Iran to hang teenage girl attacked by rapists

[Burning Water]

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.


snip

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

Last week, a court in the city of Rasht, northern Iran, sentenced Delara Darabi to death by hanging charged with murder when she was 17 years old. Darabi has denied the charges.

In August 2004, Iran’s Islamic penal system sentenced a 16-year-old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, to death after a sham trial, in which she was accused of committing “acts incompatible with chastity”.

The teenage victim had no access to a lawyer at any stage and efforts by her family to retain one were to no avail. Atefeh personally defended herself and told the religious judge that he should punish those who force women into adultery, not the victims. She was eventually hanged in public in the northern town of Neka.


Three separate women. Three of them!!! No lawyers. Cripes.



http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5184

[blm]

1. And this is what Iraq will look like soon, thanks to Bush handing it over

to fundamentalist extremists.

[Burning Water]

6. Might well be.

People have to have a certain amount of self-restraint and tolerance for others to run a viable country. Still, the Iraqis were, and are, in a hard place. Is it better to be sentenced to death for being raped, or defending yourself from rape, or is it better to be raped and then murdered?

What are the alternatives for the Iraqis? Let's just hope it all turns out better than we expect, 'cause what we expect is pretty bad.

[Maru Kitteh]

210. Delete

Delete

[Fovea]

19. Iraq?

This is where Murika is heading.

[Zinfandel]

141. Iran Focus "News" is a pro Bush, right-wing propaganda, read the stories

for yourself...Any story that will help get Americans behind Bush's planned attack on Iran will be put forth, bogus or not...Remember the 'babies throw out of Incubators by Hussein' bullshit stories, (Pappy Bush put forth to support his invasion of Iraq)?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

'Iran Focus': 'fair and balanced'. What does that remind you of? Apparently the whole story about Iranian president-elect Ahmadinejad is bogus. The NY Gray Rag Lady is bogus. So what else is new?

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2005/07/move_over_zarqa.html

[blm]

151. Heh...I know it's a propaganda piece - that's why I always turn it around

to highlight Bush's roles in these scenarios.

My way of tripping the operatives who plant this crap.

[Zinfandel]

153. Your absolutely right...it is, "Planted CRAP"!

To make Iranians seem less than human to Americans and American women in particular...

So Bush can gather support to bomb those "devils" before they bomb us...

Where have we heard this bullshit before and how many more times are Americans going to fall for this sick, BushCo lying propaganda?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

204. Crap?

You're saying you have evidence that it isn't true? Or that you think that if it is true then it doesn't matter? Or that you don't have evidence that it isn't true, but you think the source is so unreliable that you're going to ignore it anyhow?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to think this is anything but bullshit. Too many liberals are inclined to try and pin the blame for all the evil in the world at Bush's door, and I think this is evidence of a clear lack of perspective - things close up always look bigger.

It is important to remember that while Bush is clearly a bad leader (probably the second-worst president America has had in the last 70 years) there are a great many leaders a whole order of magnitude worse out there, and that while the American fundamentalist Christian right is very unpleasant indeed, the middle-eastern fundamentalist Muslim right is almost incomparably worse than all but the most lunatic fringe (Fred Phelps might give them a run for their money).

I suspect this article is not terribly representative of life in Iran, but nor is it as unrepresentative as it should be, and the fact that it happened at all is more than bad enough.




P.S. "less than human"? What species, apart from humans, has ever gone in for committing atrocities like this?

[Bushy Being Born]

206. Well aren't you just full of compassion

Never mind that these things go on over there, because, since Bush may use this to his own gain, I don't have to care!

[No Exit]

193. Teenage girl hit by police car is charged with destroying property

because the windshield broke when her body slammed up against it as she was being hit.

Now, this was not a death penalty case, but wouldn't you say that it was an injustice?

This happened in the good old U.S.A. So I guess we should invade ourselves!:shrug:

[Burning Water]

214. Are you seroiusly

comparing the two cases?? I find it hard to beleive that any decent human being would even beginn to.

I don't know the details, either. Maybe she casued the police car to crash?? Got a link? But, yeah, if it happened the way you say, it was an injustice. So, we have to be perfect before we criticize other countries violations of human rights??

OK, I get it. :sarcasm:

[No Exit]

215. "Link", my ass. I was there in court.

She did not cause the police car to crash. The story is this:

There was a vacant house in a black neighborhood. Sometimes neighborhood teenagers would sit around on the front steps of this house. The police periodically shooed them away, and warned them.

This girl was not a "regular" at the forbidden front stoop, but she (like most teens) would walk in the neighborhood, and like most teenaged girls (ever been one?) she and her friends would quietly be checking out nearby teenage boys as they walked. Some "cute" boys hailed them to the forbidden porch one day, and they did, on that day, go on the forbidden steps.

The police showed up a street or two away and a younger child came and told the kids "hey, they're coming to tell y'all get off the porch". The teenagers scattered. The girl in question ran and ducked down an alley. Unfortunately, when she ran around a corner, the police car, which was going fairly fast FOR AN ALLEY (fairly fast for an alley is not a super-fast speed--which was why she was not badly injured when they hit her) hit her. I repeat: the police car HIT HER. The impact threw her up on the hood, and threw her against their windshield hard enough to break it.

THAT WAS ALL. No guns, no drugs, no theft, nothing but her having been on a porch where she wasn't supposed to be, and having left the porch very quickly when she thought she might get in trouble for being there.

And these police officers, and the Assistant District Attorney, had the nerve to come into that courtroom and charge her with criminal damage to property for her INVOLUNTARY motion of flying up onto their windshield because they HIT HER with their car.

The girl had no criminal record.

It took several hearings and a LOT of arguing to convince the judge that this charge should not stand. Why? Because the police officers were afraid of a lawsuit, and they and their agency thought the best defense was to go on the offense. So when the judge asked them what THEY thought of the charge being dropped, they were adamant that they did not want it dropped. This business of preferring a charge against someone who they're afraid has a legitimate grievance against police--this is frequently done in the world of cops and accused persons. I know, because I have been a prosecutor.

Finally the judge agreed to drop the ludicrous criminal damage to property charge--but the DA and the cops still wanted to make the girl pay for the cracked windshield.

Thanks for saying that you don't believe I'm a decent human being.

My main point: DON'T FALL FOR ALL THE INFLAMMATORY STORIES THAT WE ARE AND WILL BE TOLD ABOUT WHAT HORRIBLE PEOPLE THE IRANIANS ARE. Don't you GET IT? How could you have lived through TWO Iraq wars, plus have read this forum long enough to gather over 800 posts, and NOT have figured it out by now? They (meaning, the neocons, those who want the war, the Bushistas, etc.) want to inflame us against the Iranians. They want us to get mad at the Iranians to the point where we don't think of the Iranians as being worthwhile people--that way, when the Bushistas lead the charge (using OUR blood and money, of course) to attack Iran, the hoodwinked people in the U.S. will be egging it on, saying "Bomb Iran!!!"

Do you remember hearing the story about how the Baathist Iraqis "took the babies out of the incubators and left them on the cold floor to die"? I do. That story was a LIE. Do you remember the CNN story (complete with disgusting video) about Saddam gassing helpless dogs for no good reason? I do. That story was a LIE. Do you believe that Nick Berg's beheading actually was done by those we are told were the perpetrators? The whole thing was fishy. LIE, anyone?

This death penalty story may be accurate, or it may not be accurate. If you don't speak Persian, don't come to me and tell me YOU know better than I do whether or not this story is accurate as it appeared in that internet site. We don't know whether this girl was still in imminent danger from the alleged rapist, at the time she stabbed him. Consider this: if you stab a guy in order to prevent him from raping you, that's one thing. But if a guy rapes you and then finishes his tormenting of you, and you then jump up and stab him because you are extremely angry and overwrought (who wouldn't be), you are not stabbing him in self-defense. So you would be guilty of a crime. That's the law in THIS country. If that's what happened, then under OUR law the girl would be prosecuted.

The American story about the windshield is true. I was there.

"So, we have to be perfect before we criticize other countries violations of human rights??" Why are you so dismissive of others' viewpoints? This is a pretty bitchy remark. Okay, so you want to talk about other countries' violations of human rights. But we've done the Iranians. Let's start on some other countries. I vote we next discuss Israel's human rights violations. Then we can move on to Pakistan's, say. Then Saudi Arabia's. Oh, and let's talk about those of Iraq under our benificent leadership.

Thanks to Bush, we are now a pariah country. Yeah, boy, we're really in a position to talk about other countries and how unfair and uncompassionate they are.:sarcasm:

[Burning Water]

217. "Thanks for saying that you don't believe I'm a decent human being."

Excuse me. There seem to be some serious reading comprehension problems going on around here. I never accused you of anything. I asked a specific questions which you have yet to specifically answer, which is, do you seriously think the two situations are comparable? However, if the shoe fits.

I have no reason to doubt you, and if things are as you say then yes, a miscarriage of justice was performed. Still, it's not like the fellow who I read about who has spent 20 years in jail on a false charge of rape, and they won't let him go because, as you said, the bureaucracy doesn't want to admit it made a mistake. That took place in the USA, too, so I won't bother to google it up, as, if I admitted the validity of your argument, which I don't, it would support your position.

Here's the difference. In America, mistakes do happen, corrupt police officers and judges will try to cover their sorry asses, but the system is set up to try to discover the truth, and to protect the innocent.

In this story, the Iranian system seems to be set up to protect the guilty, the rapist. In the USA,if a woman stabbed a man immediately after he raped her, she might be charged with voluntary manslaughter, but I doubt seriously she would be charge with murder in most jurisdictions. And she certainly wouldn't be charged with capital murder.

"So, we have to be perfect before we criticize other countries violations of human rights??" Why are you so dismissive of others' viewpoints? This is a pretty bitchy remark. Okay, so you want to talk about other countries' violations of human rights. But we've done the Iranians. Let's start on some other countries. I vote we next discuss Israel's human rights violations. Then we can move on to Pakistan's, say. Then Saudi Arabia's. Oh, and let's talk about those of Iraq under our beneficent leadership.

