Iran still stoning women, says Nobel Laureate

[democratic]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1395803.htm

A leading Iranian human rights lawyer and Nobel Laureate says that the hardline Islamic regime is still using medieval punishments on its people, including the stoning of women for adultery and the torture of dissidents.

Shirin Ebadi has also attacked last week's presidential election, saying the result is not a true reflection of the will of the people.

She is angry that the powerful, but unelected, Guardian Council disqualified hundreds of Iranians from standing in the poll.

"The most important issue is that people are not free to chose the election candidates. The candidates need to be approved first by the Guardian Council."

[Kraklen]

1. U.S. still shooting men, women, and children.

says Nobel hopeful.

[katinmn]

2. Hey, let's bring democracy to Iran. too!

:sarcasm:

[Emendator]

5. Yeah

That's where this is leading. This is almost like a replay of the Ukrainian farce. The liberals in Iran should keep quiet because their words will be used by the neocons to further justify villainizing Iran in the hopes of generating US public support for an attack. If we just leave Iran alone, things there will eventually work out and the country will open up. Bush's rhetoric about Iran has caused many people to vote for the hardliners. Iran is already surrounded by US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other bases throughout Central Asia. And we keep harping on them about their nuclear program.

[mom cat]

16. Just like the crocodile tears about Afghani women. Neo-cons will love this!

[geek tragedy]

25. You're right. Iranian women and liberals should just keep their

damn mouths shut. After all, whose country is it anyway?

[Emendator]

47. First of all

We don't know if the claims of fraud are true. Until they can definitively prove they are, we have to assume the result is legitimate. The result likely is legitimate thanks to Iran's encirclement and US hawkish rhetoric. And if there really was fraud, that is an internal Iranian matter and we should butt out.

Those crying foul are most likely upset about losing. Even if they had won, reforms are not going to happen overnight. The long term trend is in their favor as the Iranians do want reform. But this is a temporary setback. Therefore, rather than complain and give the neocons something to use, they should support Rafsanjani. They are not being smart in complaining like this because their reform efforts will be hurt a lot more by a war, which would really boost the nationalists and Islamists.

[geek tragedy]

52. Wow, you presume to tell Iranian dissidents what to do without knowing

the basics about their country or their elections.

Just shows that leftists can be as equally imperialistic in their thinking as rightwingers.

Here's a little summary for you:

An UNELECTED hardline body called the Guardian Council DISQUALIFIED HUNDREDS OF CANDIDATES, including ALL WOMEN.

And your ignorant response is to accuse people like Ebadi of sour grapes, and tell her to support Rafsanjani?

Ugh, ugly Americanism at its worst.

[Emendator]

71. Yes

I will presume, yes. Because I know what the neocons are all about, and that should be evident to all. The reformers probably don't. Democracy isn't the end all. It will come. As a matter of fact, it is largely already there. The 1997 elections which Khatami won was a surprise. And whatever the imperfections of this election, it is a more legitimate result than the farcical Iraqi election of January, where the people didn't know who they were voting for and where the results were stashed away for three weeks and counted by the occupation authorities.

We don't have much basis to complain about the imperfections of Iranian democracy after what we pulled in 1953.

[Lerkfish]

74. excellent post, and welcome to DU!

:toast:

[geek tragedy]

77. The Neocons are your personal agenda and concern, not theirs.

You are lecturing them in a very Amero-centric and paternalizing and colonialist manner. Them complaining about their own oppression is inconsistent with your political agenda. I have two words for you:

Boo fucking hoo.

You, as an American, have no right to admonish them to accept a rigged election and stop their sour grapes whining.

As I said, ugly Americanism can come from the left too. And it's just as offensive.

And your comments about the laudable nature of Iranian democracy are disgraceful. Yeah, when an unelected body disqualifies 99% of the qualified candidates, that's a really legitimate election.

[Lerkfish]

83. do us all a favor...take a break, walk away from the keyboard...

walk outside, get some fresh air.

[moddemny]

106. Whoa.........

He is making some valid points why should he walk away? because you're a little irked by his comments?

[Emendator]

89. LOL

I advocate having a neutral American position towards Iran's internal affairs and you accuse me of being a colonialist. That's a good one.

As for whether or not the Iranian election was rigged, time will tell. If we see mass demonstrations of people that stretch out to the horizon, then I will believe it was rigged. If we don't see that, then as outsiders we can only conclude that the result, however imperfect, is legitimate in the eyes of the majority.

