Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Liberals and Internationalists tell us Americans to be tolerant of other cultures and religions. They also feel obligated to be outraged when things like this happen (Conservatives would be obligated to bomb them to the Stone Age, but hey, let's just veer away from what people on the right would do).

And yet nothing will happen.

As Tehran gains the ability to harness nuclear power, Israel and other regional powers will have to look twice towards engaging in any overt actions against the Iranian government. I am pretty sure that most of these nations do not really care about a woman being stoned to death for adultery. Just wanted to point that out.

Oh, and reports indicate she may be hanged out of the goodness of the Iranian legal system instead.

And when the poor woman (Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani) and others like her who are facing the execution for adultery charges are dead, what will the West and all other freedom loving people do? Punish Iran? How?

As it is, we cannot stop them from doing anything within their sovereign borders or with who they want to deal with.

So why tell them what is good and what is wrong? Does it make sense to tell them how to live and act and then not back up any of our threats if they run contrary to what we want them to do?

As a final thought: she was not convicted for killing her husband (to be fair, there is very little surface material regarding this, as you will have to dig through news archives to find the circumstances surrounding the case, but shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes at worst to find the bare facts wherein she confessed to murdering him) but yet the suspicion still runs through me that something had to of happen regarding her and his death. How could most media outlets ignore this piece of news? Obviously, her children (she has 2) love her and have campaigned to get her freed. Perhaps the husband was cruel and unloved, but I do not know all the specifics of someone's private live thousands of miles away.

All the Western outrage is condensed into the combination of words of "stoning to death because of adultery." Ignored is the fact she may of caused the death of her husband along with the usual contexts of culture and religion from which she comes being radically different from Western democracies.

And on top of it those Western democracies will not do a thing except cry outrage.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-Stoning-Woman-Accused-Of-Adultery-Also-Faces-99-Lashes-For-Indecency-Over-Photo/Article/201009115714925?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15714925_Iran_Stoning%3A_Woman_Accused_Of_Adultery_Also_Faces_99_Lashes_For_Indecency_Over_Photo

An Iranian woman set to be stoned to death for adultery is facing 99 lashes for a photograph allegedly of her without a headscarf, her son has said.

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani has been the subject of international outcry over her death sentence.

But she now faces the additional punishment for a picture that appeared in The Times in Britain.

In an interview published on French magazine La Regle du Jeau's website, the woman's son Sajjad Ghaderzadeh said they learnt of the lashes from inmates released from the prison in Tabriz, where his mother is being held.

He said a prison judge had confirmed the sentence for spreading "corruption and indecency" with the photo.

But the snap, featured in The Times, was apparently not even of 43-year-old Ms Mohammadi-Ashtiani - which the paper has acknowledged and apologised for.

The image of a woman without a hijab was published after it was passed to the newspaper by one of her lawyers.

But six days later, The Times said the attribution of the picture was incorrect and the woman shown was actually Susan Hejrat, a political activist living in Sweden.

Mr Ghaderzadeh said it was "certainly not" his mother.

Ms Mohammadi-Ashtiani's lawyer Mohammad Mostafei, who has fled Iran, said he received the images from Mr Ghaderzadeh - a claim he denied.

Mr Ghaderzadeh has since written an open letter claiming the new sentence is "an excuse" for the authorities to increase the "harassment" of his mother.

"We do not know how that picture was originally obtained, nor to whom the picture belongs," he said.

He also claimed Ms Mohammadi-Ashtiani had not been allowed any visits from family members or her lawyer for the past two weeks.

The mother-of-two received 99 lashes after being found guilty in 2006 of an "illicit relationship" with two men after her husband's death.

She was later also convicted of adultery and, although she retracted a confession made under duress, she was sentenced to be stoned.

Foreign governments have condemned the brutal punishment and the Vatican has confirmed it is in touch with Tehran "through diplomatic channels" to try and halt the action.

The Pope is working on it and I know some knights looking for a good Crusade.

Also, nuclear weapons are not a good deterrent of espionage. I would think it would increase the amount of spying and covert ops to avoid a fullscale war.

Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

Fair enough.

And I would assume that you would be equally understanding and willingly to support another country if they decided to bomb/invade America because they take exception to our flawed use of the death penalty...

And before anyone gets their panties with the fox logo on the rear in a bunch: I actually support the death penalty in concept, but morally oppose it's use at present due to the social reality of our society and the history of corruption/racism in the legal institutions that control and enact it which have and continue to falsely convict and execute individuals who are innocent. One wrongful execution is too many and we have as a society allowed murders of innocents numerous times, Not to mention the history of disproportionately applying it to minorities, etc....