Well, freedom to criticize cuts both ways. Other countries do not feel inhibited about criticizing the USA, nor should they, but if they can't stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen (Harry Truman). I don't dismiss other's viewpoints at all. But I have my own, which I think are more correct. If I didn't, I would change them. I'm certainly willing to talk about violations of human rights by any of the other countries that you mentioned.

Finally, it may be that the Bushies are trying to inflame us. But DOES THAT MAKE THE STORY UNTRUE?? It might be untrue, but if true, well there should be some outrage. Doesn't mean we have to support war, but it does mean we should at least discuss the issue, write letters, something.

[No Exit]

223. Obviously, the difference is one of degree.

Being sentenced to death for defending yourself from rape by killing the rapist is the worst, your other example of the accused rapist who turns out to be innocent after spending 20 years in jail, is bad, and my example of a girl who is charged with destroying property for being run over by police is the least bad--in degree.

It just happened to be a story that I thoroughly knew, and whose injustice really was at the point of being ludicrous.

I don't know if this story about this girl in Iran is true. You don't know, either, according to your own last paragraph. There is one thing, however: If you re-read that original story about this Iranian girl, you can kind of see that there is a LOT to the story that we are not told in the article. This may not be b/c the article wants to hide something; it may just be b/c there was a lot that happened, and there maybe wasn't space to explain it all in one little article.

But neither you nor I read Persian. And it is a fact that there is an organization--I believe its acronym is MEMRI--whose sole purpose is to deliberately cherry-pick the worst and most outrageous news out of the Muslim world and highlight the worst stories, and translate them to English. It ends up giving us a skewed picture.

It would be as though some country took ONLY the bad stories out of our country and never reported the good things. We'd look pretty bad, say, if only Bush were reported on, and Reid or Feingold or Conyers or Boxer, etc., were never reported on. (Hey... that's almost how it actually is, at least, here, among our own media...)

While I'm concerned about injustice in the world, I feel that we first need to work on nipping the current U.S. trend towards fascism (i.e., the continuation of the Bush regime) in the bud. I will await further confirmation of this Iranian outrage. I'm still smarting from the time some 15 years ago when I recoiled in horror that "Saddam's men took the babies out of the incubators and left them on the cold floor to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and it turned out to be 100% a LIE, told by a rich, privileged little Iraqi (or was it Kuwaiti?) ambassador's daughter whose family was thick as thieves with the Bush family. Said lie was told for the express purpose of inflaming the American public against Iraq, so we'd all cheer on Gulf War I. And we fell for it. In the immortal words of George W. Bush: "Fool me once, shame on you.... ..... ....... ............. ........ .......... ....you can't get fooled again."

[Burning Water]

224. Fair enough.

Perhaps I over-reacted to you, personally. If so, I apologize.

The subject matter truly upset me, however; I believe it, and I can't and don't apologize for that. Not everything can be judged in relation to "does Bush benefit". If true, then I don't care if Bush benefits. Fighting him is not the be all and end all of morality. Fighting these kind of horrors must count for something, too.

If false, it's just one more crime to add to those he's already committed.

Cheers:)

[No Exit]

225. Okay

Naturally the subject matter inflamed you. As it was presented, it was truly a horror story.

Frankly, if a girl who was brutally raped did, after the rapist had ceased to threaten her, go after him with a vengeance, I admit I wouldn't exactly cry for whatever happened to the rapist. If he died, I'm afraid I'd be hard-pressed to get too upset, after what he'd done to the girl. But unfortunately the law (at least, here) says you can't legally do revenge killings.

OTOH, maybe this wasn't revenge... maybe this was self-defense. In that case, her act was justified. If so, then her sentence IS an outrage.

Maybe someday we'll learn many more details of this story.

True, not everything can be looked at on the scale of benefits Bush/doesn't benefit Bush. My own perspective on these horror stories out of the Muslim world is, however, that I think they are propaganda. Your mileage may vary, no problem.

And, yeah, his crimes do pile up, don't they?:hi:

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. Welcome to the world of most women in the world!

[Skidmore]

4. Exactly.

[Skidmore]

3. Shari'a.

Wonder what happened to the man? Probably not a thing.

Request...can you lose the very large font. This stuff just kills dialups. I really hate it when this type of font is chosen.

[Burning Water]

10. Sorry about that. It's my first time

experimenting with font sizes. Let me see what I can do.

[Burning Water]

11. Taken car of n/t

[Skidmore]

13. Thanks.

Hope I didn't sound too cranky.

[Burning Water]

16. Not at all.

I'm sorta new at this. I didn't know.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. If Shari'a was truly followed, the man would be there, too

Sadly, so many countries in the Middle East reverted to the anti-women mode they had before the Prophet. It says quite clearly in the Qur'an that if a man and a woman are found in a sexual liason outside marriage, they are both punished. I don't have my copy of the Qur'an here at work (don't want to lose my job), but I will look up what it says about rape.

[breakfastofchampions]

154. If you need to check ...

If you're not sure if the Koran says anything other than "the person getting raped is in no way at fault" then it's probably wrong.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

179. I wanted to make sure what I said was accurate

As I thought, the word "rape" is not mentioned in the Qur'an at all. I looked through my one book that has some translations of hadiths (sayings of the Prophet (pbuh)) and again couldn't find anything. I had my husband check in his hadith collection online and he couldn't find anything.

The closest thing I could find comes from the sura Nur, which means Light:

Verse 3-
Do not let a man guilty of adultery or fornication marry anyone other than a similarly guilty woman, or a disbeliever. And do not let anyone other than such a man marry such a woman. To the Believers such a thing is forbidden.

Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

[PsychoDad]

190. The Quran does not address rape directly

As a punishment for rape is not mentioned in the Quran, Sharia or Islamic Law must look to the hadeeth/sayings of our Prophet (peace be upon him} for the verdict or law for punishing the rapist.

Let us look at what Prophet Muhammad said regarding this issue:


Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:

"When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (saw). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to the woman: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. And about the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death."

So, you see, in the eyes of Muhammad, and therefor in the eyes of Islamic Law, Sharia, the woman was blameless whereas the man was put to death.

Saudi Arabia today applies the death penalty for the punishment of rape. The following quote was taken from an article from CNN.COM regarding the punishment of a rapist. He was punished to death:

"Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and Washington's closest Arab ally for more than a half century, follows a strict interpretation of Islam that calls for the death penalty for murder, rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery. (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/07/20/saudi.beheading.ap/index.html)"

Peace.

[pocket]

47. font size doesn't matter as far as download speed goes.

It's all just plain text until your browser decides how to display it.

[Skidmore]

62. Well, then, what could my computer be yucking up on?

I just know the threads I have a hard time loading are those with lots of pictures and those with the really large fonts.

[pocket]

100. pictures yes

images are different.

[killbotfactory]

58. She killed the man

that's presumably why she's being murdered

[Skidmore]

60. Do you think she would be put to death here for self defense?

[killbotfactory]

87. Of course not

We also don't hang homosexuals for being homosexual, at least lawfully.

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. Up through the 70s it happened all the time, here.

Only in the past 30 years have we progressed to where self-defense against rape could be used as a justification for killing the rapist.

Can't quote specifics, but I remember reading about the cases when I was a kid.

[Burning Water]

93. I'd like to see

a link to that. I've been around a lot longer than 30 years, and recall no such thing.

Unless maybe your'e talking something like "spousal" rape??

But "stranger" rape? I don't think so.

[dogday]

5. Think this is just exclusive to Iran

check Saudi Arabia and some other countries out...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen,

[Burning Water]

12. I'm not arguing with you, just

wondering what they all have in common.

[dogday]

17. They let the law of Islam (or their view of it) rule the land

the men are never at fault, it is always the woman. Countries like that don't need dogs, they have women.... I wasn't trying to argue, there are so many it makes me mad... But understand Iran is not the only one...

[Burning Water]

21. I never said Iran

was the only one. Where did that idea come from?

[dogday]

23. Because you just posted the word Iran

I wanted to enlighten you as to how many other countries are into this.

[Burning Water]

27. I posted the

word "Iran" because that's the location that the story concerned. I can't recite the history of the world every time I want to pass along information. Believe me, I know that other countries do this.

What's the point?

[dogday]

38. I was trying to enlighten, how was I to know you knew that?

just adding on to the story you posted by posted some additional information on other countries that does this. That was the point in my first post, my second, and now this one...

[Burning Water]

43. OK

point taken :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. The real point behind this is

BAD IRAN! MUST BE SPANKED!

Gotta justify our coming attack on the evil-doers.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Their view of it

Before the Qur'an came, people in this part of the world actually practiced infanticide with their female babies. They stole doweries from women, and "divorced" them as soon as they used up their money. The Qur'an forbids that sort of thing. Mohammed (pbuh) said that women were to be treated with respect-a hadith (saying of the Prophet) has a Muslim questioning Mohammed on what he should do with his wife, who didn't get along with him. The Prophet answered that first you try and talk it out, next you sleep apart. The Muslim asked if he could beat his wife, and the Prophet answered only with your toothbrush-which at the time was a twig. The point was that Muslims were to treat their women with respect. The Path of Islam has sadly deteriorated since the time of the Prophet, and people have reverted to their old ways.

[Skidmore]

81. That is so.

I was married to a Muslim man. We divorced for other reasons. However, I always found the extended family and the other people I came into contact with to be very respectful of women. Only once or twice did I come into contact with men who treated there women very badly.

[smirkymonkey]

124. Why so much hatred toward women in that part of the world?

Not that it doesn't exist everywhere, but not nearly to the extent that it does in the ME.

[Deja Q]

185. Probably scapegoating, "justified" by their religion.

Hell, Christianity has a lot of anti-women and pro-slavery rhetoric in it as well. (almost all of it contained in the Old Testament, go figure... the New Testament being written for a rather better reason!)