Your attitude demonstrates the impatience of a child, wanting everything now.

[geek tragedy]

91. Your rhetoric towards the Iranian elections sounds exactly like that used

by Freepers after 2000.

<snip>
We don't know if the claims of fraud are true. Until they can definitively prove they are, we have to assume the result is legitimate. The result likely is legitimate thanks to Iran's encirclement and US hawkish rhetoric. And if there really was fraud, that is an internal Iranian matter and we should butt out.

Those crying foul are most likely upset about losing.
<snip>

Why not just call the Iranian dissidents "Sore Loserman?"


<snip>
The liberals in Iran should keep quiet because their words will be used by the neocons to further justify villainizing Iran in the hopes of generating US public support for an attack.
<snip>

That is classic Amerocentric thought. Liberal reformists should just STFU because of what our politicians might do or say.

[Lerkfish]

72. You can simply disagree with people without attacking them, you know...

and I would observe that you make a great many presumptions yourself.

"ignorant repsonse" and "ugly americanism" is not only beyond the pale, but its bizarrely inappropriate, since the other poster seems to have a better handle on the political reality of the situation, and was simply attempting to explain it to you.

[geek tragedy]

75. The poster was presuming to tell Iranian dissidents to STFU

because they were hurting his anti-Bush agenda.

[Lerkfish]

76. really? what decoder ring are you using?

perhaps you should reread his post. That's not even close to what he said.

and since when it is a BAD thing to have an anti-Bush agenda?

[geek tragedy]

78. The posters points were:

1. Iranian elections are perfectly legitimate;

2. Even if they aren't legitimate and are the result of fraud, he doesn't care.

3. Iranian dissidents are just indulging in sour grapes because they lost.

4. Dissidents make war more likely if they complain or seek their own vision of democracy.

5. Therefore, they should just STFU and support Rafsanjani.

[Lerkfish]

80. I think your decoder ring is faulty.

he/she said: "We don't know if the claims of fraud are true. Until they can definitively prove they are, we have to assume the result is legitimate. The result likely is legitimate thanks to Iran's encirclement and US hawkish rhetoric. And if there really was fraud, that is an internal Iranian matter and we should butt out.

Those crying foul are most likely upset about losing. Even if they had won, reforms are not going to happen overnight. The long term trend is in their favor as the Iranians do want reform. But this is a temporary setback. Therefore, rather than complain and give the neocons something to use, they should support Rafsanjani. They are not being smart in complaining like this because their reform efforts will be hurt a lot more by a war, which would really boost the nationalists and Islamists."


however, I didn't see his/her original post, which DOES sound somewhat like what you say, BUT when they follow up and explain their point, you would do well to take that into consideration.

and, again, why is an anti-Bush agenda a bad thing?

[geek tragedy]

84. The agenda should be pro-Iranian democracy, regardless of what

affect it has on Bush.

Supporting Iranian democratic activists and opposing Bush are not inconsistent.

It is supremely arrogant to tell people in other countries to keep quiet about their own oppression because of American political concerns.

[Lerkfish]

86. why?

and what if Iran prefers a theocracy?

talk about "supremely arrogant"....why do you assume a democracy is a goal above all others? There are many forms of govt, all with their pros and cons.

I find the curren attitude of hegemony that all countries MUST be a democracy or else disturbing.

[geek tragedy]

90. Oh Jesus H Christ on a boat trailer.

1. ANYONE the least bit familiar going on with the political situation in Iran knows that the theocracy there is deeply unpopular.

2. The only way one knows if the Iranians WANT a theocracy is to give them a legitimate chance to vote the theocrats out of power. Right now, the theocrats hand pick who Iranians get to vote for.

It is an absolute core principle of progressivism that the PEOPLE decide their form of government.

[Lerkfish]

92. any reason to bring boat trailers into this?

FWIW I was using theocracy just as an example of a form of govt that a country might choose besides democracy.

I'm glad you think that people should decide their form of government. My point is, how would you feel if the people decided they didn't want a democracy?

Saudi Arabia, for example, does not have a democracy, and their human rights abuses are flagrant. Same with Kuwait. Yet we are not being stirred up about those countries. We consider them allies and do not seek to regime change them, at least not yet.

