Girl, 16, hanged in Iran

[Bugsby]

*noticed mistype, and there is no edit button. So, change

These are hellholes because of the system. I was saying the system is not the cause of the hellholes.

to

"These are hellholes because of the system. I was saying the hellholes are not the cause of the system."

Sorry for the confusion.

[MKSheppard]

if you mean like, nuking the whole muslim world, leaving us in indelible irony of slaughtering EVERYONE, including the 16 year girls who could potentially be executed for having a sharp tongue, all the children and all the women and all the generally ordinary people - most of whom value tghier lives and thier religion a lot higher then being anilhlated by the self-righteous USA over this...words fail me.

Damn right I would. We didn't start this war; we've bent over assbackwards for you people,
kept the Israelis from evicting the Palestinians and acted as a counterbalance to them for
30 years by holding their checkbook "Oh, you've been bad little people, no boom boom
money", we sent millions of dollars and oodles of weaponry to help the Mujihadden fight
the Soviet Bear in A-Stan, bombed Christian Serbs to save the asses of Moslems in
Bosnia, but no, we're still the GREAT SATAN who is corruputing their children, and keeping
them from achieving sheriat law.

And of course, it was an Indonesian group that blew up a shitload of innocent Australians
and other people in Bali, and these people are currently fighting to establish sheriat
law over Maylasia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Phillipines.

And of course, there's a current Islamist uprising in Thailand by a bunch of arseholes who
also want to establish sheriat law over Thailand - Thankfully, it's being put down with
appropriate measures of force by the thai government. MG-3s are excellent for sending
hajj to their 72 virgins.

It seems everywhere I turn I see some radical Islamist groups, even ones in the US trying
to raise funds in New York Mosques to buy MANPAD systems, for god knows what use....

The Islamist world is playing a dangerous game; eventually it will go too far and will be
burned off the earth, and the surprising thing is, no one will give a damn about it.

[Durandal]

Thus, this is a purely preventative measure, fully in-line with Bush Doctrine of Preemption.

Ah yes, we all know about John Aschroft and his sordid history
as the LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER in Missouri before he came
to Washington.

yes, indeed, he hung 10,000 heretics in a single day, and wiped an
entire enclave of godless heathens who worshipped their moon god
off the face of the earth with armored bulldozers in the Massacre
of '98.

What, this is all in the history books! Go Look it up!

How about you look a little further back. You know, when the Christian fundamentalists actually did have the power they're so actively trying to regain?

Yes, because we all know that the Christian fundie problem is so bad that people who visit pornography stores are being publically beheaded, strangled to death over a space of 20 minutes, or have had a wall knocked over on them by a tank, and that LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER ASHCROFT has proceeded to cleanse Georgia of the Heathen Brethren by executing 40,000 atheists.

Or that we have bloodthirsty Christian Fundie mobs that routinely fill the streets of Rockville, Maryland, demanding that the blood of the infidel fill the street, IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Yeah, all of this is being suppressed by the evil FUNDIE CONTROLLED MEDIA! Thanks for getting the truth out about this HORRIFIC human rights abuse story!

*sniff*

We all owe you one, Durandal.

See above. Don't pretend that things over here would be any different from Muslim countries if Christian fundamentalists were in charge, you fucking hypocrite.

When are you going to realize that bombs don't kill ideas? That's what education is for.

[Bugsby]

Don't you think that's a bit extreme?

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangels are squares.

All the enemies are muslims*, but not all muslims are enemies.

Whether you are taking the side or world peace or taking the side of "moral high ground," your idea to nuke the middle east to glass accomplishes neither of these things.


*except Kim Jong Il and a few others

[Ma Deuce]

When are you going to realize that bombs don't kill ideas? That's what education is for.

Now I just know someone is going to say something to the effect of: "Bombs do kill ideas if you kill everyone who holds to those ideas", but we all know that doesn't really work.

[MKSheppard]

How about you look a little further back. You know, when the Christian fundamentalists actually did have the power they're so actively trying to regain?