[Deja Q]

183. Bingo.

And it's sad.

And depraved.

Propaganda is one thing, but there comes a point - by Iranian women who come to the US to escape that hell - where it's not just propaganda, it's REALITY. Iran, et al, are sick countries. The US isn't perfect, but its human rights record is still far better - and a higher standard of living. And those are why we have immigrants in the first place.

[WildEyedLiberal]

194. No shit, and why don't more people realize that?

You nailed it spot on. THIS is the quote-unquote "liberal" position. I fail to understand how so-called liberals here can justify the wretched treatment of women, homosexuals, infidels, etc etc in these fundamentalist Muslim theocracies SIMPLY BECAUSE these countries happen to hate BUSH?

Jesus. Some things in life are more important than hating Bush - like a teenage girl getting raped and then hanged for defending herself.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

7. Not that I don't think this is absolutely horrible but...

I imaging more and more of these Iran-damning stories will be making their ways to the news during the runup to the next war. Kind of like the Uday & Qusay stories in '02.

[Burning Water]

14. I certainly hope that

you are wrong, but am afraid you might be right.

Still, this is a serious human rights problem. Taking war off the table, as I think we must, and should, what can we do about this tragedy. Should we do anything, or should we respect their culture? I'm not suggesting anything here. I don't have the answer, and I'm looking. This is just horrifying.

[CJCRANE]

122. A link to a human/women's rights organisation

would be helpful with these kind of posts.

Then those concerned can get involved and make their voices heard and learn more about these types of situations.

[Burning Water]

129. Yes, unfortunatley,

I have not been active in this area previously.

I think I will change that.

Tahnk you for a useful suggestion.

[Lerkfish]

15. yeppers. My thought exactly. When do we get the babies from incubators?

again, not to detract from very real atrocious situations, but I'm highly suspect of the timing of the catapulting of the propaganda.

[Bridget Burke]

8. Dreadful, of course.

But why don't we see more reporting on women's status in "friendly" countries?

Pakistan, for instance (already a nuclear power!)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3244725.stm

Or our good friend, Saudi Arabia--more than just women's rights reported here:

www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm

[Burning Water]

18. Yes, why

are these countries ALL having this problem? What do they have in common?

I'm not necessarily talking about Islam, either, although that is one thing.

[Bridget Burke]

31. I'm questioning why Iran is in the spotlight.

Aside from the fact that Bush wants to bomb and/or invade and/or occupy it & grab their oil? How many women died horribly in Iraq when we invaded? How many are living more restrictive lives than they did under Saddam?

Let's ensure that no women are beaten & killed in this country before we invade to "help" those less advanced.

[Burning Water]

42. Well, first of all,

I don't think the article was about invading Iran.

Second, even if Bush is pushing propaganda, that doesn't mean that everything he can use should be suppressed or ignored. This stuff is horrible, and to suggest that it shouldn't be mentioned because Bush might use it to advance his agenda is, well, hypocritical. We car about women's rights, human rights, or we do not.

The women that died horribly is Iraq when we invaded is a problem that should also be addressed, but not here. Big problems are solved, not all at once, but by breaking them down into little problems and solving them one at a time.

You're never going to ensure that NO women are beaten and killed in this country. What we can do is ensure that those that do so are punished. But we can't ignore the rest of the world until we live in a perfect country, either.

I'm not saying we should do anything about it. I'm just putting the information out there. How you handle it is your concern, not mine. But if this is a propaganda campaign by Bushco, then how do we counter it? By saying, "Those women don't mean a damn? We don't care about those women?" I don't think that would be a good strategy. And that's what we're doing if we ignore this completely. Maybe that's OK with you, just so long as Bush doesn't use it to help launch his newest war. What do you want to bet that he does?

But I really wasn't thinking much about Georgie when I posted this. I just though how horrible it is that a government won't protect women from rape, hangs them if they get raped, hangs them if they kill the rapist defending themselves, and won't provide them with a lawyer.

[centristo]

166. i agree

some here seem to deny that Saddam committed atrocities of any kind. Look, Saddam was a bad mofo and did terrible things, but just because Bush used that info doesn't make it false. Iran has some shady things going on and just because the neo-con agenda is unilateral mililtary regime change doesn't mean that the shady things aren't really going on.

Of course, we do need to keep our eyes and ears open to watch for the "catapulting of the propaganda".

[Burning Water]

218. I agrre.

We must not let this be used as an excuse to war.

But there is no reason to ignore by saying, "Well, that's the way they do things over there", either.

[Buck Rabbit]

177. Bullshit, Muslims take rape deadly seriously.

Unlike the Untied Sates, Iran and the countries, Bridget mentioned, equate rape to murder. Rapists aren't put on predator lists they are beheaded or slow hung (strangulation not neck snapping.)

I wonder how the 600,000 rapes a year in the United States measures against the number of rapes in the Muslim world.

Also attempted rape is a defense against murder in Iran. In early 2005 a woman was acquitted for killing a senior police officer using that defense.

In this case it appears they don't believe the girl, but we don't have any idea what the prosecutions case is, as your link and other freeperish sites posting this story include no link to the originating reports.

[The Magistrate]

199. That Is Cute, Sir, As Theory

But in practice, male witnesses to the act are generally required, and a woman's word held quite insufficient. The result is there are almost no convictions....

[Buck Rabbit]

221. With respect your honor

And I do respect both your thoughts and style.

What I stated is fact. Islamic judicial punishment for rape, is much more severe than Western punishment. People are tried, convicted, and executed, you can get a count by month of the Saudi executions.

You have presented a theory. That the rate of conviction is lower than it is here. Your theory might be correct but can only be proven anecdotally and I have indeed read claims in support of your theory. I have also read anecdotic testimony from Saudi women claiming the incidence of rape is extremely rare regardless of whether there is a flaw in reporting or conviction. The fact that murder and property crime rates in Saudi Arabia are a fraction of the US rate might lead credence to their contention that rape is less frequent too.

My point is that this story presents just a defense claim and misleads the reader into two mistaken assumptions, that rape is not a crime in the Islamic world and that self defense against rape is not allowed. You will find cases of Americans convicted despite pleas of self defense, because the prosecutors and juries didn’t believe them.

[leftyladyfrommo]

20. Different countries have different atrocities - but

they are all awful.

Like the women in Africa who were to be stoned to death after their babies were weaned - for adultery.

The women in Dar fur who have been raped and are pregnant - and are forced to live on the very outside of their society.

Women in India who are killed so that the husband can find a new wife with a new dowry. They have acid poured over them. Or they are burned to death.

It is all over the world. And it just despicable.

[Burning Water]

25. The India thing

I remember reading about that.

Seems like I read a while back that suttee was beginning to make a reappearance in rural areas in India, too. Sorry, don't have a link or a reference. And then I saw that some Indian villagers had killed a "witch". I wonder if Thuggee will make a comeback. I certainly hope not. India is well on the way to modernization, so maybe this kind of thing will soon die out.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. This is not Islam

but a reversion back to the anti-female prejudice that was so prominant before the Prophet.

[leftyladyfrommo]

30. I don't think is has much to do with religion.

And everything to do with completely male dominated culture.

[Burning Water]

49. Four wives, unlimited

concubines. Is that cultural or Koranic?

[Skidmore]

65. Cultural, as is the mode of dress.

The Prophet never actually described the mode of dress for women, unlike Paul in the New Testament. The form of dress is cultural as well.

[Burning Water]

70. OK, explain this from the Koran

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=4.3&size=First+100

4.3] And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

[Skidmore]

76. Did you read that closely?

Wht the Qoran teaches is that you should only marry as many wives as you can treat fairly. This means as many as you can financially support with equity and can treat with equity. Note, he also said if you cannot be just to more than one wife, then only marry one. There have been Islamic nations who have legislated only one wife per man, unless the first wife gives her permission. It is cultural.

[Burning Water]

82. Still, you can have 4 wives.

Might be worth converting to. ;-)

[Skidmore]

91. You can have 4 wives here--even more.

You just can't have them at the same time.

[Burning Water]

95. Apples & oranges, my friend,

apples & oranges.

[Skidmore]

99. Not really. The obligation is the same whether plural or serial.

[Burning Water]

115. Not really,

you divorce a woman, and your obligations end, except as ordered by a court. And divorce is permitted in Islamic countries too.

But that's not really the point is it. How many Muslim women have 4 husbands. How easy is it for a man to divorce his wife in a Muslim land (pretty damn is the answer). How easy is it for a woman to do the same (Much more difficult)

I like to think of myself as a liberal. One thing I think liberals stand for is equality for men and women. Boy, am I getting an education!!

[Skidmore]

120. I divorced in an Islamic country

and won. That doesn't happen often for women (and I'm a woman). If you think we have equality between men and women here in the States, then you are wrong. We're farther from equity than you would like to believe. In fact, we are sliding backwards at an incredible speed.

As far as women in Islamic countries and here, I'd say we'd progressed from the 70s thru the 90s. The 21st century is aiming to repeat the 1950s again, and some would prefer the Middle Ages. In the 80s, the country I'd lived in had reached about par with Victorian British society in terms of women's rights among the educated urban class, but that was far better than what women experienced in very rural areas.

[Burning Water]

123. Well, I can't

deny what you said about rights in the states. But we are still far ahead of any Islamic country, in my opinion.

[Burning Water]

35. Not trying to pick a fight here, but I

have followed some of your other discourses elsewhere. You seem fairly knowledgeable about your religion, and I respect that. Perhaps you could share some information with me.

1) What were the specific improvements in women's position that the Prophet introduced? When, and how, did the current regression occur?

2) How were women better off under the Ottoman Empire than they are today? Or whenever the Golden Age for Women was in Islamic history?

3) Are, or were, women better off in this Golden Age, or today in Islamic countries, or under a secular Western government?

4) Assuming that women are better off under an ideal Islamic government, what would be the status and differences in treatment of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, pagan, Hindu, and atheist women? If there are differences in the treatment of these various specific groups, could you please address those?

