Gay Teens Hanged in Iran
- Thread starter lister
- Start date
K e r b e r o s
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm just going to say it. I could've pwned you with Ogrish right now. I've got 29 seperate videos of yes, 29 seperate incidents between 1991 and 2003 of stonings and lynchings of homosexuals that were intended to be fatal, and well, were.
Several occur in Iran, while others in Saudi Arabia. They do kill. And they let the others who are watching participate in the executions aswell.
ComradeBadger
Tank
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,723
- Reaction score
- 2
Direwolf said:
But this isn't new news.. just on Ogrish, which is hardley a reputable news source.
jerkasaur
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 1
ok,
stoning in islam is done when someone does a real taboo thing, and Confesses for four times or four men say that he/she did it.
the only time when someone has been stoned to death in iran, was back in the time muhammed (pbuh) lived. a woman while having a husband, has sex with another man and goes to the Prophet and Confesses. the Prophet doesn't listen to her for the first time. she Confesses for the second time but he says maybe you're wrong. she Confesses for the third time and he says you have a little child and he needs a mother, you should take care of him, come back if you want after you've taken care of him and he's become older. (he did that so that maybe the woman would Confess to god and ask for forgiveness, that way, as the prophit himself said, she would be forgiven, and not stoned). however, she came for the fourth time and got stoned.
this was the only stoning to death that happened in iran. i don't argue about other countries though.
i've asked this from several persons and they have agreed. iran's religeous policy is that it actually asks the person to ask forgiveness from god(which is called "tobeh"), even though they punish, and that's so the taboo doesn't spread in the Society. again i say, the punish, sometimes they kill, but to prevent the taboo to spread into the Society.
stoning in islam is done when someone does a real taboo thing, and Confesses for four times or four men say that he/she did it.
the only time when someone has been stoned to death in iran, was back in the time muhammed (pbuh) lived. a woman while having a husband, has sex with another man and goes to the Prophet and Confesses. the Prophet doesn't listen to her for the first time. she Confesses for the second time but he says maybe you're wrong. she Confesses for the third time and he says you have a little child and he needs a mother, you should take care of him, come back if you want after you've taken care of him and he's become older. (he did that so that maybe the woman would Confess to god and ask for forgiveness, that way, as the prophit himself said, she would be forgiven, and not stoned). however, she came for the fourth time and got stoned.
this was the only stoning to death that happened in iran. i don't argue about other countries though.
i've asked this from several persons and they have agreed. iran's religeous policy is that it actually asks the person to ask forgiveness from god(which is called "tobeh"), even though they punish, and that's so the taboo doesn't spread in the Society. again i say, the punish, sometimes they kill, but to prevent the taboo to spread into the Society.
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
What do you think Bush is doing in the ME if not effecting change to bring about the downfall of such vicious and inhuman regimes?!Gunner said:
*Please don't flame, but I do think there will be good to come out of this whole mess.*
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
VictimOfScience said:
ok enough already, the US has supported worse regimes in the past ..and they are indirectly responsible for the fundamentalist government Iran has today when they overthrew democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and replaced him with Shah Pahlavi back in 1953. In fact they helped train Iran's gestapo like secret police SAVAK which was responsible for the disappearance of thousands
..it's just utter hypocrisy to say that Bush is appalled by acts of barbarity when his own admin conducts themselves much in the same way
jerkasaur
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 1
bush or america or any other country has never invaded a country for the people, always for itself's sake. i don't need no say what happened the moment US and the UK invaded iraq. oil war ftl.
oh and stern, iranian people have always had fundamentalic personality, from the time when shah abbas ruled to the time when it was reza shah or mohammad reza. shahs in iran have never done anything for the country. if it was mohammad reza shah, we'd still be buying weat from other countries, you probably know the educational progress iran has had in the past 27 years, it's been more than 100%. before the islamic revolution, more than 45% of iranian didn't know how to write or read, it less than 15% now. shah, US or UK have never cared about any country they ruled over. it's a fact.
oh and stern, iranian people have always had fundamentalic personality, from the time when shah abbas ruled to the time when it was reza shah or mohammad reza. shahs in iran have never done anything for the country. if it was mohammad reza shah, we'd still be buying weat from other countries, you probably know the educational progress iran has had in the past 27 years, it's been more than 100%. before the islamic revolution, more than 45% of iranian didn't know how to write or read, it less than 15% now. shah, US or UK have never cared about any country they ruled over. it's a fact.
Witness the propaganda montage effect in its early stages.
Notice how it is already permissable to call for the total destruction of a country without the normal protests that would usually accompany this kind of hate-filled outburst.
Substitute Iran in that quote with some other(more sympathetic) country, and the lack of reaction from some quarters is almost deafening.
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
Hmm, I should've perhaps put those sarcasm tags in. Maybe then the miscommunication would not be such a problem. :|CptStern said:
I am just at a loss at how to effect change in the Middle East but it desperately needs it, as do China and pretty much all of sub-Saharan Africa. People have been trying for years and nothing ever seems to work--diplomacy, terrorism, regime change--its all turned out bad and I am at a loss. I don't disagree that the US has been involved with some ridiculous and vicious dealings in the past (look at Afghanistan and Iran for intance), but in both cases, that seemed like the best idea at the time. There is no way of predicting this kind of thing and foreseeing how such moves might play out in the future. Everything that happens in the world affects everything else that happens in the world, so it should come as no surprise when allies become enemies and enemies become friends.
