Mentally ill girl hanged from Crane at age 16 by Iran's "Morality Police"

Perceived act of 'injustice'?? I'll be sure to explain what that means to my wife. I'll explain it if I can figure out what the hell it means. I'm sorry, but I think that kind of excuse for a so-called "cultural" difference, one that allows women to be treated like cattle, or worse, is sickening.

I welcome criticism of our use of the death penalty from Europe, or anywhere else. I'm against it, and I think it's barbaric... just as the theocracy in Iran in it's treatment of women is barbaric. As for "forcing" the United States to change it? No one is trying to "force" Iran to change the way they treat their women.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Thank you! Apparently a lot of people have forgotten their WWII history. What led to Nazi Germany's downfall was not killing Jews, few Europeans or Americans gave a you-know-what about that and were willing to actually go to war against the German machine for it. The Germans dug their own grave when they became expansionists, attacked the Russians, and when the U.S. finally joined the war, in which case their alliance with Japan didn't help (not to mention their persistent provocation of the U.S.).

 

If the article is accurate (and I have no way of knowing the details of the case), then it's definitely an unjust act. Sorry for not being clear about that...

Umm...yes, actually, there are. There are people who want and will use any and everything they know might 'horrify' the American people enough to support a military conflict against Iran. What's one of the main arguments of the current administration against the Iranian regime? Oh yes, they're "oppressors" and we want to "free the Iranian people".

In fact, you can refer to some of President Bush's rhetoric in which he reflects his belief that America has a "moral obligation" to "spread freedom". He says that this "freedom" is "God's gift to mankind", so he's apparently on a 'crusade' (pardon the pun) to carry out "God's gift".

You are further making my argument. Some believe that it's 'inhumane', while some Americans think it's necessary...how do we resolve that? Who is "right" and who's "wrong" here?

I am only trying to show that it's not as simple or 'clear-cut' as Hayes and others might want to make it out to be.

 

Alright then, if the gender were reversed -- if Iran were a female-dominated society, and the convicted were a 16-year old male who were executed by hanging in public, would you have the same outrage? If not, why not? Would you not challenge losttexan to find an example in U.S. where a man was excuted for having sex with unmarried woman?

[Or if both "sex offenders" were hanged, would you have a different reaction?]

The indisputabe commonality between the two cases is about a dominant class suppressing a lower class through discrimination and moral intimidation in a way that's widely considered barbarous and cruel in broader civilization. Your nitpicking on the exactness of a "perfect" analogy only exposes your own specious moral stance.

Lynching was the work of unwritten law. The reign of terror some 100 years ago in the U.S. was a blatant public grand display of butchery and national savagery at the behest of a dominant class of citizens, which solely constituted the governing machinery representing the state and local power. The denial on your part merely for "technicality" further underscores the shakiness of your argument.

Oh BTW, to your originally more general inquiry that if the U.S. has ever excuted innocent people, the answer is emphatically "YES!"

 

This thread is dumb.

 

And your comment made it so.......

 

Tiger, when you openly talk about wiping someone out, or off the face of the map, how is that different, or are you saying that it is just rhetoric?

Becuase I take words for what they mean, and it is pretty clear where Iran stands concerning Israel.

As for state sponsored terrorism, how is that protecting Iran's interests? How?

Iran's government is, for the lack of a better word, barbaric.

DD

 

Right, you're the one who's railed on about how religion is a myth perpetuated by man and here you are telling us how McDonalds will solve Islamic extremism... riveting.

 

Not beside the point at all. You are very silly in your attempt to catch others in contradictory positions while skating on thin ice yourself. Haha. Whether or not the Nazis were expansionist has no bearing over whether or not they used their internal 'laws' to persecute the Jews. So funny that you try and confuse the issue as a smokescreen to your hypocrisy. You claimed it was none of your concern because Iran was the sole arbiter of their own laws. Examining that standard it is pointed out that such a calculus would lead to ignoring the Nazis. You respond (lamely) that the Nazis were expansionist. Haha. Lame. Not even an attempt at making a non sequitur to distract the opposition ala wnes. Come back, tiger - your desperation is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.

