countries(A test which you also failed).

It follows that in Chris Algers world, MMMMM has no moral ground to feel outrage for the crimes committed in Iran becuase MMMMM ignored(by virtue of not writing protest letters for US support for Pakistan) similar crimes committed in Pakistan.

Does not protesting support for a particular country always mean one is guilty of ignoring human rights abuses in that country? Not in Chris Algers world. In Chris Algers world "the exceptional circumstance where the bad country is being invaded by an even worse one" will let a person off the hook.


Also in Chris Algers world

[ QUOTE ]
...those who actively ignore, defend and promote aggression and other human rights abuses complain about the same, the charge of hypocrisy is a fair and relevant reply.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, you have completely ignored and failed to protest the human rights abuse that was the topic of this thread. Your disregard of and failure to protest the human rights abuse in Iran doesn't fit into the "bad country being invaded by an even worse one" exceptional circumstance. By the rules of your own little world Chris, you are just as guilty of hypocrisy as you make MMMMM out to be.

Thankfully Chris, your little world is not the real world.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
In Chris Algers world "the exceptional circumstance where the bad country is being invaded by an even worse one" will let a person off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's right, and not just in my world but in nearly everyone's. If we posit a lesser evil we have an "evil" that is "lesser."

[ QUOTE ]
Your disregard of and failure to protest the human rights abuse in Iran doesn't fit into the "bad country being invaded by an even worse one" exceptional circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, where did I say that I don't "protest the human rights abuse in Iran?" It's terrible and should stop. AI and I'm sure the other human rights organizations all condemned the hanging, just as they condemn Israeli human rights abuses in the territories, something MMMMM thinks is just fine.

I said that MMMMMM shouldn't make this protest because he doesn't really mean it. He casually excuses and even advocates mass violence and repression by the U.S. and its proxies, castigating those who try to bring such acts to his attention. Therefore, it is virtually certain that he's merely invoking a phony concern about human rights as an excuse to do something else, probably something that involves inflicting cruelty, like war against Iran.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, where did I say that I don't "protest the human rights abuse in Iran?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did MMMMM ever say he did not protest the human rights abuses in Pakistan? Come on Chris, If you're not going to live up to the same standards that your expecting of MMMMM, why should we view your attacks on him with any credibility?

Its interesting that in this thread, your list of human rights violators includes Indonesia, Pakistan, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, The U.S., Suadi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Columbia. OH...I almost forgot one. You did mention the "Shah's Iran". Implying that under the Shah, Iran was a human rights violator but not as of the present day.

[ QUOTE ]
It's terrible and should stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a particularly strong and sincere protest against the human rights abuses in Iran, which was what this thread was all about. I guess technically it does suffice as a protest.

Congratualations Chris, I guess we can no longer claim that you are a hypocrit for not protesting the human rights abuses in Iran.

But wait....

[ QUOTE ]
I said that MMMMMM shouldn't make this protest because he doesn't really mean it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoohoo....I can still accuse you of hypocrisy Chris! In your world casual and insincere protest don't count.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

"I said that MMMMMM shouldn't make this protest because he doesn't really mean it."

Wrong again, Chris, I really do mean it...just another example of how you work backwards to derive wrong conclusions.

What you are really saying is, "Because MMMMMM doesn't view things as I do, and doesn't espouse the same views and prescriptions as I do, he is insincere (because I think his actions are incompatible with what someone would do if they were sincere)." But note: this is entirely dependent on your being right about your presumptions of what everyone would do if they were sincere--but you really cannot be sure that they would share your choice of prescription.

You are doing something as very similar to, and nearly as fallacious as, using the special case to draw conclusions about the general case--which is a classical logical error. Moreover, you could not possibly be more wrong about my level of sincerity.

[ACPlayer]

It is quite clear that you really dont mean it.

Your critcisms and choice of posts are directed at building a dossier against islam and not against human rights violators. As far as we can tell in your world human rights violators are Ok as long as the violators are furthering and supporting US intetersts as defined by the neo cons - Oil, Israel and US hegemony.

[MMMMMM]

"It is quite clear that you really dont mean it."

Far be it from ACPlayer to jump to conclusions. Your definition of "quite clear" and mine must be worlds apart.

"Your critcisms and choice of posts are directed at building a dossier against islam..."

To some extent you are correct about this; however, I do it for two reasons: 1) Islamic regimes and Islamic culture are among today's most widespread and egregious human rights violators, and 2) many Westerners are insufficiently aware of this.

"...and not against human rights violators."

I also castigate and condemn other egregious human rights violators such as North Korea and China, and to a lesser extent, Cuba--so your accusation is false.

" As far as we can tell in your world human rights violators are Ok as long as the violators are furthering and supporting US intersts as defined by the neo cons - Oil, Israel and US hegemony."