And they haven't had this power for what, hundreds and hundreds of years, and I find your dismissal of the ACLU to be funny. So the ACLU
is powerless before LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER ASHCROFT?

See above. Don't pretend that things over here would be any different from Muslim countries if Christian fundamentalists were in charge, you fucking hypocrite.

*briing briiing*

"Yes LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER ASHCROFT?"

"Ah, yes I see. Indeed. I'll do the job for you."

"SADDLE UP BOYS, WE'VE GOTTA CLEANSE TENNESSEE OF THE HEATHENS!"

PRAISE THE LORD!

What, this is happening right now! Are you so blind you can't see
what's going on RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES?

When are you going to realize that bombs don't kill ideas? That's what education is for.

CALLER: "You can't kill an idea, Mister Liddy!!"

G. GORDON LIDDY: "That's absolutely correct, you CAN'T kill an idea - but you CAN kill all the believers and burn their documents!"

[Joe]

See above. Don't pretend that things over here would be any different from Muslim countries if Christian fundamentalists were in charge, you fucking hypocrite.

They would, though; American Christian fundamentalism, even at its worst, does not approach what Islamic fundamentalism is even today.

[Falkenhayn]

Why should one subscribe to the idea that Iran will fix itself?

[Joe]

Why should one subscribe to the idea that Iran will fix itself?

Because the young population which is getting bigger and more educated every day wants it.

Of course I'm still not convinced that change is just going to happen on it's own without outside interference or a revolution, but we'll have to see.

[MKSheppard]

They would, though; American Christian fundamentalism, even at its worst, does not approach what Islamic fundamentalism is even today.

NO! YOU LIE!

I have seen the burned down cities, the slaughtered Muslims who have
been bathed in pork lard, the Jews who were forced to eat ham sanwiches
before they were SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD, as part of LORD HIGH
EXECUTIONER ASHCROFT'S CHRISTIANIZATION SQUADS!

[Falkenhayn]

Why should one subscribe to the idea that Iran will fix itself?

Because the young population which is getting bigger and more educated every day wants it.

Of course I'm still not convinced that change is just going to happen on it's own without outside interference or a revolution, but we'll have to see.

And therein lies the problem. Predictions put Iran as little as two years away from joining the nuclear club. Wouldn't it be best if the issue could be forced before that time?

The Iranians say that any attack on their nuclear facilities will lead to retaliation against Israel. The only way they would make this threat is if they honestly believe that we will not retaliate with Nuclear Arms against them should it be carried out.

So call their bluff.

[Joe]

And therein lies the problem. Predictions put Iran as little as two years away from joining the nuclear club. Wouldn't it be best if the issue could be forced before that time?

Absolutely, external pressure on the government to reform is out of question if they get ahold of nukes.

[The Cleric]

Internal reform is difficult in a country that is allows for the execution of political dissenters. Although the USSR was kind of like this, Iran is bolstered by the entire region, with very wealthy countries included. There is very little chance of any sort of reform.

[Durandal]

How about you look a little further back. You know, when the Christian fundamentalists actually did have the power they're so actively trying to regain?

And they haven't had this power for what, hundreds and hundreds of years, and I find your dismissal of the ACLU to be funny. So the ACLU is powerless before LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER ASHCROFT?

If Christian fundamentalists ran the government? Of course they would be powerless.

<snip>

They would, though; American Christian fundamentalism, even at its worst, does not approach what Islamic fundamentalism is even today.

Salem Witch Trials? Slavery? I suppose they just didn't happen, right? Historically, it has been similar to Islamic fundamentalism.

Either way, this whole debate is a red herring. Shep proposes nuking the Middle East as a solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. His argument, therefore, is that by killing everyone in the region where Islamic fundamentalism reigns, he has a workable solution to the problem.

I point out that this same logic could be applied to his precious Southern states to solve the problem of Christian fundamentalism. The scale of the problem is not the question here. The question is whether or not it will even work. And the answer, of course, is that it will not. Bombing people for the crime of living in the wrong country doesn't solve problems, except if you count Shep's need for sexual release after inducing an erection from thinking about nuclear fireballs a problem.