Even though it seems like a horrible mess right now, I am hoping that the repercussions of the decision to invade Iraq are positive. Its impossible to say now what will be the state of things in 20 years, but there is also no way to turn back now. It needs to be finished and everyone who has an interest in the freedom and the stability of the rest of the world should lend a hand.
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
I think the circumstances with Iran currently are quite different from the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq. Sure, there are some similarities, but this time there are other countries taking preliminary action against them and it isn't just the US trying to convince the world that these guys are dangerous (their president has taken care of most of that already with his radical and hateful rhetoric, not to mention his nuclear rhetoric--He should take a lesson from SwedenCptStern said:
).jerkasaur said:
Thats a pretty bold statement your making there. US and UK have never invaded a country for the people, always for itself's sake?
I'd begin to argue Somalia and/or other African countries wasnt "for itself's sake". Somalia was being terrorised by Genocide when the Americans invaded.
Sure i believe several invasions done by countries including the USA we're probably done for "other reasons" than "helping the people". Nevertheless stating they never cared about any country they "ruled over" or every invasion is "for its own" sounds a little over the top to me.. (and more like fundementalist propaganda)
Btw, that statement then also includes invading Germany in ww2...
O, and you said "they werent being stoned to death", either way its sick. I showed you examples of a women who was stoned to death.
Amnesty International is pretty objective and is all over Iran and its "Barbaric ways". Sure there are much worse things in the world than that, and "Guantanamo Bay" isnt a holiday inn either, but we cant deny barbarism when we see it...
Also, the Shah as you put it wasnt all that "evil" and doing "nothing for his people" :
Source
Seems he probably wasnt all to super, but also not very terrible as you state him...
What im trying to say is i object Iran's theocracy and fundementalist government and think its wrong. There are lots of brutalities and people being imprisoned because they simply changed religion or became atheist. Its sick.
However i object to any plans etc for invading Iran ( if that would be the case ), since i believe it will only effect the population and grow more hatred towards the west...
jerkasaur
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 1
it's not just the president. people hate US and UK and Sweden for the recent events. don't forget why iran had a revolution.
Edit: Ome, don't give me a wikipedia source for shah. i'm an iranian and i know what has happened for god's sake.
and are you trying to tell me that the US, "likes" people, and that's why it invades countries, oh so that's why it drops bombs on them?
Edit: Ome, don't give me a wikipedia source for shah. i'm an iranian and i know what has happened for god's sake.
and are you trying to tell me that the US, "likes" people, and that's why it invades countries, oh so that's why it drops bombs on them?
wikipedia must be ****ing joking. "support for women's rights", better say, "support for whores' rights".
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
VictimOfScience said:I think the circumstances with Iran currently are quite different from the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq. Sure, there are some similarities, but this time there are other countries taking preliminary action against them and it isn't just the US trying to convince the world that these guys are dangerous (their president has taken care of most of that already with his radical and hateful rhetoric, not to mention his nuclear rhetoric--He should take a lesson from Sweden
posing a threat is not grounds for invasion and is illegal. The US is the only country beating the war drums
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
No, but illegally pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program is illegal and not letting the UN watchdogs do their jobs? That's worse than Saddam certainly--but no cause for war yet, no.CptStern said:
Even from my vantage point, safely tucked away in a secret outpost in the USA, I haven't heard the beating of the war drums and certainly no call for an invasion of Iran. So far, we have no reason to think that this will proceed in anything other than a uniform fashion. Germany, France, and Russia are all much more involved now than they were in the Iraq discussion, so the UN will hopefully be able to do its job properly without the US taking matters into its own hands (though hopefully there will be something more like a coalition of the willing this time around should it all go down).
jerkasaur said:
*Dude, i never said US invasions of countries is ->because they like people. I was just counter-arguing your statement on that they+ UK have never invaded any country for the people, only for themselves. I find that statement rediculous.
*Im dutch but i dont know 100% of whats happened here in holland, or what some politician has done. Hence i trust these sources even over natives like you...
You coming from Iran doesnt prove a more reliable source about the Shah's history, were you alive back then??.
Since the shah was overthrown by your current government i doubt they teach you good stuff about him..
*Supporting whores rights??? could you explain..
jerkasaur
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 1
no but my dad and my grandad and my mom and my grandmom and my relatives and my neighbours and my teachers were. is that enough for ya?
women who dressed up like whores were considered fashionable and "cool", marriage was called "not having the same meaning of love" in movies... .