Thanks if you choose to answer. I promise to carefully consider your response.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

59. Thank you for your questions

I cannot answer all of them, because I haven't studied the history of the Ottoman Empire, something I plan on doing. But I will try my best to answer you.

1. My answer to this must be general, as I am at work and away from my Qur'an and other reference works. But, as I can recall from memory, here is the rights that the Qur'an gave women 1400 years ago:
Women had the right to life; female babies were not to be left out in the desert to die, as was the pagan custom of the time.

Women had the right to own property in their own names (something that Western nations didn't have until much much later; even in the US this wasn't always a right until about 100 years ago)

Women had the right to take back their doweries if a man married her, took the dowery, and then kicked her out of the house (which, from what I read, appeared to be a practice that wasn't rare).

Women and men have equal right to divorce, though all efforts at reconciliation should take place first.

Women have the right to testify in court, though it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man (not equal, I know, but again consider the time)

Women have the right to child support during marriage and after divorce.

Women have the right to inherit property (again, less than a man, but there's a reason for this; a woman could keep all her inheritance for herself, while a man is required to use the inheritance to take care of his family)

Women have the right to not be physically abused (hadiths-sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) indicate that he kept his wife Aisha from being slapped by her father, and that he said that women should be treated with respect)

Women have the right to work outside the home and to keep all their money. The man must provide for the family, paying household expenses, etc.

Women don't have to do housework; the beloved Prophet did housework himself!

When did the regression occur? I am not sure, though I am sure it started soon after the Prophet's death. My husband is doing research on this, and tells me that during the time of the Second Kalif, people started "forgetting" the Qur'an and were putting in their own words,etc. Luckily, the Companions of the Prophet were still alive, and they were able to correct this by sending out correct copies of the Qur'an with reciters who could show the people in various places how to recite the words correctly.
I am sure that once all the Companions passed away, it became easier to backslide into old habits.


2. Here I can speak better of Sufis than I can of other Islamic sects. Women were respected and some, such as Rabi'a, were considered saints. There have been women spiritual teachers as well. There are still many Christian sects that don't allow women to be ministers; in my particular order, there are many women teachers; one is a senior teacher and is in charge of ordaining ministers in our order.

I do think that women have always been allowed to run businesses and to be educated, but I will check up on this some more to make sure I am correct in this supposition.

3. Personally, I think women today are better off in any country which acknowledges their equal rights. This generally means a secular rather than a country whose government is supposedly based upon religion. I am not sure that the US will remain on my list as a secular country guarding women's rights; time will tell.

4. As I understand it, back in the Golden Age of Islam (which coincided with the Dark Ages of Europe, I think), both men and women who were Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their faith. They were required to pay a special tax, namely because they weren't required to defend the town or country where they lived, and this tax was to help with expenses for defense. Please remember that the Jews of Moorish Spain were not required to convert to another faith until the Christians took over that part of the Iberian Peninsula in 1492 and started the Inquisition.

As for the other faiths you mentioned, my answer would be it would depend upon which sect of Islam was in charge. Kindly realize that in Saudi Arabia, Sufism is illegal! My particular Sufi order is universal in scope, and recognizes all paths and would let people live in peace according to their own philosophy. Check out www.dancesofuniversalpeace.org to find out one of my main spiritual outreach practices.

I hope this helps you somewhat. Sorry I could not answer all your questions fully.

[Burning Water]

66. Thank you for your reply. Do

you mind if I contact you via private messaging if I have further questions after mulling over your answers?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

79. No problem

I'm at work and sometimes have times where I don't have to do anything, followed by times when I have to answer the phone, take money, do bookwork, schedule, all at once. So if I don't get back to you right away, realize that I will get back to you when I can.

[bleedingheart]

164. I want to interject something...

it has nothing to do with Islam...it predates it, but I feel it is important because it is part of the Middle Eastern culture....this is some info from the following link..

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/form6.html

and it is basically what I remember about Ancient Egyptian culture. I know that so many Westerners seem to think that women's rights are a "western" and "modern" idea but they aren't.

In Egypt, women had a right to:
Keep anything they inherited from their parents when they married.
Share equally with their husband any wealth both partners acquired within their marriage.
Conduct business on their own.
Own and sell property.
Be a witness in a court case.
Represent themselves in court.
Make a will giving their wealth to whomever they wish.
Adopt children.
Go out in public and be in mixed company with men.
Keep their own name after their marriage.
Be supported by their ex-husband after a divorce.
Work at jobs other than being a housewife.
Seek any employment they are qualified for.


I hope you don't mind me adding this...

[PsychoDad]

201. About the testimony of women.

"Women have the right to testify in court, though it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man (not equal, I know, but again consider the time)"

That only applies to matters of contracts and finances, the logic being that a dishonest man might insist that the woman misunderstood the intricacies of business, being that home matters were more her field of expertise, not business (this still happens,even in the west today). Therefore 2 women would trump the testimony of this person. Also in Islam, there must always be 2 witnesses for any contract.

The testimony otherwise was exactly equal to a man's. Notice that in the Quran that if a husband accuses his wife of adultery, that her testimony to the contrary cancels out his accusation.

The Quran also states that in the eyes of God, men and women are equal with equal rights and obligations.

Peace

[Speck Tater]

26. Iran is EVIL. We must invade them now. Hate. Hate. Hate.....

For the sake of the teenage girls we must destroy the evil empire.

Hate, Hate, Hate...

Who could object to invading Iran after hearing such heart-breaking stories of cruelty?

Hate, Hate, Hate...

Join in the chorus brothers and sisters,

Hate, Hate, Hate...

Doesn't your heart cry out for justice?

Hate, Hate, Hate...

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. We don't have to invde them but it would be nice if we could help the

women in their nation somehow. :(

[Bridget Burke]

32. Many women in Iran have more rights than ...

Those in other parts of the world. These atrocities mostly occurred in rural areas. Iranian women have jobs & can leave the house--even though they cover their hair & dress modestly. Some even make films!

The median age of the Iranian people is quite young. Many would like to liberalize things--& have voted to do so. But the religious leaders & the military have too much power. Invading Iran will just give power to the wrong people--they beat the patriotism drum to stifle voices for change. (Sounds familiar.)

What can we do? (1) Avoid invading Iran & (2) Set up a peaceful dialog.

[Burning Water]

51. Exactly right!!!!

You have hit the nail on the head. :) What I'm trying to discover is what exactly we can do?

[Burning Water]

50. The post wasn't about war.

I see you think this is a trivial subject.

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. If the subject was the real subject, it would not be trivial.

But the real subject is the corporate media making declarations about how bad Iran is -- conditions that women face in Darfur are far worse, far more dangerous, but the corporate media is not flogging that.

This is about the run-up to an attack on Iran.

[Burning Water]

125. Well,

the fact that Darfur is worse, does not make this untrue, or trivial. STart another thread. I'll be glad to contribute to it with sufficient moral outrage.

And if your hypothesis is correct, how are we countering it? By pretending the problem doesn't exist?

I don't know if this is true, or not. I tend to believe it. But the discussion so far has shocked and disappointed me. I cannot believe progressive people are so blind to this moral outrage. Doubts about the veracity I can accept. But you didn't deny it, you just said there was worse, and it's about an attack on Iran. so the hell what?? If true, it's still an outrage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. We counter it by maintaining a dialog with Iran's moderates, and

by diplomatic pressure, rather than by censuring and marginalizing the entire country.

What we must not do is succumb to the moral pressure being so cynically offered up by the corporate media. If they ask us to be outraged by Iran, we must ask them why they are not equally outraged by Darfur and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the same, or worse, happens.

They are framing the debate about Iran - we have to tell them their cynicism is showing.

Again, this is not about the murder of young women -- it is about propaganda for action against Iran. To believe otherwise is to play into their hands.

[Burning Water]

146. No, it's about the murder of young women

At least for me.

I don't say that the propaganda angle isn't a consideration for others. But if this is true, it doesn't matter. And if it is not, that's an outrage, too.

But news like this shouldn't be suppressed for political considerations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. But this news is not being suppressed. It is the equivalent news

of Darfur and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Nigeria and Sudan and Afghanistan and, increasingly, Iraq that is being suppressed. If the rest is being suppressed while this is not, it is quite obviously being most cynically used for propaganda.

I'm not saying this is not happening, or that it should be condoned. But the real story is WHY the corporate media is coming up with these stories now. If you refuse to look at that, then you are being used by them.

[pinto]

174. A note about the source. Folks have noticed that Iranfocus articles often

have no "by line", no citations, no apparent editorial control, etc. Those are often written more as a blog type entry and may best be taken as such.

The website does post some standard Reuters releases, as well, and those are identified as such.

It can be confusing.

Just a general comment on iranfocus as a "news" source. It may be worth it to look for second sources when considering the veracity of an article tagged as "from iranfocus".

(ed for formatting)

[lpbk2713]

33. I have never understood how any entity that calls itself a "religion"

can do something like this in the name of any deity. It just seems so contradictory.

[BillZBubb]

34. WOW! Let's attack Iran now!!!!! They sure are evil--axis of evil!!!!

Way to help push that old PNAC propaganda!!!!!! War, war, war!!!!

[Poll_Blind]

37. I have no idea why the mods still let people post from Iran Focus here...

Oh, nevermind, I think I have an idea or two.

PB

[The Stranger]

39. "Iran Focus" claims to be "fair and balanced" -- much like Faux News.

Iran Focus is dedicated to providing comprehensive, up-to-date information and news on the Persian Gulf region in a fair and balanced manner.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=1

[Poll_Blind]

41. See my reply #40 for more information on "Iran Focus" and who's behind it.

You may already be aware of this but there are many posters who aren't.

PB

[Burning Water]

52. You seem

to have a reading comprehension problem. I saw nothing in the post about invading anybody, nor did I suggest such a thing.

Bush may use it for propaganda, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a distinct evil, one that would think all right-thinking people would abhor.