[Perinquus]

And in Nazi Germany, good Aryan children were raised to KNOW that they were superior to Jews. But we did, in fact, drop enough bombs to make effective and lasting changes there.

Not so. Anti-semitism was popular in Europe, but it was ahrdly a permanent part of the culture. Were Germans raised from the cradle to KNOW that a Jew was inferior (not just a little contemptible, outright inferior), and lived long enough in that mentality to act on that world-view? No.

Bzzzt! Wrong! Thank you for playing.

Virulent anti-Semitism in Europe goes back centuries. The Nazis merely whipped it up to a fever pitch. They did not create it. There were horrible pogroms in Europe in 1096, coinciding with the First Crusade. They were so bad that some scholars refer to them as "The Medieval Shoah". Guess where they were? The Rhineland. And anti Jewish riots and pogroms flared up again and again all through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and Reformation.

But there were also pogroms in Russia and Poland, the Spanish Inquisition was instituted specifically to ferret out Marranos - secret Jews - who professed Christianity but clung to their Jewish religious practices in private. Martin Luther wrote: ""We are at fault for not slaying them". Ashkenazic Jews throughout central Europe were forced to huddle in their Ghettos for protection.

There is a long and ignoble history of anti-Semitism in Europe. The Nazis only tapped into it. They were able to convince the general population of Germany, as well as that of client states and conquered territories to participate in, or at least tolerate the most savage treatment of Jews because of prevailing attitudes that ran very, very deep in European Christian culture. Hitler and the Nazis simply played upon age old sterotypes that characterized Jews as greedy, treacherous, dishonorable, and subhuman.

And anti-semitism still exists in Europe. There are, however, no death camps still operating. Are you know going to argue that we shouldn't have stopped the Nazis from exterminating Jews because violence just won't change their minds?

See above.

Yes. See above, because you're dead wrong.

All of the above could also be said of Germany and its Nazi ideology, or the U.S.S.R. and its communist ideology (which actually oversaw greater genocides than that of the Nazis).

See above again. The same can be said of the communists. By the time the first generation had grown up, the people had become so disillusioned with the system that no one really supported the commies.

Balderdash! You have people in Russia today pining for the days of the Soviet Union because at least there was less crime, at least there was more order, at least they were still a superpower.

And the Nazis treated Jews poorly.

See above.

Uh oh. The Germans are not, in fact, still exterminating Jews, so it begins to look like you actually can effect change by force sometimes.

See above. And also, the Germans do not have a standing tradition of terrorism. If the Iranians were invading Czechoslovakia(sp?) now, we might have a parallel.

No, we wouldn't. Czechoslovakia is a continent away, far beyond Iran's reach. The Germans never invaded any territory so far from their home country either. The Irish didn't have a standing tradition of terrorism before the 1920s either. Middle Eastern, Arab cultures appear to have developed theirs at about the same time. The American south has no tradition of terrorism, but it nearly developed one. Many were in favor of fighting on via guerilla warfare before Lee nixed the idea and they followed his example. Traditions have to start somewhere. And the Germans could have easily chosen to start one just like the Irish did. Just like the Arabs did. Just like American southerners almost did.

We forced the Nazis in this way.

See above.

Yet terrorist attacks on America by resentful Germans are strangely lacking.

See above. Can you think of a better example than Nazi Germany? I know something of German culture and something of Iranian culture. Not much of either, mind you, but enough to know that they are different enough to make comparisons inadeuqate.

Any analogy breaks down if carried far enough. But human nature is basically the same the world over. And the fact is, you are doing EXACTLY what I said: inventing ad hoc rationalizations to justify condemning one culture while you refuse to condemn another. If a principle is valid, it will apply in all cases. If we are simply wrong to condemn Iran for their abuses, we have no justification for condemning the Nazis for theirs.