I don't see how you can "tell" that this is my view--and it isn't. I have repeatedly condemned the Saudi government as well--which, in accordance with your theory above, I would not condemn, since it is well-entwined in furthering U.S. oil interests.

I routinely condemn many of the world's worst human rights violators, which violators are, for some strange reason, almost entirely comprised of communist or Islamic/Arab governments. Maybe YOU would care to offer a theory as to why this strange state of affairs should be...that most of the world's worst human rights violators are either Islamic/Arab or communist...eh, ACPlayer? So just what is YOUR theory?

[ACPlayer]

There is no way to tell your views except through the words, tones and messages in your writings and those are quite clear.

Incidentally some of the worst human rights At present the worst human rights records are in Africa and not in Islamic countries. THe Sudan, Zimbabwe are just two examples of areas where we hear not a peep from the neo cons.

Sudan makes Fedayeen Saddam look like a bunch of choir boy.

So, just as you are quick to draw conclusions about someone's "liberalism", we too can legitimately draw conclusions about your viewpoints. THe conclusions are obvious, you are blinded by your hatred for Islam and that drives (almost) all your discussions.

I routinely condemn many of the world's worst human rights violators, which violators are, for some strange reason, almost entirely comprised of communist or Islamic/Arab governments. Maybe YOU would care to offer a theory as to why this strange state of affairs should be...that most of the world's worst human rights violators are either Islamic/Arab or communist...eh, ACPlayer? So just what is YOUR theory?

You routinely condemn Islamic human rights violations. I have not seen any routine or systemic condemnation (other than a few asides) to China (then in the context of communism - the other great evil), Gitmo (ooops critiquing US policies is being anti-american), Sudan, Myanmar (know where that is?), etc. I dont see any "routine" condemnation of the US support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia who are far worse than Iran and the only parties directly linked to 9/11 -- Oh yeah you throw in your condemnation of the Wahabi extremists once in a while.

You are basically full of hot air (and that is a personal attack!).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally some of the worst human rights At present the worst human rights records are in Africa and not in Islamic countries. THe Sudan Zimbabwe are just two examples of areas where we hear not a peep from the neo cons.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Sudan

Religions: Sunni Muslim 70% (in north), indigenous beliefs 25%, Christian 5% (mostly in south and Khartoum)

Zimbabwe

Religions: syncretic (part Christian, part indigenous beliefs) 50%, Christian 25%, indigenous beliefs 24%, Muslim and other 1%

source (http://www.nationmaster.com/)

AC, you were correct about Zimbabwe not being Islamic, but Sudan is clearly an Islamic nation(unless Sunni Muslims are not Islamic - if so some one educate me on this).

Stu

[vulturesrow]

It amazes me to no end how people on here think that they know so much about a person just by the few posts they make on here. It may seem like a lot because its always the same players but in reality, its not very much at all and you show a very small sliver of yourself on here. Its quite unbelievable. I actually think its a worse offense than some silly personal attack. I understand losing your temper in the heat of the moment. I dont understand the fact that so many people on here, seemingly intelligent and rational for the most part, A) seem to really think they can grasp anything beyond very small pieces of a person's self on here and B) devolve so quickly into attacks , although again, I definitely think B is worse than A. Cant we all just get along?

[ACPlayer]

If

the violations were being committed reflected MMMMMM's perception of the evil of Islam

then

we would have heard from MMMMMM. Othewise silence.

[ACPlayer]

Let see, all we see in these forums is a slice of the person and that is all we can assess and that should be fair game. To take the example of my statements about MMMMMM. If he sits at home and wrings his hands about the Hindus attacking the Muslims in India, I cannot know that. So, while I cannot say what kind of person he is, I can draw legitimate conclusions about his writings on this forum (just as he can and does and should about me and others).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If

the violations were being committed reflected MMMMMM's perception of the evil of Islam

then

we would have heard from MMMMMM. Othewise silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for MMMMM.

However, I do have to admit that I focus on Islamic violators of human rights more than I do others. Is it a fault or is it a perfectly natural reaction to the perception that I have; that there are Islamist who want to commit human rights abuses on me and my country men. Something I will have to explore.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"your list of human rights violators"

[/ QUOTE ]
...was limited to those supported by the U.S., the point being the responsibility of the U.S. (and not the Nazis, the Soviets, Gengis Khan and so forth). You aren't even trying.

[MMMMMM]

"If

the violations were being committed reflected MMMMMM's perception of the evil of Islam

then

we would have heard from MMMMMM. Othewise silence."



False, ACPlayer, since as I already pointed out, I have harshly and repeatedly condemned Chinese and North Korean human rights abuses. In fact, I even stated I was boycotting Chinese-made goods since many such goods are produced under genuine slave-labor conditions by political prisoners.