Seeing as you don't seem do, let me put it in terms that might get your attention. Bush having brought this to our attention, we need to come up with an alternative plan to address the problem quickly, or Bush's "solution" will be the only one on the table.

But in any event, can't you spare a little compassion, and a little moral outrage, for these poor women?

[LynnTheDem]

75. It is their LAW. Don't like it? Don't move there.

Don't like it? Move there and help change their law(s).

Their culture and beliefs are not ours; you & I may think something abhorent. They may not. And vice versa. YOR moral outrage...but is it THEIR moral outrage?

Women in Afghanistan recently took part in stoning an Afghan girl to death for adultery; think they felt moral outrage while throwing the stones?


And while you're at it, work on changing US laws, such as executing the mentally retarded.

[Burning Water]

78. I understand.

Murder is OK with you as long as the proper people are doing it.

By the same logic, perhaps the Yankees should have stayed up North in the 60s. I'm personally glad they didn't, as I live in the South. But segregation was the law in the South at the time. Their Law. Nobody had to come here.

Humbug!!

[LynnTheDem]

84. What about "THEIR LAWS, THEIR RIGHT TO DECIDE"

doncha understand?

The Ynaks were PART OF AMERICA.

We are NOT part of Iran.

IRAN'S LAWS. Their beliefs, their customs, their laws.

YOU may find their laws abhorent. So may I. It's still NOT our right and NOT our business to interfere unless and until we are asked to.

[Burning Water]

98. Well, I wasn't talking

about an invasion. I was thinking more like peaceful protests, letters to the editor, letters to congress, discussion groups, maybe disinvestment.

Yeah, I think I've got a right to interfere when a woman is being murdered. And I haven't noticed you objecting when Europeans bombard state governors every time a guilty murderer is about to be executed. They have a perfect right to do so, too, IMO. But it's not their country, and it's not their laws. Correct me if I am wrong about your activity on this point. It is just an assumption

[LynnTheDem]

136. Hey peaceful protests etc are great. Go for it!

No you don't have a right to interfere in the carrying out of any other nation's legally-mandated punishments. Just as opther nations have no right to interfere with US legally-mandated punishments.

You should speak out against things you feel are against your mores. I do myself. So yes your assumption is incorrect, although it's also none of your business what I personally do or don't do. ;)

But first I take the time to try & understand other societies' values and mores and customs rather than tossing around "barbaric" and "evil". I also look to my own nation first before I try telling others they're wrong to believe what they do.

Now when it comes to genocide, which requires under international law humanitarian intervention, then we should be immediately involved as a nation.

[breakfastofchampions]

180. Wow

You've given up on morality. Just wow. I can hardly believe there are actually people who think like this. I didn't want to invoke Godwin's law here, but I wonder if you would have accepted the Holocaust had it been contained in the German borders.

Edit: I see you are against genocide. That's a good start.

[WildEyedLiberal]

195. What a despicable post

Since when the hell is it LIBERAL to condone human rights abuses? So in your opinion, culture and religion that sanctifies brutality, torture, murder, oppression, and persecution is okay because "it's their culture?" What a load of hogwash.

No true liberal turns a blind eye to the suffering of innocents anywhere in the world.

[LynnTheDem]

212. I don't "condone" abuse of any sort.

But determining what other nations' criminal laws can and can't be is not "liberal" either. It is up to a nations' citizens.

Who the hell are you or I to tell a society that their beliefs, customs, laws are wrong and demand they change to OUR way? And show me where I ever posted any human rights abuses were "ok".

How sad that people such as yourself cannot understand the difference between "condoning" abuses and realizing that change must come from within, that not all societies & peoples think our way is the only or true way. Which is why so very much of the world sees Americans as arrogant and ignorant.

[Poll_Blind]

36. BBC- Saudis let 15 girls burn to death rather than rescue them because...

...they were "not wearing correct Islamic dress."

Story: Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue

PB

[Burning Water]

55. I was outraged about that, too n/t

[LynnTheDem]

67. Saudi can behead and stone and attack us on 911 and anything

else they want, tho...coz for now they're America's buddy.

They aren't stupid though; they know who else USED to be our buddy.

Like Pinochet...Stalin...Hussein...Taleban...OBL...

[Poll_Blind]

40. Learn more about Iran Focus and the MKO -PROPAGANDA- machine here...

If people are going to be posting articles from this site then everyone should know who's behind it.

Learn about who's behind Iran Focus and Iran Terror websites

Wiki background on People's Mujahedin of Iran (MKO) here.

PB

[winston61]

45. Exactly- I just sent some email to them asking

where they get the money to run this 'non-profit'.

[ronnie624]

44. You should view this "article"

with a healthy dose of skepticism. I found no information about the source and no verification.

The campaign to manufacture consent for military action against Iran is beginning in earnest. This is exactly the sort of propaganda that is used to generate racist fear and hatred. Do not fall for it.

[Burning Water]

53. Perhaps you're right.

You're saying this is all a pack of lies, with no basis in fact? If so, I apologize. If not, not.

[Roho]

119. yea sure.

You couldn't care less if it was true.

If you did you would have researched the link before posting a war pimp thread you hoped would rile people up.

Whats next from you the poor Ahwazi people?

[Burning Water]

171. Projection n/t

[mogster]

72. Aye. It gave no hits on google

Always a bad sign of a rush setup ;-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. The MSM are suddenly "discovering" crimes against women in Iran

even though the situation has been like this since 1979.

Sort of like the way the MSM ignored the Taliban between 1996 and 2001, even though feminists and leftists were trying to get everyone's attention.

[Poll_Blind]

48. Bush was hosting Taliban in Texas during that time period- really! n/t

PB

[Burning Water]

56. So, just because this

situation has been going on for years without getting on our radar screen we should ignore it now that it has? Is that what you're saying?

[Poll_Blind]

57. False logic (at best): You're using a strawman argument.

You know just as well as I do what he's saying: That the MSM is trotting out as many damning "articles" about Iran as is humanly possible with intent to swell the drum beat to war.

PB

[Burning Water]

61. The important thing is

ARE THEY TRUE?? If so, they need to be addressed. Two reasons, first because this is evil, second, to keep them off the table for Bush to use. If they are not, then that needs to be addressed also. Mainly to keep Bush from using them, but also because journalist lying should be punished.

But, either way, decent people must address the issue.

Nothing false about the argument. The poster refused to address the issue.

[LynnTheDem]

69. The PEOPLE OF IRAN are the ones to address their own laws.

NOT YOU.

NOT ME.

And most certainly not America, land of executing the mentally retarded.

[Burning Water]

73. Maybe it

isn't any of our business. But then neither are starving children in wherever. A dog could do as much. No, human beings are moral creatures, and have to make choices. I feel for these women. If you don't, and that seems to be the thrust of your argument, then I'm sorry for you.

America does not have to be perfect before individual Americans can take action elsewhere to make the world a better place.

[LynnTheDem]

77. We're not talking "starving children" so skip the strawman.

THEIR LAWS.

Don't like them? Don't move there...or move there and work to change THEIR LAWS.

When Iranians ask for international help, fine.

Until then it is THEIR BUSINESS, not ours.

Your idea of morality is NOT the same as everyone else's idea of morality; different cultures, different beliefs.

[Burning Water]

103. OK, try this on.

the Fundies take control here. all of a sudden women are being stoned for adultery. Are you saying the Europeans should not interfere? If only by diplomatic protests? Are you saying, "I'm alright, let them take care of themselves"?

Are you saying that because it is their LAW that it is right? Are you saying that this monstrosity is right? That's what I'm hearing.

I take it you are not a feminist?

[LynnTheDem]

116. YES I am saying NO ONE outside of the US would

have the right to order OUR LAWS changed...but yet again you use a strawman bullshit argument;

toning women for adultery IS NOT OUR CULTURE.

IT IS THEIR CULTURE. To many of that culture, IT IS MORAL and RIGHT to stone women for adultery. Gee it's even in our bible.

It is up to THEM to decide what THEIR society and THEIR culture and THEIR customs should be.

Protesting against things you see as repugnant and wrong is fine. But your belief that your beliefs are superior is a huge part of why America is so disliked in the world.

[Burning Water]

127. Accoridng to my understanding,

it would be IF THE FUNDIES TOOK OVER.

Wouldn't you agree. Hypothetical, not strawman.

[LynnTheDem]

130. TOOK OVER is not the same as CENTURIES of FABRIC of SOCIETY

So sorry you in fact don't understand.

[FormerRepublican]

139. It isn't stopping Iran from trying to change European laws...

...to conform to Islam via their proxy Hezbollah:

"The leader of Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group pledged no compromise until there was a full apology from Denmark, where the cartoons first appeared, and European countries passed laws prohibiting insults against the Prophet.

"Today, we are defending the dignity of our Prophet with a word, a demonstration, but let (U.S. President) George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ... we will defend our Prophet with our blood, not our voices," Hizbollah guerrilla group leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah told the crowd."

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6449648&cKey=1139504749000

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[LynnTheDem]

143. Oh I see...they do it so we should do it. "good for the goose".

Gee, sure hope the world doesn't decide someday to agree with you on that.

[FormerRepublican]

147. Can't take it when people disagree with you, huh?

Bush must drive you mad.

The point I was making is that the clash of values between our two cultures works in both directions. They are just as demanding that we change to suit them. Since you were arguing that we had no right to change their laws to suit our values, I pointed out that they were demanding the same thing.

Somewhat similar to the argument I often see on DU when someone criticizes something Muslims do, and are immediately bombarded with a litany on what Bush and America have done.

Personally, I feel that human life is valuable enough to deserve some peaceful outside interference if it has any chance of preserving that life. Especially if that life is vulnerable, like it is with a teenage child. What do my values mean if I'm not willing to stand up for them?

[LynnTheDem]

149. You can disagree with me all you like, honey. Doesn't bother me

in the least. :)

As I said, I sure hope the rest of the world doesn't decide to adopt the (incredibly silly & childish) "they do it!" meme...otherwise we're all in one huge world of hurt.