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
VictimOfScience said:
and you dont see the hypocrisy? the US has nukes up the wazoo and they're far more likely to use them than anyone else because up until this point they're the only ones who have ..besides there's no proof Iran is building an arsenal
VictimOfScience said:
bush included iran in his "axis of evil" rhetoric, bush tried to suggest Iran may have been responsible for 9/11 ..I think it's pretty clear where this is heading
VictimOfScience said:
yes because unlike Iraq Iran hasnt been weakened by over a decade of sanctions, it's infrastructure isnt completely destroyed and it's military hasnt been gutted by western peace treaties ..The US knows they cant do this alone
Iran is no more a threat than it was 30 years ago ..HOWEVER should push come to shove Iran will become a problem out of self defense ...look when Iraq opened it's doors to weapons inspectors in 98, soon after they left clinton bombed 112 out of 120 sites the inspectors had visited ...even though the inspectors had reported finding nothing ......do you think any other nation will ever allow weapons inspectors in?
"I know that the vast majority of the more than 100 targets bombed by the United States and Great Britain during Desert Fox had nothing to do with weapons production capability, but rather the leadership and security establishments of the government of Iraq and that the precision in which these targets were bombed was due in a large part due to the information gathered by weapons inspectors.
I know that Iraq has legitimate grievances regarding the past work of the weapons inspectors and for that reason has sought to keep inspectors from returning to Iraq."
http://www.c-span.org/iraq/ritter.asp
jerkasaur
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 1
iran defeted iraq while it had no military power. citizen's fought for their country, and if it happens again, they would. we won while no one was with us back in 1980. iraq had US and Isreal and lots of other countries supporting it. it ended up that sometimes they killed soldiers with bazookas. but iranians stood up and defeted iraq. now that iran is more powerful, what the hell can the US do? start a war? just because it's pissed off that iran is growing up? i tell you, if a war begins, i'll be one of the millions that would volunteer to protect their country.
-Nope, its good source to get, "a point of view" but not to challenge an encyclopedia...
But just to get this back on track: So let me see if i get it: you're saying there was no strong economical growth during the reign of the shah, and no modernising + women's rights? He was all bad for the country in every way?
And you're basing this off what your parents etc told you?
Im not saying he's good, im just challenging the "all evil fact" just as that US = evil thing..
Let me tell you a little story about the British kings. Alot of times a king was murdered, or overthrown, or something cheated a king's way to power.
Now, the fun part is, how these kinds we're percieved. Richard the Lionheart is seen as "good", but he did nothing but kill muslims and neglect the english people.
Richard the 3e (if i remember correctly
)is seen as Evil, while in fact he was pretty "good". Why do we see him like that today? Basically because his follow-up who probably "stole the crown" had to justify his act and made his predessecor look like a maniac so it would make sense. Now where does this example fit into Iran and why i have my "doubts" on Iranian sources: the current government overthrew the Shah. Simple as that.
For all i know the Shah could have been terrible, but i dont just take the word of the victorious, and as the victorious ones write history and teach new generations....
Now im getting worried... So let me see if i get it: these women dressed up fashionable and they are then "whores" in your eyes?.. and dont deserve rights???
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
So true. We have thousands and thousands and as the world's only superpower, it only makes sense, though any in this world makes it a potentially very dangerous place, especially if another party has them as well. There needs to be some sort of control or else the world would be in worse chaos than it already is. It would be nice if the UN could take control of the world's nukes and either destroy them or use them to enforce their rule as the supposed world governing body. Oh well. Of course, you also don't see us complaining about the nukes that France has. Why? They are a civilized nation without a radical fundamentalist government. That will go a long way in today's political climate.CptStern said:
He included a lot of countries on that list--it doesn't mean that we are planning on invading all of them. I think that everyone in the world now knows that no nation is completely respnsible for carrying out/funding the acts of 9/11, let alone Iraq or Iran. Those were acts of a multinational coalition of terrorists acting on the behalf of the Caliphate they would like to see restored. Trying to convince people otherwise is incompetent in the extreme. I don't think this will be his justification if indeed Iran is next.CptStern said:
True, but Israel could destroy them right now if they wanted--without help-- but we don't see them doing that. They could take out most of the Middle East with little or no trouble, but they don't, even though most of them dislike having them there at all. An interesting situation.CptStern said:
We'd also need more help in terms of troop numbers and global public opinion of course.
Yes--if they are smart, they will allow inspectors to do their job. By not letting them in they are essentially admitting that they are hiding something to the rest of the world. Even if they have nothing to hide, by not letting the inspectors in, world opinion will go one way only.CptStern said:
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
Whether they have good reason to or not, not letting them in will only turn the world against them, so IMO they have more to lose if the rest of the civilized world starts backing an effort to completely reshape that country as well. Still, the Iranians are free to do whatever they want--well, those in power at least. :|CptStern said:
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
but why is it anyone's concern as to what another country does? this is extremely dangerous precedent ...if france doesnt like the way the US handles it's affairs does that give them the right to invade the US?
this has never been about humanitarianism, this has never been about protecting the US ..this is about gaining footholds in strategic areas that will benefit the US's self interests nothing more nothing less ....I think far too many americans believe that the US is some sort of moral authority ... something like this
when it couldnt be further from the truth
this has never been about humanitarianism, this has never been about protecting the US ..this is about gaining footholds in strategic areas that will benefit the US's self interests nothing more nothing less ....I think far too many americans believe that the US is some sort of moral authority ... something like this
when it couldnt be further from the truth