So yes I agree that killing of individuals without just cause is wrong, but I also can see that we live in a glass house on issues like this as well...

Dude, they bomb us and attack our embassies just because we have things like Playboy and MTV!

Just because it's some idiot with plastic explosives in his vest and not B-2s doesn't make it less of an attack on us because of our culture.

Grignard wrote:

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

Isn't this what Germany hoped the World would do in the late 30's and early 40's? Damn allies and thier meddling ways.

Quick, let's bomb all the middle east so they follow the American Values of Justice, Peace and Freedom!

well I'm a little confused. War said it was for adultry early on and then later said she murdered her husband. We execute people for murder in the united states too. I'm not sure how he thinks bombing the Iranians would improve their legal system, or how it makes the united states a bunch of hypocrites if we dont go to war over every injustice anywhere in the world. So the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians. world keeps turnin.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I'm a little confused. War said it was for adultry early on and then later said she murdered her husband. We execute people for murder in the united states too. I'm not sure how he thinks bombing the Iranians would improve their legal system, or how it makes the united states a bunch of hypocrites if we dont go to war over every injustice anywhere in the world. So the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians. world keeps turnin.
AF

The news reports are a bit contradictory on this, but she was charged for murder and adultery, and supposedly only the adultery charge stuck.

Here this new report indicates the conflicting news coming from this case:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/iran-stoning-sakineh-ashtiani.html

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having SOMEONE ELSES picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

@ djones520: Fixed that for ya.


@ Grignard: If this women was ALLOWED to move to another area of the world and she CHOSE to stay in Iran then yes I agree with you. But I have a feeling, it may be incorrect or corrupted by the media, that she is denied the ability or the means to move her life to another part of the planet in which case it is a crime for the government of Iran to keep this person inside their borders and enforce the death penalty for this "He said, she said" highschool crap.

I see it like this: If parents of childeren cannot keep their kids fed and\or clothed, most governments step in with some form of social aid to help them. If the parents of these kids simply WON'T take care of them then these same governments step in and relieve the kids from those parents. If those parents fight back then martial force is used. The same goes for the governments of the world, if they can't take care of their people it is our duty to our fellow men to aid that government. If they are REFUSING to take care of their people then our duty is to the people of that country first. My problem isn't with the penalty or the crime, I take issue with the fact that she is being found "guilty" without sufficent evidence against her.

I sniff a double helping of bad journalism mixed in with propoganda.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Dude, they bomb us and attack our embassies just because we have things like Playboy and MTV!

Just because it's some idiot with plastic explosives in his vest and not B-2s doesn't make it less of an attack on us because of our culture.

Yes, Al Qaeda has bombed embassies in the past... but definitely not for the reasons you posted. Also, bombing an embassy, and bombing an entire country are two things that are SO different it's sickening you would compare the two.

That would be like if my cousin from out of state threw a rock through your window and you bulldozed my house while I was locked inside.

SamplesoWoopass wrote: ...That would be like if my cousin from out of state threw a rock through your window and you bulldozed my house while I was locked inside.

That's kind of the point though isn't it? If we did bulldoze your house and you saw that the rest of the world treated us like we were in the right. Then you, as well as everyone else, would keep a closer eye on your cousins. It might not be fair but guess what, life isn't fair.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:The same goes for the governments of the world, if they can't take care of their people it is our duty to our fellow men to aid that government. If they are REFUSING to take care of their people then our duty is to the people of that country first.

There is a severe problem with helping other nations. I can answer this in several ways, but suffice to say, the answer isn't easy. What I say is that for international help to help a region in the world under duress take a titanic effort.

Nonpartisan and noninterventionalist help occurs in the form of the Red Cross and relief organizations sanctioned by the United Nations and various other nationally and organizationally funded efforts. The help is supposed to ignore boundaries and provide relief. It does not take into account the long term rammifications of temporary help, merely that food and clothing and medical support be provided for a suffering population.

The World Bank and the IMF are capitalist driven engines of help where they provide funding and expert support for nations that need monetary aid and integration into the international community. However the cost of their help is to structure poor countries into deals and economic policies that have been criticized for causing more harm than good and forcing these poor nations into a dependency on the Western nations akin to the English Empire of the 19th century and its dependent colonies (a poor example, but one of context to help you understand the criticisms of their help).

Major world powers that include the EU and the United States provide help that supplements the efforts of the former two, but is driven intentionally or not to spread the concepts of Western Civilization. The greatest problem here is that other cultures become hostile to the incursion of McDonalds and feminists rights that spring up within their countries. Ideas of freedom and alien culture provoke hostile reactions. Iran has a large and somewhat unsettled youth that has embraced some Western ideals and they run counter to the Iranian Revolution's ideas of Sharia law and staunch conservative and traditional support from those still in power.