Or can't you take it when people disagree with you?

:rofl:

[FormerRepublican]

178. I can take disagreement just fine.

What I can't tolerate is a total lack of concern for human rights (and human life) in a misguided attempt to preserve global soverign powers. We all live in this world together, but some of us have lives that are not nearly as comfortable and cozy as yours. Pardon me for having compassion for my fellow man regardless of country.

Extremist views turn me off, regardless of where they come from.

Welcome to my ignore file.

[LynnTheDem]

187. Cool!

Thanks! :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. No I'm saying that the sudden "discovery" of Iranian injustice

along with the extensive coverage of Muslims rioting around the world (as opposed to a near media blackout on the millions of people of every religion who marched against the Iraq War throughout the world in 2002) is being used to make the American people more receptive to the idea of invading Iran.

[Burning Water]

131. You might be right about that, but

still, if true, this is a horror beyond belief, and, for me at least, a little moral outrage seems appropriate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

148. So who's not outraged?

:shrug:

I still refuse to accept it as an excuse for invading Iran.

That would cause more suffering to more people on both sides than the mullahs have inflicted in the past 27 years and would completely discredit the internal liberalization movement.

[Burning Water]

211. So who's not outraged??

You don't seem to be, for one. But there seem to be a considerable number in whith you.

[Bridget Burke]

54. IranFocus.com is certainly an interesting website!

Other websites claim it's a front for the Mujahhedin al-Khalq (MEK). Many of the sites are those pining for the Shah--but Daily Kos supports the story.

The MEK campaign to spread misinformation doesn't stop at holding press conferences and writing press releases. The MEK has adjusted to the web and hosts Iran Focus, and Iran Terror are MEK-affiliated news sites. In addition, the NCRI has a website, featuring the latest publications of their misinformation and, even, an RSS feed. The blog, Iranian Truth, has more background on MEK's media affiliates.

www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/23/81037/3317

MSNBC has more info on MEK:

UNITED NATIONS - Iran's insistence that it has the right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, if it so chooses, has cast a pall over talks in New York aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. While Iran has pledged to continue talking to European representatives to resolve the dispute diplomatically, it has used the occasion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty talks, held every five years to review progress on proliferation efforts, to make it clear that it won't be kept from the exclusive nuclear club by angry American rhetoric alone.

The European effort, led by Germany, Britain and France, is regarded with some skepticism in Washington. Not surprisingly, then, the United States is looking for a “Plan B,” some alternative way to put pressure on Tehran that falls between hard-to-enforce threats of economic sanctions and outright war.

Ray Tanter, a nattily dressed Georgetown professor and former Reagan national security aide, thinks he has the answer.

Tanter heads a group called the Iran Policy Committee, a collection of well-connected Republicans and former generals who have been talking up an Iranian group called the Mujahhedin al-Khalq. The MEK, as the group is known, is a historical orphan of sorts: a band of armed Iranians who oppose the current Islamic regime but whose chief sponsor was Iran’s arch rival, Saddam Hussein. Saddam armed the MEK after his long war against Iran in the 1980s ended in stalemate, and as long as he remained in power, the MEK’s encampment on the Iran-Iraq border gave them a base for bloody forays into their native land.

But there is a problem. The MEK has been on the State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" since 1997, a status confirmed on April 27, when the most recent update of the list was made public. The MEK denies some of the exploits laid at its doorstep. But the State Department report lists a long litany of terrorist activity, including the alleged murders of American contractors during the reign of the Shah, whom the group also opposed, and one spectacular attack on the Islamic regime in 1981 using car bombs that killed 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including the country’s chief justice, its president and prime minister. There were also reports that the group participated in the brutal repression of Kurds and Shiites who rose against Saddam at America's behest in 1991.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7751085/

Curioser & curioser!

[Judi Lynn]

68. I tried to see if I could verify this story, too. They have NO information

about IranFocus at the site, no info. about who runs it, who contributes, people in charge, where it's located, nada.

Is it a Defense Department propaganda outlet of the type Rumsfeld said we can expect to release bogus news stories? I wonder why they've got NOTHING there which defines them, not even one name. Sheesh.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=1

[Laelth]

222. I had the exact same suspicion.

I saw the headline and thought of the story of Iraqi soldiers yanking babies out of incubators in 1991, i.e. a complete lie used to rile up the American people to support a war. This story has a similar kind of PR feel to it. Couple that with a 2005 website that shows no sign of ownership and I smell a PR company.

-Laelth

[devilgrrl]

63. Well that settles it! Let the bombing begin!

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

64. IranFocus...the Iranian version of CHALABI. And they're TERRORISTS.

The MEK front IranFocus and according to the USA, they are TERRORISTS.

They also hate Iran with a passion.

And as much as I personally dislike a lot of nations' laws, it ain't my place to determine their laws. After all, WE EXECUTE MENTALLY RETARDED citizens...and children. Internal affairs are up to the people of the nation to accept or fight. Or ask for international help when needed. Their culture, their laws. Not ours.

[Taxloss]

101. Well, I guess Amnesty International should just shut up shop then.

After all, what right does it have to condemn or interfere? It's THEIR laws, they can do whatever the fuck they like. Meanwhile, you can sit at home feeling smug. Good luck with that Alito chappie, I expect you'd be offended by offers of help from abroad if the USA went a bit theocratic. After all, it's your laws, your culture.

:crazy:

Internationalism is THE first precept of the Left.

[LynnTheDem]

111. AI points out HR violations according to western beliefs in ALL

nations, including the US of A.

Are you for the death penalty? If so, you're being a hypocrite.

And yes I would be BLOODY OFFENDED if ANY other nation stuck their fucking noses into MY country and told me how MY country's laws must be. You bet, baby.

[Taxloss]

118. No, I oppose the death penalty very strongly.

I am an AI member. Iran's barbaric practices deserve worldwide exposure and condemnation. And the USA's own dirty record of state-sponsored "judicial" slaughter deserves international condemnation as well. You have my permission to criticise any aspect of Britain’s human rights record, and you’ve got a lot of material to work on. But you don’t need my permission – speaking out against injustices of this sort is the duty of a global citizen.

"... according to Western beliefs ..." - That sort of moral relativism turns my stomach. Presumably you're happy with female genital mutilation, the suttee and similar practices. After all it's a cultural thing, we can't interfere. What about slavery? Child rape? Cannibalism?

See you at the bullfight.

[LynnTheDem]

134. "barbaric practice"...according to YOUR values. And to mine.

And many of our practices are viewed as just as barbaric to many other societies.

"Presumably you're happy with..." What a total crock of strawman bullshit that is.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss rationally.

[Taxloss]

157. I'm ready right now.

Why do your "values" stop at the border? Why not apply the same principle within the USA? You know, let the Mormons in Utah get on with polygamy, shrug your shoulders at child marriages in the states that allow them, accept that the death penalty is just "one of those things" - you are abdicating responsibility. Globally, as locally, we must look out for each other. I don't mean invading every country we disagree with, I mean calling acts such as this the repulsive crimes that they are. I feel that, given the opportunity to express their views freely, most Iranians would happily condemn this atrocity. This has nothing to do with "culture", it has a lot to do with a tiny theocratic elite imposing power by terror.

"Values". The word doesn't belong in the same sentence as the Iranian regime.

[LynnTheDem]

162. Because MY values are just that; MINE.

Learned from and through MY society, the fabric of MY society; MY upbringing.

I will not force MY beliefs, mores, customs, values, onto another society, just as I will not accept other societies forcing their mores unto me.

They have their OWN.

If you want to effect change in a society, particularly socities whose own values but go back thousands of years and are the very core of their social structure, you need to understand and learn THEIR values, preferably without the tossing around of "evil"..."barabaric"..."savage".

There are societies in the world who view YOUR values as "barbaric", "evil" and "savage" as you do theirs. Why are YOU correct and THEY are wrong?

I take responsibility for MY country, and upholding MY values.

It is not my responsibility, nor my right, to do so in other peoples' countries. SHould those other countries seek international help (genocide etc) then it is my responsibility & duty and right to help.

[centristo]

168. lynn

i don't expect to change your mind, but IMO your philosophy is dangerous and irresponsible. Should we hold judgement on alchemy, voodoo, eugenics, phrenology, or any other ridiculous school of thought the world has produced because it is someone else's belief? Can't we stop a dangerous and harmful practice in its tracks because it is WRONG? If we can't tell right from wrong then we are truly in bad shape.

What is your take on North Korea? The people are severly repressed but because of their isolation are unable to effectively reach out to the international community. We probably don't even know how bad it is because dissidents and critics are "removed" so quickly. What do we do about them?

[LynnTheDem]

169. Other nations' LAWS are not our right to interfere with.

Their beliefs and customs and values are theirs; they are the ones that need to change them, or not.

Do ya REALLY think Iranians would thank us for determining what their laws should be? Even the Nobel Peace winning Iranian woman has warned; Iranians will not thank us for interfereing in their business.

And no, neither would the N. Koreans; even S. Korea has warned us of that time & again.

[centristo]

173. I don't know if its really up to

America to interfere with other nations' laws, but certainly it is the duty of the UN.

"How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

If you refuse to take the morally just action you are an accomplice to the evil that is being perpetrated. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmumnd Burke. Doing nothing puts you in bed with the slave owner, the wife abuser and the rapist.

You are basically arguing that thousands, if not millions of people have to suffer or die until said group is able to change their laws of the land. Ultimately, as you argue, the change must occur from within, but America can use its clout to advance these causes - thus doing the morally correct thing and saving the lives and easing the suffering of the oppressed. Whether or not we need to use military force is really the only thing that should be debatable.

[ronnie624]

189. In fact ,

I watched you blow a gasket on numerous occasions anytime someone hazarded the slightest criticism of British law enforcement after they put seven bullets into the head of the young Brazilian on his way to work.