Yes it is. They have a system that squanders a huge percentage of their human capital, and is directly responsible for them remaining shitty, backward, third world-hellholes.

Mixing cause and effect here. These are hellholes because of the system. I was saying the system is not the cause of the hellholes. Unless you are suggesting that this is a continuous downward spiral. If you are, say so, and I will refute that.

No, I am not confusing cause and effect. When people adopt counterproductive practices, is stunts their development. These places remain hellholes because they do things like throw away the talent of half their population, fail to develop because they subscribe to an extreme form of religion which is fundamentally anti-intellectual and opposed to change and progress, foster an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism and intolerance which makes people reluctant to espouse new and potentially distuptive ideas, etc.

The British didn't take this approach in India, and yet they did stamp out the practice of suttee, and the thuggee cult, and did mitigate the plight of the untouchables.

The untouchables are still in existance. The caste system is still an essentail part of everyday life, even if it is not as pronounced as it was beforehand.

And why do you suppose that is? Because the British ruled over them long enough to make some of their own ideas about human rights and justice sink in. I never claimed the untouchables no longer existed. I claimed that western ideas about human rights and equality had mitigated the plight of the untouchables. And where do you suppose the Indians got such ideas? From British overlords who effected some reforms by force, or the threat of force. That's where.

Also, you forget the problems that colonialism brought about.

No, I haven't. You need to go back and read my posts more carefully. Pay particular attention to the one where I acknowledged that imperialism had many bad effects as well as good ones.

Not just at the time, but afterwards. The fight between India and Pakistan can be traced back to British colonailism.

It can also be traced back to Muslim conquests of much of India, which created the strife between Hindus and Muslims in the first place. There's lots of blame to go around.

So if you want to prove that colonialism is the most good for the most people, you are not convincing me.

Thank you for missing my point entirely. I am not defending colonialism, and I have even stated as much. I am merely using examples from the colonial era of major cultural shifts which were effected in precisely the way you say it is impossible to effect them.

I am not really in favor of invading Iran at this point either. I think we would do better to have the CIA covertly fund the opposition forces in Iran and try to effect change from within. I merely point out that your arguments are not nearly as solid as you seem to think. Every thing you said about Iran could also be applied to Nazi Germany, and yet we were able to effect change by waging war, and then occupying the country with a military government.

Im not for waging war either. But as I said above, Nazi Germany is not a good enough parallel with Iran. Germany had a bad policy that led to countless human rights violations. So does Iran. There the similarities stop. Germany is Christian, Iranians are Muslim.

And both are religions derived from Judaism and the Hebraic monotheism. Try again.

Germany was run by demagogues, Iran is run by religious leaders.

I see. And religious leaders are never demogogic. They never employ tactics like speaking to mass audiences, using indoctrination techniques, playing on people's emotions, making people feel like part of a select group of superior, chosen people, etc.

This is nonsense. Charismatic religious leaders speaking from the pulpit use almost exactly the same bag of tricks that Hitler did to gain followers, and whip crowds up into a frenzy when he spoke.

There are a number of other differences, but these two are the most important. You cannot say that these differences are insubstantial enough that the same solution that worked for Nazi Germany would work for Iran.

In detail, no. the specifics of any case will be quite different, and require different methods and solutions. In principle, on the other hand, I see no convincing evidence that it would not. If the political will today existed to create in Iraq a government like the British Raj in India, and to carry it on as long as the Raj was, it could not help but lead to profound cultural changes.

I am not saying this is the ideal solution. But I am saying that your idea that A. all cultures are equal, and B. we can't possibly use military force effectively, so we should never even try are nonsense, and history has plenty of examples to prove it.

[Gil Hamilton]

On anti-Semetism in Germany, it says something that one of Martin Luther's more famous booklets was "On the Jews and Their Lies", which reads like bad neo-nazi literature with old literature phrasing.

[Joe]

Salem Witch Trials? Slavery? I suppose they just didn't happen, right? Historically, it has been similar to Islamic fundamentalism.