When the United States uses power to enforce their version of democracy, it does not help their argument for their way of life. We as Americans and Western cultures may mean good to help others, but the cost is that conformity at some level must be reached with some of our principles.

And as a side note, look at where most of the help the United State gives in terms of a regional basis. See if it somehow conforms to the way in which natural resources and interests are located and how much aid is given relative.

Wow. A looot of text here. I'll just say this:

"That's not very nice"

Gwar! wrote:Quick, let's bomb all the middle east so they follow the American Values of Justice, Peace and Freedom!

Dude, don't you know Superman's Creed?

It's not Justice, Peace, and Freedom.

It's Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

God Gwar. Get with the program!

ComputerGeek01 wrote:




@ Grignard: If this women was ALLOWED to move to another area of the world and she CHOSE to stay in Iran then yes I agree with you. But I have a feeling, it may be incorrect or corrupted by the media, that she is denied the ability or the means to move her life to another part of the planet in which case it is a crime for the government of Iran to keep this person inside their borders and enforce the death penalty for this "He said, she said" highschool crap.

I see it like this: If parents of childeren cannot keep their kids fed and\or clothed, most governments step in with some form of social aid to help them. If the parents of these kids simply WON'T take care of them then these same governments step in and relieve the kids from those parents. If those parents fight back then martial force is used. The same goes for the governments of the world, if they can't take care of their people it is our duty to our fellow men to aid that government. If they are REFUSING to take care of their people then our duty is to the people of that country first. My problem isn't with the penalty or the crime, I take issue with the fact that she is being found "guilty" without sufficent evidence against her.

So, right there your advocating that it's OUR DUTY to help their people, but then you advocate that it's completley okay to BOMB THEM TO fething HELL because of something an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT group did in the past?!?!?!

Please don't post until you actually know what you're saying.


Edit: Also, you're completely wrong on that. It wouldn't make someone keep an eye on their cousin, it would entice them to give their cousins bigger rocks or bombs. You seem to forget WHY so many people in that region hate us. It isn't as much due to our value system as it is due to our constant involvement in their affairs since the cold war. That and our constant support for Israel.

CT GAMER wrote:

djones520 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

This post right here just highlights the sad state of affairs that is America today.

"Who are we to say that whipping a woman 99 times for having her picture posted in a magazine on the other side of the world is wrong?"

Come on? Seriously?

Fair enough.

And I would assume that you would be equally understanding and willingly to support another country if they decided to bomb/invade America because they take exception to our flawed use of the death penalty...

Dude, seriously? Putting someone to death for a violent crime for which they were convicted by a jury of their peers and after they've gone through a rigorous appeals process is the same thing as stoning a woman to death because a cleric thinks she's a harlot?

Bit of a stretch I think.

Not especially matey. We consider our justice to be the most fair, and the Iranians have their system.

It's up to the people of Iran to say no and make this stop. Wouldn't be surprised if the Junta starts to collapse before long. Most inevitably do.

So, WarOne, what do you want done about all this? I hope you realise that nothing short of showing force will change anything in Iran...

The Red Cross and etc. are doing it right. They only provide temproary relief but that's their goal anyway. I understand that for example providing food to a country who is starving makes it hard for a Farmer to get back on his feet and so stifils the economy but they do more good then harm by keeping people alive in the short run.

The World Bank and the IMF have vested interest in globalization. I won't express my view toward them in this thread because it will probably high-jack it in the long run.

The efforts put forth by the Major Powers do it right only because their goal is obviously if a country is to prosper due to their help then they prefer it not to attack them once it recovers. This I think has it's roots from WW2, the Nazi's were able to gain power AND attack Europe because the Germans hated the Alies, America would have been a target but rumor has it that Hitler had some sort of politcal crush on the USA. The thought here is that if the country that is recovering likes UN or whatever power helps them then it would avoid that mind set. Simplistic I know but it makes sense if you don't try to over think it.

Otherwise all of the problems that foriegn aid causes has parallels that can be draw in line with social welfare programs. They both form dependancies on that system. Efforts to root out fraud and effectivley target certain groups for development through buerocracy take time away from the productive members who would otherwise be using it to improve themselves and get away from that system. They are costley, the titanic effort you mentiond is present in local systems in the form of overhead and if you look at the costs of both while keeping in mind the scale of each, and consider the production curve, then they are comparable.

Mr Mystery wrote:Not especially matey. We consider our justice to be the most fair, and the Iranians have their system.

I think that by most objective standards Sharia is far down the scale of civility and progress from the US's admittedly flawed system of Justice.