I personally would prefer a democracy, but I'm a westerner. That's my bias. It would be arrogant to assume everyone in the world shares my bias.

[geek tragedy]

95. If the people choose a theocracy, so be it. But they have not had a

legitimate chance to make a decision in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is just as bad as Iran, maybe worse. Of course, the Neocons HATE Saudi Arabia, yet Bush holds hands with them. Which goes to show just how phony Bush is in his talk about "spreading freedom."

As a counter-example, Turkey has gone too far the other way in the past and has promoted secularism over democracy by banning religious parties. I think that's a mistake too.

The boat trailer reference is in regards to the wingnuts who brought a giant crucifix on a boat trailer to the Terry Schiavo protests.

[Lerkfish]

96. "the Neocons HATE Saudi Arabia"

when you make statements like this, it causes me to suggest you do more research.

Do you even know who the neocons ARE? Did you follow the link I provided in the other post? its very interesting.

anyways, you're still missing the point: when you say "I think that's a mistake too", you cannot see why I'm saying there is no reason why any country MUST conform to your ideals.

That's the whole hegemony problem in a nutshell: the arrogance to presume that other sovereign nations must adopt our style of govt. or at least swear fealty to the US or its interests. That's modern Imperialism.

[geek tragedy]

97. The Neocons influence in the administration is overstated.

If the conflict is between the Neocons and BIG OIL, BIG OIL wins every single time.

My stand is simple: People must be allowed to choose their own form of government.

There is absolutely nothing arrogant or imperialistic about that.

[Lerkfish]

99. ok, you've just shown me you don't understand the neocon issue at all.

and that's ok, but you seem to want to act as if you do, which is misleading.
Neocons and big oil are not competitors, theyr'e co-conspirators, and Saudis and Bush family are co-conspirators, and if you'd followed that link, you'd see Jeb bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. are all neocons of the PNAC.

If you think the "influence" of the neocons is overstated, you've missed it by a mile.
The administration is a cover for the neocons. They aren't "influencing" this administration, this administration is the beard.

[Emendator]

98. Not that I

need to justify myself to you. But for those above 6th grade reading level.

"1. Iranian elections are perfectly legitimate;"

I never said perfectly. But approximately legitimate, yes. The fact that you don't see mass demonstrations or a rebellion supports my assertion that that is the case.

Another point, if there was such massive fraud, why not go all the way? Why not ensure that two hardliners make it to the final round instead of a pragmatist like Rafsanjani, who will probably win big?

"2. Even if they aren't legitimate and are the result of fraud, he doesn't care."

That's right. I don't care. If the Iranian people aren't going to be upset enough about it, then I'm not going to get upset for them. I look at things in an "Amerocentric" way. How quaint. How do you look at things? Iranocentrically?

"3. Iranian dissidents are just indulging in sour grapes because they lost."

Some of them probably are. It's disappointing to lose. I don't begrudge them being sad. But they can still be sour grapes. Under different circumstances, where Iran isn't being threatened, they probably would have won.

"4. Dissidents make war more likely if they complain or seek their own vision of democracy."

Indirectly they play into the hands of the hawks here in the US. After watching how neocons go about things, making things up, lying, exagerrating, I don't see how anyone can deny this.

"5. Therefore, they should just STFU and support Rafsanjani."

They don't have to STFU. They can do what they want. But most of them probably will end up supporting Rafsanjani.

Since you are so keen on Iranian democracy, that would mean that Iran would become a nuclear power. The people want to have them.

[geek tragedy]

100. I don't have a problem with a democratic Iran possessing nukes.

A hardliner would spark riots. Rafsanjani is merely a status quo candidate disguised as a reformist.

The rest of your comments speak for themselves.

[Emendator]

103. Good

I don't have a problem with it either.

Of course my comments speak for themselves. What else would they speak for?

[Betsy Ross]

3. Aren't our RW Fundamentalists

our Guardian Council?

[QC]

66. Actually, no.

When Falwell and Robertson get to sit down and eliminate over 99% of the people who want to run for office, then you might have a point.

Until then, you're just making a false equivalency.

[SOS]

4. Meanwhile....

the elected leader of Burma is under arrest while the military junta uses rape and mass execution against ethnic minorities and dissidents.
US government and media not interested.

[SemperEadem]

6. The US allows pharmacists to deny birth control pills to single women

The US allows judges to order pregnant women to return to their abusive husbands.