Slavery had more to do with economics and human greed than religion; they may have used religion to justify it, but that wasn't the real reason. And slavery in Islamic Arab countries was FAR more brutal than it was in the Christian Americas and remains that way in Sudan.

As for the Salem Witch Trials, undoubtedly an unforgivable crime against humanity, but a fairly isolated event nonetheless.

Christian fundies (excluding the most extreme fundies, of course) in America have never taken knives to the clitorises of baby girls, they've never stoned women to death on the suspicion of fornication or adultery and then given the man involved a slap on the wrist, they've never chopped off your hand for stealing, they've never strapped bombs to their children and sent them to go self-detonate for Jesus, they've never made honor killing officially sanctioned government policy, they've never done all kinds of horrible things that Islamic law inflicts on those unfortunate enough to live under it.

Christian fundamentalism in America has been bad for human beings, make no mistake, and it still is bad for human beings. But as a source of human suffering, it simply does not rise to the same level as extremist Islam.

[Falkenhayn]

Taking a breather from "4h! t3h 3v1l phundeez!!!111one+shift"

At least Joe and I are in agreement that a popular revolution against the Mullahcracy must take place before a nuclear weapon is put on the tip of a knocked off Taepo-Dong.

All revolutions need a spark, and nothing provides such motivation like an atrocity or otherwise "Intolerable Act" perpetrated by the Government in question. I don't think it is beyond the scope of the CIA to create a state of affairs, through planted agents, paid shills or otherwise, that provokes a dramatic and suitably brutal response from the Revolutionary Guard in putting down a demonstration.

Conspiracy Theory of the Day:

Iranian intelligence agents, who have already be captured in some number in Iraq, are manipulating the insurgency to sabotage Iraq's oil production in order to increase 1) The price of oil and 2) Iran's Market Share, thus rendering them invulnerable to any kind of international sanction by virtue of the "Oil Weapon" and effectively in control of a large portion of the world economy by dint of Europe and Asia's burgeoning consumption and over reliance on Mid Eastern sources, until they produce a functioning ICBM and are therefore beyond reach.

They are then free to make almost any regional powerplay they so chose using Israel and perhaps Turkey as hostages, while continuing war by proxy through their fronts in Hezbollah and Hamas. The trump is a reliance on Pan-Islamism to shield them from any attempted invasion, and that any foreign incursion will simply rally the people to their cause and destroy that of the reformers.

[AniThyng]

if you mean like, nuking the whole muslim world, leaving us in indelible irony of slaughtering EVERYONE, including the 16 year girls who could potentially be executed for having a sharp tongue, all the children and all the women and all the generally ordinary people - most of whom value tghier lives and thier religion a lot higher then being anilhlated by the self-righteous USA over this...words fail me.

Damn right I would. We didn't start this war; we've bent over assbackwards for you people,
kept the Israelis from evicting the Palestinians and acted as a counterbalance to them for
30 years by holding their checkbook "Oh, you've been bad little people, no boom boom
money", we sent millions of dollars and oodles of weaponry to help the Mujihadden fight
the Soviet Bear in A-Stan, bombed Christian Serbs to save the asses of Moslems in
Bosnia, but no, we're still the GREAT SATAN who is corruputing their children, and keeping
them from achieving sheriat law.

And of course, it was an Indonesian group that blew up a shitload of innocent Australians
and other people in Bali, and these people are currently fighting to establish sheriat
law over Maylasia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Phillipines.

And of course, there's a current Islamist uprising in Thailand by a bunch of arseholes who
also want to establish sheriat law over Thailand - Thankfully, it's being put down with
appropriate measures of force by the thai government. MG-3s are excellent for sending
hajj to their 72 virgins.