Monster Rain wrote:

Dude, seriously? Putting someone to death for a violent crime for which they were convicted by a jury of their peers and after they've gone through a rigorous appeals process is the same thing as stoning a woman to death because a cleric thinks she's a harlot?

Bit of a stretch I think.

Perhaps take a deep breathe and reread the specifics of what i stated:

As I stated I am not opposed to the death penalty for those that ARE guilty of the accused crimes. However people have been executed in the U.S. for crimes they did not comit, and this sad and unnacceptable fact makes the two exactly the same: people in a country being executed immorally.

Thus my hypothetical was that the same standard being applied in this thread could be applied to the U.S. as well by outsiders, that being that an outside entity could see this as just cause to invade/bomb/take military action against us as well if we really want to endorse what is being suggested in this thread.

Let's look at this from another angle: Are people suggesting that individuals that may have had no connection to radical Islam, Saddam's regime, terrorist activity that may have had relatives wrongly killed in Iraq/Afghanistan as a result of U.S. application of force now have the justification to come here and commit violence?

By what is being purposed in this thread they certainly would be totally justified, and I don't think that makes much sense, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?

Again: glass houses...

What is the difference?

That's a slippery slope that I would prefer not to to encourage.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Not especially matey. We consider our justice to be the most fair, and the Iranians have their system.

I think that by most objective standards Sharia is far down the scale of civility and progress from the US's admittedly flawed system of Justice.

Depends just how strict a version of Sharia it is.

Do I condone the conviction and punishment? Nope, not at all. It is indeed barbaric to my mind. But considering the West continues to demand Democracy go world wide (and not unjustly so) it's kind of hard to force opposing Governments to adopt our justice just because we say so.

Poastan in a troll thread.

@ SampleoWhoopass: I know exactly what I am saying, you are using reality to blurr intentions. Bombings by the US for example are never intentionally against civilian targets, in a perfect world the people of a foriegn country would suffer as little as possible in an invasion. But because we don't live in a perfect world many people see our effort the same way you do. As far as people giving their cousins bigger rocks? It's pretty obvious that there will be some retaliation, this is the check that keeps things balanced. The goal would be to remove ALL hostile elements at the same time, it never works out this way because as I said before we do not live in a perfect world.

I can't really argue with you against the Isreal thing, that was a poorly thought out move made by a generation that is too far removed from my own to understand what I am saying half the time. Also we only know that it was a poor move because we can see it in hindsight. I guess my stance differs from yours because I understand that people are not their government and not everyone has the means to change a regime that has been in power for so many decades (and yes I already know that our intervention is what put the current regime in power).

ComputerGeek01 wrote:@ SampleoWhoopass: I know exactly what I am saying, you are using reality to blurr intentions. Bombings by the US for example are never intentionally against civilian targets, in a perfect world the people of a foriegn country would suffer as little as possible in an invasion. But because we don't live in a perfect world many people see our effort the same way you do. As far as people giving their cousins bigger rocks? It's pretty obvious that there will be some retaliation, this is the check that keeps things balanced. The goal would be to remove ALL hostile elements at the same time, it never works out this way because as I said before we do not live in a perfect world.

I can't really argue with you against the Isreal thing, that was a poorly thought out move made by a generation that is too far removed from my own to understand what I am saying half the time. Also we only know that it was a poor move because we can see it in hindsight. I guess my stance differs from yours because I understand that people are not their government and not everyone has the means to change a regime that has been in power for so many decades (and yes I already know that our intervention is what put the current regime in power).

Well, you see, the thing about that is they really are. Everyone who makes the call to bomb anything knows for a fact that the majority of bombs dropped will miss their targets and hit civilians, and they're perfectly okay with that. If you commit an act and you know what's going to be caused by said act then you achieve those causes quite intentionally.

And the thing is, is that if you want to stop the growth of terrorism, then you have to stop giving them such good reasons to hate us. This includes bombing them. Hatred against the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad is growing. They've overthrown the Junta before (although the US did UNDO IT) and they'll do it again before long. That is if we stop giving them reasons to think that they're right.

Grignard wrote:Sounds like a lot of "allegedly" and "This guy says".

Regardless, if that is how some other culture does something, then who are we to come in and kill in order to enforce our belief that something is immoral? Isn't that essentially going against our own concept of what is right to force someone else to do what we think is right?

1+

btw nice work bringing "peace" to irak

ShumaGorath wrote:Poastan in a troll thread.

Surely this post is some clever ruse? Perhaps a placeholder for some 3 page long post addressing every other poster in the thread with counterarguments?
...





...




...



...

...

...
...
...
...