It's interesting how the same things are happening in this country with religious right wing extremists taking control of too many secular aspects of our society.

Before we hold Iran up to ridicule, we need to have a care about what we're allowing to take place over here in the name of 'religion' by the political influence of right wing extremists.

[Habibi]

12. Excellent points.

This is totally to inflame public opinion here, just like the Taliban making Afghan women wear burkas and quit their jobs was. They don't give a flying shit about human rights for women in Iran.

Editing to include the second example of Taliban oppression of women.

[geek tragedy]

28. Are you saying this woman doesn't care about the oppression of Iranian

women?

[Habibi]

34. Nope. And I responded carelessly if I gave that impression.

I'm concerned about Ms. Ebadi's statements being publicized *now* in light of the hard line the * admin is taking on Iran. She's been speaking out for a while now, I'm just very suspicious of the timing of any report reflecting badly on Iran, no matter which media co. does it. They used the Taliban's oppression of women to make Americans even hotter for war on Afghanistan, as if they (the Bush "they") ever did or ever will give a shit about women's oppression.

Sorry, sometimes my cynicism gets the best of me. She's a damn brave woman, and this stuff does need to be reported.

[geek tragedy]

40. Iran's elections were just held. When was she supposed to comment?

It's not like Iran scheduled its elections to support the Neo-con agenda.

[Habibi]

101. I meant that she's been speaking out

about women's issues in Iran for awhile.

But please, continue your determination to be confrontational.

[geek tragedy]

102. Ah, I see your point.

Yes, I imagine that she was being interviewed about the elections and how women were banned from running for office, which segues right into the whole issue of women's rights.

Of course, if a woman in Saudi Arabia tried to talk about this issue, they'd cut her head off.

[NNN0LHI]

7. The USA will kick your ass and steal your gas says guy in Illinois n/t

[allemand]

8. Stoning is abhorrent, but you won't stop it by bombing the country

back into the stone age.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. And the US is still detaining people in Gitmo.....most of whom ....

...are not guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This guy needs to give the money he got for writing this stuff back to the NeoCons.

[SaveAmerica]

10. What else has happened recently that might be used as cause to

attack Iran? I'm trying to collect the posts that have recent news items that have similar charges against Iran that was used against Iraq (this imo is similar to the atrocities against Iraqis by Hussein that was used as reason #3 to go to war). Thanks.

[bullimiami]

11. and saudi arabia?

[gate of the sun]

13. We are still killing Iraqi children

and innocent women and men......I can't get too excited over this story.

[Gyre]

14. Why doesn't she worry about a preemptive attack by the US

which is nearly a certainty if chimp isn't impeached, which will kill thousands of her countrymen and countrywomen at minimum, rather than a few isolated incidents of stoning?

I agree that it's a problem, but it's virtually irrelevant compared to the imminent military threat facing her country at the moment just to appease Ariel Sharon and his pet chimp's insatiable thirst for the blood of muslims.

Gyre

[Eugene]

15. She has spoken out against "regime change"

to her credit. She is a reformer,
but she was against the invasion of Iraq
and she doesn't want to be "liberated"
by Bush & Co.

[not systems]

17. Send a care package of tazers...

or just start bombing in 5 minutes.

Maybe the Iraqi wood chippers are available unless they are
being used still in Abu Guaib.

[Daphne08]

18. Okay. I'm sick of seeing all this crap about Iran!

Do they really take us all for fools?

Iran can solve its own problems and it will eventually.

Damn it. If they are so worried about Iran, why the Hell are we in Iraq! (rhetorical question soaked in :sarcasm:)

[James T. Kirk]

19. Yeah! We don't care about the human rights of Iranians!

Do they even HAVE human rights over there? Come on, we're talking about IRAN.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Daphne08]

82. You misunderstood the intention of my post.

[James T. Kirk]

105. OK, then. Explain. What are you sick of seeing about Iran?

[oblivious]

20. This headline, as usual, is misleading.

"Unfortunately stoning exists in our law. According to the law, the punishment for adultery is to be stoned," she said.

What is not mentioned here is that no one has been stoned since 2003. The US has some pretty weird laws on the books too, but they are never enforced. Of course, if a propagandist wanted to inflame emotions against the US, they could publish these laws.