I have ALSO stridently condemned the ethnic cleansing and brutality in Sudan--which country you erroneously cited as an example of a country whose human rights violations I did not condemn.

So get your facts straight please before you start erroneously spouting off about which countries I have condemned or not condemned.

Meanwhile...you have not answered the question as to what is your theory regarding why most of the world's worst human rights violators are either Islamic or Communist. Care to take a stab at why, while we're on the topic--or would you rather just point the finger at me for even mentioning it?

You say I single out Islamic regimes as human rights abusers--but they are represented disproportionately as human rights abusers, as are communist regimes--so I am NOT out of line for pointing it out, or for naming countries. So again, I ask you--why do you think they are so heavily represenyed among the worst and most widespread human rights abusers on the face of the earth?

[MMMMMM]

The problem, ACPlayer, is that you do indeed draw conclusions--but they are illegitimate conclusions.

[ACPlayer]

I may advance a thery but in a place and manner of my choosing. Until then other's theories are fair game.

I completely dismiss your protestations that you are a human rights advocate -- based on what you have written in this forum. For the most part your views and writing are driven by your haterd for Islam -- but only when those in the Islamic world dont kowtow to the our administrations viewpoints. Further you clearly pick and choose your support for and choice of subjects for purposes other than as a human rights watcher.

You may not like or agree with what I have said above and this is your perogative. I believe that I have analyzed the body of work correctly.

[MMMMMM]

"You routinely condemn Islamic human rights violations."

You bet, but probably not as much as I should. Try Human Rights Watch or other such orgs if you really want to see Islamic culture slammed for its abuses and oppressions against women, and overall hideous human rights record.


"I have not seen any routine or systemic condemnation (other than a few asides) to China (then in the context of communism - the other great evil), Gitmo (ooops critiquing US policies is being anti-american), Sudan, Myanmar (know where that is?), etc."

Look, you bonehead: I have stated on this forum that I boycott Chinese goods because they utilize genuine slave prison labor of political prisoners in their manufacturing for export. Prison slave labor is a huge and highly immoral industry in that country, and I have even posted articles about it. I have also stated that China executes more people every year than all the rest of the world combined, and I believe I posted an article about that too.

I have slammed Sudan for its human rights violations and ethnic cleansing.

I posted about Myanmar being a horribly repressive military dictatorship where citizens cannot even own a fax machine without explicit government permission, and where the death penalty is liberally applied.


"I dont see any "routine" condemnation of the US support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia who are far worse than Iran and the only parties directly linked to 9/11 -- Oh yeah you throw in your condemnation of the Wahabi extremists once in a while."

I have posted strong criticism of Saudi Arabia. Egypt is the ONE country you have mentioned which I have not roundly castigated on this forum.


"You are basically full of hot air (and that is a personal attack!)."

And you can't even think logically or get your facts straight, preferring instead to react emotionally. You may be excused for the Myanmar mistake since perhaps you started posting after I had posted about Myanmar, but I am pretty darn sure I have posted extensively about China, and posted about Sudan, and about Cuba/Castro, and about Saudi Arabia--where they have weekly beheadings in "Execution Square"--all well after you joined this forum.

[MMMMMM]

"I may advance a thery but in a place and manner of my choosing. Until then other's theories are fair game.

I completely dismiss your protestations that you are a human rights advocate -- based on what you have written in this forum. For the most part your views and writing are driven by your haterd for Islam -- but only when those in the Islamic world dont kowtow to the our administrations viewpoints. Further you clearly pick and choose your support for and choice of subjects for purposes other than as a human rights watcher.

You may not like or agree with what I have said above and this is your perogative. I believe that I have analyzed the body of work correctly."


Absolutely 100% wrong, and highly ironic.

Further it is telling that you have no hesitation in making personal attacks, but will not even offer a theory regarding a legitimate question which is a natural follow-up to some of the things being discussed in this sub-thread.

Furthermore, you chucklehead, don';t you think it might be possible that the reason I especially slam communist and Islamic regimes is BECAUSE they are such horrible human rights violators? That it's not that I have some horrible hatred of Islam, but rather that I have a terrible loathing for oppression--and therefore, to the extent that certain governments or cultural customs encourage oppression, I strenuously object? Eh? Did that EVER OCCUR TO YOU???

And finally, if this is your idea of "analysis", you would be hard-pressed to analyze your way out of a paper bag, in my humble opinion. You pick and choose which points to respond to, and totally IGNORE evidence when it contradicts your preconceived notions, or shows that your statements were IN ERROR.

[ACPlayer]

.

[Stu Pidasso]

Chris, I found that list interesting becuase you went to great lenghths to divert the subject of this thread away from a specific human rights abuse that occured in present day Iran. Its as if you want to pretend the whole incident did not exist. In the back of my mind I have to wonder if you are related to the Khomeini's.

Stu