So what is right is dependent on what the consensus is? Sorry, I can't think of any standard more dangerous or reprehensible. A majority hardly determines the validity of a position - I'll merely point out that many actions were acceptable in one culture only to be deemed unacceptable in another such as pedophilia, scalping, female genital mutilation, genocide, human sacrifice, cannibalism and slavery. I guess if you come down on tiger's absurd side, you really shouldn't tell other 'cultures' what to do. You really shouldn't enforce your views that men shouldn't rape 3 year olds, or the 10 year old girls shouldn't be sold into slavery, or that women really shouldn't have their ****oris chopped off to make sure they are chaste before they marry their man, or that strangers shouldn't rip the scalp off another human for venturing through their territory. If that is the world you think is best, then you'll take Tiger's proported position - that we shouldn't try to project our values on other cultures.

Honestly, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard a smart person say. And I've heard it said a lot, by a lot of smart people. Why? That's the question. What makes them totally delusional? The fact is that they are conditioned to be tolerant. We shouldn't criticize other cultures. Well, ok - if backed into a proverbial corner - we can criticize other cultures, but you better not take any action. Yeah, yeah. You can criticize as long as you don't do anything about it. After all, we used to have slavery - so who are we to say the Chinese shouldn't come and put bamboo under our fingernails.....er, I mean, what if the French came and said we should not be able to hang women for having sex? How horrible would that be if the Germans insisted that women should not be hung for having sex with an unmarried male. How crazy would that be?

 

And this is where you jump the shark, so to speak. It is pretty simple: should a woman be hung for having sex with an unmarried male? You can dress it up, rearrange it, try and talk over it, hide it, confuse the issue - but it still remains the same question: should a woman be hung for having sex with an unmarried male? You can do your best grady - goo goobilly goop. That doesn't change the base question. Answer it or not - not shows the shallowness of your answering line.

It IS clear cut. If you can't see that then I feel for you, and I hope something I can say in the future will change your mind. As of now you are lost in a sea of relativity.

 

How can anyone condone this?... i guess some can.

 

Wnes, the simple fact is that you haven't given an example of the US executing a woman for having sex with an unmarried man. Hence arguments you may make about other things, such as executions of men (were that the case) really do not affect this contention or discussion. Not sure how much plainer I can make this for you. I could certainly engage you in this alternate debate, but why waste the time. Your analogy is no more perfect than one comparing the proverbial apples and oranges, which since you are mildly to seriously dense I will point out are not alike at all.

Again, this is fairly simple. Your contention is not an example of 'us' (reasonably concluded from the context to mean the US government) executing a woman for having sex with an unmarried man. If you'd like to drone on that there may be some comparison between the two completely dissimilar situations - feel free. However, please do not claim that your retort is an answer to my request that an instance of such an offense be named - it clearly is not. Your attempt to fit the square peg in the round hole is not only a waste of your time, but ours.

A zealot may say 'emphatically yes.' None of what this site provides is proof that an innocent man has been executed. In fact, it starts out (let me laugh at you now) with a description of people who were NOT executed that were found to be innocent. YAWN. Not quite the same thing, sport.

 

We all can look at this act and say how dispicable it is - because it is.

But let's be careful not to attach the label of "savages" to Iran. Remember, there's probably a lot of people there who frown upon what happened and don't agree with it...but can not speak out. The hope only is that as the government allows these acts to happen it begins to turn the Irainian people against them.

We talk a lot about how to win the hearts and minds of a people. Now I wonder how much we listen to these moderate Iranian voices who deplore this act...maybe they have some light to shed.

 

And People call these barbaric animals as a modern state. there isnt a family in iran who hasnt been suspected or has'nt had a run in with the mollah's.

 

As i've said before, i take offense to people putting the name of our beloved aryan land and the mollah's in the Same Sentence.

 

The sad part is that most of them would contend they aren't doing such a thing.

 

The Moderate Voices in Iran are calling for a regime change, but the West because of Financial reasons has decided to not listen to them.

 

They Talk about Helping Terrorists is helping iran's interests?. helping iran's interest is to be friends with the International community. helipng iran's interests is not threatning to wipeout isreal. helping iran's interests is not sending Billions of dollars to terrorists. instead spend that money on the pathetic economy. in a country where 55% of the age bracket of under 30 have thought about commiting suacide, where there is a 64% Unemployment, where there is the highest drugg addiction on the planet, where iranian woman are being sold to arab countries, that money is better spent in our own backyard.

 

Not just McDonalds, but Starbucks, Walmart, etc...etc...etc....raising the standard of living over there is the only way to bring them into the 21st century, and if you think it is not a cutural war we are involved in, than I don't know what to tell you.

IMHO, this is a direct result of the world opening up through technology and travel, it was ok when everyone was in their own countries and not bothering anyone else, but as people started to spread out, ideaologies clashed, and here we are....

DD