"You have my permission to criticise any aspect of Britain’s human rights record,...". Indeed.

[Taxloss]

213. Fair point.

But strongly worded. I defended the Metropolitan Police when their story involved people in bulky coats jumping ticket barriers and ignoring demands to stop.

As soon as it emerged that we were lied to about that, I not only changed my views, I admitted my error here on DU.

And it wasn't "the slightest criticism" - I was angry at the characteristaion of these officers as stupid, scruffy thugs and the wild claims that Blair had ordered death squads to operate in the UK (not true, as the subsequent open investigation has demonstrated), that De Menezes was killed because he "knew something" (not true), that he was killed to scare the British people (not true) and that Brazil's own investigation concluded that there was no conspiracy because Blair threatened to nuke them if they didn't (:crazy:). After the lies had been exposed, I switched to the opinion I now hold - that this was an awful blunder. Indeed, the investigation has backed me up.

And I may have blown my gasket more than once - those were emotive days for us Londoners, and the absurd conspiracy theories hovering on DU were upsetting and insulting. I would say in my defence that quite a few gaskets were being blown, several in my direction, and that your memory is being rather selective.

But your comparison neatly enforces my point. DUers were right to condemn the actions of the Police that month, regardless of what I thought. The more imaginative and loonier elements could have had the good taste to shut up, and I hope I claimed the odd scalp. As I said to Lynn, this has nothing to do with values - we do not have the death penalty or widespread gun ownership in this country and consequently the killing of De Menezes has nothing to do with our "culture".

[ronnie624]

219. Thank you for your level headed response.

Rational, venom free discourse is always appreciated, and your points are well taken.

[Taxloss]

220. You're welcome, thanks for pointing out the beam in my eye.

It's good to consider one's own failings and inconsistencies.

[mogster]

71. This source yields nada at google

Search for iranfocus.com: 0 hits :shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

74. I wonder if they're hosted by the same folks as fr?

On edit, check out the stories on their home page. They certainly seem to have a "focus" all right, getting the rubes riled up into war frenzy...

[mzmolly]

80. I imagine Saudi has similar injustices?

What a sad state of affairs.

[Burning Water]

107. I imagine that they do.

It is very sad, indeed.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

144. Saudi Arabia is definitely WORSE, believe it or not. -nt

[DanCa]

83. Man is it me or is Iran sounding alot like Bush's anti choice base.

To quote Chris Rock, "I aint afraid of Alqaeda I am afraid of El'cracker."

[LynnTheDem]

85. rotfl!

Too bloody true! :D

[helderheid]

86. is there anything we can do??

[Burning Water]

106. I don't know.

That's what I'm asking.

[FreedomAngel82]

88. How ridiculous!

So they're killing her because she did self defense? What was she supposed to do? Let them rape her? UGH!

[Burning Water]

109. Evidently so.

Look, I don't know if this story is true, or not. Several posters seem to doubt it, although, frankly, I do not, because I have read similar stories from that section of the world for decades.

But many of the responses have shocked and saddened me.

[JNelson6563]

89. This leaves us no choice

We must go to war with Iran. Immediately.

(not really)

[The Whiskey Priest]

90. That is beyond being primitive

and we are giving blood and money to prop up that kind of mindset.

[LynnTheDem]

97. But it's THEIR mindset.

We may believe OUR way is better and moral and correct & the only right way. They may not. Their nation, their laws. Their right to accept or not their own laws, customs, beliefs.

We used to, not very long ago, be able to legally hunt and kill Native American men, women & kids for sport. Primitive indeed.

[FreedomAngel82]

104. And on your point

we still have the death penalty.

[Burning Water]

112. We still have the death penalty, but

not for being raped.

[LynnTheDem]

113. So govt killing is ok with you, it's just for which crimes.

"Will you fuck me for $1 billion?" he asked her.

"Yes" she replied.

"Will you fuck me for $1?" he asked her.

"NO! What the hell do you think I am!" she said.

"We've already established what you are...now we're just haggling over the price."

[Burning Water]

117. No, I didn't say that

Still, hanging an innocent woman seems to me to be substantially more evil than executing a guilty man. Maybe it's just me. You are avoiding the subject. STRAWMAN to you, too.

[LynnTheDem]

132. "innocent" woman according to YOUR standards. And to mine.

But it is not your society; it is not my society.

It is THEIRS and it is up to them to decide what their society & customs & laws for their own naiton shuld or shoudn't be.

We have customs and laws that appall other societies just as deeply as theirs appalls us.

Understand their culture, their customs, their beliefs that they have held for centuries or more, rather than the tossing around of "evil" etc. Then perhaps we can convince other socieites to do as we do. Well other than illegal wars of aggression and gulags and executing mentally retarded and children and being #1 for number of own citizens jailed and stuff like that.

[Burning Water]

135. You'll pardon me for saying so.

Your standards are CRAP.

I cannot believe that anyone calling themselves "progressive" can condone the murder of a woman for being raped. FOR BEING RAPED. In any culture.

I think we're done on this discussion. Maybe later we'll find an issue that we can agree on.

Cheers.

[LynnTheDem]

138. First dear, you should try to stop reading MEK propaganda.

Ya think they'll ever find that purple plastic people shredder Saddam used?

We are done, yes, because you see your mores as being the only correct and valid ones. They happen to agree with my own mores...but that don't mean shit to people who have different ones. And that's something you refuse to understand.

[breakfastofchampions]

184. Self defense is a fundamental right of life

Given that she was being raped and defending herself and her family, she is innocent by all reasonable standards. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Just because there is an imaginary line between her and you doesn't make it different.

[LynnTheDem]

188. Given that you take at face value terrorist propaganda bullshit...

have a wonderful day! :)

[Marleyb]

105. In America we believe rape victims should be forced to have babies...

or at least that is what we are working toward...

[Redneck Socialist]

114. Hanging rape victims is wrong.

Period.

[LynnTheDem]

142. 1. That's your belief (and mine) which means jack shit to those

whose society don't hold that belief. There are societies that believe rape victims are to blame (like ours for many people) or should off themselves.

I disagree with that; you disagree with that.

Other societies disagree with us on it. And it's their society.

2. You take terrorist (MEK) propaganda at face value? Did you also take the Saddam purple plastic people shredder at face value? And them incubator babies?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coexist]

108. Why don't they ever tell us about the GOOD news?

About the Schools that have opened and the Community Centers? About the girls who get to go to school?

( I was being sarcastic)

But I do have to say - looking at the "About Us" section of the site - they use the phrase "fair and balanced". WTF??
<snip>
"Iran Focus is dedicated to providing comprehensive, up-to-date information and news on the Persian Gulf region in a fair and balanced manner. We provide a wide array of daily news, weekly and special feature packages, commentary, news analysis, and investigative reporting. Through editorial initiatives and access to intelligence sources, our stories offer an insight into the complex situation in the Persian Gulf region that is indispensable to scholars, journalists, politicians, business people and all those interested in this sensitive part of the world."

There is also a "Terrorism" section that lists articles promoting a connection between Iran and terrorism. Hmmm....
Can anyone more savvy than me see who funds/owns this site? Is it a propoganda machine to make us fear and hate Iran, and help "liberate" these poor people?

Rape is a horrid thing in and of itself - I would hate to see someone who was raped and hanged, be raped again by this adminstration's desperate wish to bomb their country into Democracy.

[Judi Lynn]

110. Sorry, I'm still too wired over the violence against those poor Iraqi

incubator babies. Why, they just threw them onto the floor, according to that Iraqi official's daughter. Wow, I'm burned.

If it weren't true, I wouldn't have read it anywhere.

[Swamp Rat]

126. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran... bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Bomb Iraaan...



:eyes:

[CJCRANE]

128. As per previous posters

have said: this kind of material seems designed to stir up anti-Iranian feeling and convince us that Iran needs "liberating".

But unless Americans en masse are prepared to go and officiate in every country that has human rights abuses (kind of like a bigger and even more bureaucratic version of the British empire) then these things will continue.

It's more appropriate to fight these issues through human rights organisations and diplomacy.

ed: sp

[Burning Water]

133. Well, I'm not in favor

of invading other countries. But I think lesser measures, actions that have been proven to advance progressive causes, actions like boycotts, for example, demonstrations, etc, are more than appropriate. And education, and sharing these news items.

But you are wrong. It is not necessary to be able or willing to correct every evil in the world in order to correct one or two. And we should take 'em one at a time for as long as it takes.

[jsamuel]

140. IranFocus is propaganda

:cry:

[Zinfandel]

145. Your correct! Again, Iran Focus News is a pro Bush, right-wing propaganda

"news" rag.

Read the stories for yourself...Any story that will help get Americans behind Bush's planned attack on Iran will be put forth, bogus or not...Remember the 'babies throw out of Incubators by Hussein' bullshit stories, (Pappy Bush put forth to support his invasionh of Iraq)?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news /

'Iran Focus': 'fair and balanced'. What does that remind you of? Apparently the whole story about Iranian president-elect Ahmadinejad is bogus. The NY Gray Rag Lady is bogus. So what else is new?

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2005/07/move_ov...

[roguevalley]

152. At this moment and probably for the next three minutes the hatred

that I feel for men, conservatism and religion knows no equal on this earth.

[Zinfandel]

155. Why? Because of an obvious planted story from a Bush propaganda source?

Iran Focus News? http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news

Look how they prominently display the Bush bullshit 9-11 Commission report on the front page, that's a tip off immediate...but read all the pro Bush, anti Iran stories and it becomes obvious, who is funding this rag.

Do you believe the story simply because because it was written somewhere?

Look at the source and the timing.

You don't believe Bush is capable of such lies and deceit to get his way?

You never heard the bullshit stories, that were proven to be lies, about "Babies being throw out of Incubators in Kuwait by Hussein" stories?

These lying bastards Bush/Cheney/Rove will use any ploy necessary to get what they want...these are truly wicked, evil, people, BushCo.