right-no arguements with the machine gunning of seperatists there. but i thought by your philosophy, what the Thai government should be doing is raze every muslim village and slaughter every muslim man woman and child

as for the Bali bombing - like Madrid, one of the motivations for the Bali bombing was Australia's support for the Bush "war on terror" IIRC. that is a far more relevent connection then the rethoric about western decadance
(and that group has pretty much lost all it's power anyway - the whole "south east asian islamic state" idea will never wash with most ordinary people here, which is precisely why they are limited to isolated terror attacks- the weapon of the weak. [put it this way - i live in Malaysia and i do not fear going to the nightclub district where alot of the expatrites hang out on weekends - no one's going to be planting a bomb there and blowing them and me to hell - at least not with any reasonable level of probability]

- i mean come on - middle aged muslim women here wear jeans and fitting T-shirts, and while are are assholes who condemn this, they are not very different from the people who declare Janet's tit's unsuitable for public TV in your country. [that is not necessarily true in the rural malay heartland, but i'm a child of the city, so meh.] [on a side note, one does wonder. i know malay(muslim) girls who will wear a headscrave, AND a baby-tee + tight jeans- now there's the definition if lip service]

what is the point of this? it's to illustrate it is possible for Islam and the modern world to coexist - and while we are somewhat far from this in the middle east, especially in Saudi Arabia - the fact that liberal muslims can and do exist in parts of the world not mired in the various other factors that fuck up the middle east is enough to invalidate the "kill them all" idea.

[i mean, should the British have "solved" the IRA terror problem by razing all catholic enclaves, or just wiping ireland out from the face of the earth? ]

[Darth Wong]

Christian fundamentalism in America has been bad for human beings, make no mistake, and it still is bad for human beings. But as a source of human suffering, it simply does not rise to the same level as extremist Islam.

America is a young country, historically speaking. It did not exist as a nation during the height of Christian atrocities, so this is a bit of a dodge on your part. Historically, medieval Christians in Europe did do most of the things that modern Muslim extremists do.

The modern prevailing interpretation of the Bible prohibits theocracy, but it's quite frankly absurd to say that the Bible intrinsically does so, since it contradicts itself on numerous levels and was interpreted as overt support for theocracy for centuries (does the "divine right of kings" ring a bell?).

[The Cleric]

While that may be true Mike, Durandal was claiming that if the US suddenly became a theocracy, we'd have the same level of repression as Iran and other islamic nations. That statement is rediculous.

[Darth Wong]

While that may be true Mike, Durandal was claiming that if the US suddenly became a theocracy, we'd have the same level of repression as Iran and other islamic nations. That statement is rediculous.

Why? It wouldn't happen overnight, but given a couple of centuries with no more Bill of Rights and theocratic control of the state, I think it's inevitable that we would start seeing a return of medieval behaviour.

[The Cleric]

While that may be true Mike, Durandal was claiming that if the US suddenly became a theocracy, we'd have the same level of repression as Iran and other islamic nations. That statement is rediculous.

Why? It wouldn't happen overnight, but given a couple of centuries with no more Bill of Rights and theocratic control of the state, I think it's inevitable that we would start seeing a return of medieval behaviour.

If you were able to eliminate the centuries of learning, then yes, it might. Most of teh cruelty of the middle ages stemmed from ignorance and fear, which are not as prevelant today.

[Falkenhayn]

Christian fundamentalism in America has been bad for human beings, make no mistake, and it still is bad for human beings. But as a source of human suffering, it simply does not rise to the same level as extremist Islam.

America is a young country, historically speaking. It did not exist as a nation during the height of Christian atrocities, so this is a bit of a dodge on your part. Historically, medieval Christians in Europe did do most of the things that modern Muslim extremists do.

The modern prevailing interpretation of the Bible prohibits theocracy, but it's quite frankly absurd to say that the Bible intrinsically does so, since it contradicts itself on numerous levels and was interpreted as overt support for theocracy for centuries (does the "divine right of kings" ring a bell?).

In terms of Christian Theocracy, what is your opinion of the Byzantine Empire?

[Thinkmarble]

If you were able to eliminate the centuries of learning, then yes, it might. Most of teh cruelty of the middle ages stemmed from ignorance and fear, which are not as prevelant today.

Gosh, I'm happy that we have had century of lerning so that it can not happen that people propose genocide by nuking the middle east.