[roguevalley]

158. its probably true, it could be a plant. But if it isn't, my feelings stand

enough shit happens to women and girls in the world for the same reasons that it doesn't hurt a bit to be angry about it. remember the woman who was raped in Pakistan and HAD TO MARRY THE FUCKER!?!?! Its crap no matter who or where it is.

[femrap]

216. Make mine 5 minutes.....n/t

[Ksec]

156. a war will do nothing to change this

Itll just make the extreme, more extreme.
How are you going to fight religious extremists? Its impossible.

And now Iraq has become another Iran thankjs to the republicans and their king. Shameful and stupid. Theyve done more harm to the US than all the previous admins combined.

[Burning Water]

159. I saw nothing in the article

to suggest a war. I never recommended one. Here the hell is this coming from.

"Bush might benefit politically if this is known!!! It must be suppressed or diverted somehow!!!!"

Nonsense. They are two separate issues, and both should be fought.

[Ksec]

161. No, Im talking about the rnc solution to every problem

No doubt this will help them beat the drums and theyll highlight these things .

[Zinfandel]

163. Subtle propaganda, from an obvious right-wing source...would never

mention a link to war...

Again, I'll use the bullshit story of "Babies thrown out of incubators by Hussein" as an example, meant to prove how evil Hussein is...Those stories also NEVER mentioned going to war or invading Iraq, but clearly shows how BushCo is capable of any planted lies and filth...

But the insinuation, timing and sublety is there for anyone to see, if they truly want to see the connection and what these BushCo monsters are capable of.

Don't be blinded simply because it was written, this gets people fired up and always works, Bushco know this very well...

Just look at the source...and the republican owned media will predictably run with it and pound it as truth.

Just simply look at the source and timing, this is exactly the kind of piece they needed , of course there WON"T be any mention of war...Those would be two separate things and they wouldn't want it to seem too obvious the story is bullshit...

We are dealing with masters of propaganda in Rove and the rest.

Let's not be fooled again, because they are working on the Ameican peoples emotions.

When you see O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh & the rest run with it (and they will)...As if they ever cared one bit about women!

[No Exit]

192. Good point. Remember "They took the babies out of the incubators

and left them on the cold floor to die"?

That was a lie, and it was told by a privileged girl who I believe was the daughter of the Iraqi ambassador.

We are being played here, too.

And, oh yeah, Iraq is SUCH a better place NOW.:sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

160. why does DU hate religion?

[B Calm]

165. Republicans believe the girl should have accepted RAPE and got over it.

[Deja Q]

182. On what do you base that?

There are some Repubs who think the girl did nothing wrong in defending herself from rape.

[B Calm]

203. I base that on how they acted after the Supreme Court selected Bush

to be pResident!

[phrenzy]

167. Moral Relavitism

Damn. I certainly don't think this atrocity alone is reason enough for invading, but for some DUers to simply excuse it as "it's their culture - so butt out!" is a little ridiculous. That is moral relavitism taken to a ridiculous extreme.

Observe me shatter your argument with the easiest of debate devices:

It was official German "policy" to put Jews and political opponents (and potential opponents) in gas chambers. But hey, they just had 'different customs' than us, so leave 'em alone!

You seem strangely content with the idea of killing a woman for being raped.

And ask yourself (as I sometimes ask myself) is it EVER justified to intervene (i.e. take military action) against a foreign country if our national security is not directly effected? Isn't that what caused the Holocaust?!

[centristo]

170. thank you

some people on this forum are incapable of telling right from wrong.

You want a cultural difference? People in the UK refer to the "toilet" as a "water closet" and drive on the opposite side of the road. That is not a matter or "right vs wrong", that is a matter of cultural differences.

Forcing ALL women to dress in a burkha and have less rights than men is WRONG. So called "Honor Killings" are WRONG. I don't need a professor of ethics to tell me this.

[Burning Water]

175. You must be replying to

another poster. I think this is horrendous in absolute moral terms.

If that makes me judgmental or narrow-minded or even "racist", so what?

[breakfastofchampions]

186. I'd rather deal with Nihilists

[PabloLego]

207. thank you

Thank you phrenzy...let's see how far the relativism carries them if they were standing tall before the "man" (figuratively and literallY) in Iran. I bet there'd be plenty of "moral" outrage then.

Call it what it is - barbaric, backward, ignorant and in need of change NOW!

Is military action the best way to go about it? Probably not. Meaningful social change doesn't seem to work well when it comes from the barrel of a gun...then again the women of Afghanistan are better off now than under the Taliban. I think enough bombs have been dropped this year (and last, and the year before that...) so...send in the ACLU? I dunno how to drag a thousand years of stupid custom into the era of human rights recognition in a week.

[tjwash]

172. Well Dammit, if "iranfocus.com" said it it MUST be true.

That tears it, lets invade their country, kill all their leaders and convert everyone to Christianity. I'll bet they are also tearing babies from incubators and leaving their still twitching bodies on the floor.:sarcasm:

Funny how we are not being inundated with the stories of daily occurrences of stonings, beheadings, and hand choppings in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait for that matter. Or how the Sabah family in Kuwait has the most dismal human rights record in all the middle east. Oh, silly me, the leaders of these countries are good friends of the Bush family, so it must be OK to do it once you cross the border into Saudi. :eyes:

[Burning Water]

176. The illogic

of your post would astound me, if I hadn't seen so many on this thread already.

First, I make no claim that it is true.

Second, the word "war" does not appear in the article, nor am I suggesting it.

Three, Just because the other countries were not mentioned in the story, doesn't mean that they never appear anywhere, doesn;t mean they are not important, and doesn't trivialize the importance of this story, if true.

Not everything is about Bush, the Iraq war, and/or a run-up to Iran. There ARE other evils, and other evil men (and women) in the world, you know. Should we ignore them, and should we attack those who don't?

[No Exit]

191. "THEY TOOK THE BABIES OUT OF THE INCUBATORS AND

LEFT THEM ON THE COLD FLOOR TO DIE!"

You are an astute observer and you possess a very advanced Bullshit Detector.

I, too, sense that we are being PLAYED.

[Deja Q]

181. Goddamn sick. But it's a male-ego 'society'. What can you expect?!

I think rape is wrong and if the guy didn't try to rape her, he wouldn't have been killed - inadvertantly or otherwise.

Hell, one way or another they would have found a way to condemn her anyway. "Resisted a man", "not married", "underaged"... sheesh, "acts incompatible with chastity" kinda includes most of the above!!!

I once knew of an Iranian woman who, despite numerous administrative mistakes on the State's side (or was it Federal?), had to go back to Iran - deported. Even after numerous appeals and legal action. Now she escaped that shithole "society" and had a lot of stories to tell. Her two boys had to go back also. And they have no clue what it's like to live there, but at least they're male. (not that being ignorant is an excuse...) And she's one of the nicest women I'd ever met. What she's had to live through since scares the living daylights out of me.

So forgive me of thinking so low for their "culture" (if you want to call it that), and even if that article above is solely propaganda, but they are no friends of ours. Or anyone with a shred of decency. It's also disgusting the US ever helped them in the first place. Not to mention the Iran Contra Affair of which Ollie North, Reagan, et al, should be jailed for - it WAS a crime. Playing brain-dead so unconvingly didn't help matters either (and if he really was brain-dead, why wasn't he impeached?).

Yes, she did kill. But self-defense against a crime far worse than death; I'd give her a reduced sentence...

Unless there's a good reason why actual death sentence would be preferable...

[freedom2vote]

196. I am tired of it.

Stuff like this happens all over the world and as sad as it is, I think that Bushco are using it to urge us into another war. Ever watch those WW2 reels? This is just the same only a little more subtle.

I wish the MSM would quit harping on the muslims all the time. It's getting rather tiring.

[WildEyedLiberal]

197. The moral relativism in this thread makes me sick

LIBERALS believe in human rights for EVERYONE, PERIOD.

LIBERALS don't believe that it is ever right to torture, kill, maim, oppress, or persecute in the name of politics, ideology, religion, or nationalism. PERIOD.

LIBERALS believe in the equality of all people and their equal rights as HUMAN BEINGS as outlined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. PERIOD.

That means LIBERALS can NEVER justify rape, torture, murder, oppression, or persecution by ANY government or ANY culture or ANY "values system" for ANY reason. PERIOD.

If you do not believe these things, YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL. PERIOD.

[MrSlayer]

198. Well that certainly makes sense.

How dare she attempt to defend herself! You are supposed to just lie back and think of England damnit!

Are we allowed to say they are insane yet?

[oblivious]

200. The OP is a bit misleading.

1. The OP says the three didn't have lawyers, yet the Amnesty report says Darabi's lawyer is reportedly appealing the decision.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE130052006

2. The OP seems to associate the Delara Darabi case with the thread headline, but it has nothing to do with rape.

The Persian language news service Aftab reported that Delara Darabi and a 19-year-old man, Amir Hossein, broke into a house intending to commit burglary, but killed the woman who lived there. Delara Darabi initially confessed to the murder, but subsequently retracted her confession and stated that she had admitted responsibility for the murder at the request of Amir Hossein, to help him escape execution, because he believed that she would not be sentenced to death because she was under 18 at the time of the murder. She said that she was under the influence of sedatives during the burglary.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE130052006

There are violations of human rights involved here but there's obviously a fair bit of propaganda in these articles.

[Nothing Without Hope]

202. Is this story true or more Bushie war-mongering? n/t

[mmonk]

205. Maybe true, maybe not.

I remember the incubator story before the first Gulf War. Maybe I'm just too cynical to take anything at face value anymore. I do recognize that Sharia is backward and brutal though.

[Maru Kitteh]

208. Delete

Delete

[Hubert Flottz]

209. Sounds more like Utah!

Something Oren might hatch!

[Cleita]

226. Well, there's women's rights for you!

So religious fundie ladies do you want to go back to the Middle Ages too, alongside our Persian sisters? Keep drinking that Kool-aid.