This article does not mention the other things she says in her interviews. For example, this interview with USA Today:

Re the invasion of Iraq: The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It hurt the process of democracy. The U.S. invasion led to the fundamentalists in that country organizing. It also made the work of human rights advocates in Iran harder.

Re Iranian women: We have a large number of educated women; 63% of university students are girls. Women who are educated and aware of their civilizational background cannot accept repression.

Re human rights progress in Iran: Ebadi studied the Koran, the Muslim holy book, to find arguments to refute the reasoning behind the Islamic government's reversals of progressive family laws enacted under the shah. In divorce cases, the theocrats gave fathers automatic custody of boys aged 2 and girls aged 7. Girls as young as 9 could be forced to marry. As a result of efforts by Ebadi and other rights advocates, Iranian boys and girls now remain with the mother until age 7 and a court decides what happens to them afterward. And the age of marriage for girls has been raised to 13.

"When I talk about victories, I do not mean that our problems with human rights have been resolved," she says. "We have numerous hurdles to overcome. But we were able to take away Islam as a justification for oppression."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-06-13-ebadi-qna_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-06-13-ebadi-usat_x.htm

I expect she would be dismayed to find how AFP and Democratic focused so much on that single issue - stoning - and not on the results of her efforts to improve human rights in Iran.

[geek tragedy]

26. No, it's not misleading. From the article:

<snip>
Two Iranian women are facing imminent execution for adultery.

One is sentenced to flogging and then hanging while the other will be buried up to her waist and then stoned to death.
<snip>

[oblivious]

29. It does not say that in the article. The article simply describes the law.

According to the law, the punishment for adultery is to be stoned," she said.

"You bury the person up to their waist and then you throw small stones at them until they die. The stones should not be very big so that the person suffers before dying.

But Iran declared a moratorium on stoning in 2002. She will not be stoned. The warmongers just love to twist stories like this to demonize Iran and ratchet up the emotions to make another war acceptable.

[geek tragedy]

39. I quoted the last two paragraphs of the article. Read again. nt

[oblivious]

107. Those last two paragraphs are simply a lie from ABC. She didn't say that.

She said only that the law is on the books. So ABC concludes that she 'will' be stoned and manipulates the headline to make it look like she said this. She did not. Democratic told us she was absolutely going to be stoned in December too, but she wasn't. There has been a moratorium on stoning since 1992.

I find it very upsetting that you are using this wonderful woman for propaganda purposes. Read of her careful, reasoned and effective approach to dealing the Iranian regime. And stop taking her quotes out of context. Coming up with that headline and ignoring the true context of her interview is strictly propaganda. Shame on ABC and shame on you for trying to justify it and twisting our rejection of this propaganda into support for the Iranian regime.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-06-13-ebadi-qna_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-06-13-ebadi-usat_x.htm

Examples:

Question:Did the U.S. invasion make it easier for them to disqualify reformists in the recent Iranian parliamentary elections?

Shirin Ebadi: Yes. Under slogans such as protecting national security or fighting terrorism, there's always a reason to act against and silence human rights advocates. So the U.S. military attack on Iraq was truly a mistake and it hurt the democracy process in Iran and in the region.

...

Question: The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations gave a reception for you this week and yet you are a strong critic of the government. How do you balance your role as a critic of the government with attending such a reception? How do you walk this line so you can continue to function and stay out of jail?

Shirin Ebadi: I am like a tightrope walker. I walk a thin line and with a piece of stick in my hand, I try to retain my balance. Of course, once I was not able to keep that balance and I fell into jail for 25 days.

[Judi Lynn]

44. Some people don't have the dignity to resist this cheap manipulation

either, and struggle away here to try to push D.U.'ers into accepting it. They come here to assist the _Bush propaganda machine.

Thanks for your persistant clarity.

[geek tragedy]

46. And some people try to assist the Iranian clerics's propaganda

machine.

See how easy that kind of dissembling is?

A good section of DU simply doesn't care about the human rights of people living in regimes that Bush doesn't like.

That's a complete lack of principle and betrayal of liberal values.

But of course, I'm talking about people who think that the a woman who fights for human and women's rights inside of Iran and who won a peace prize for that effort is a Neocon propagandist.

[oasis]

22. The women should have come to Christ and be spared like Carla Faye Tucker.

:eyes:

[varun]

24. U.S. still treating its gay citizens like criminals

...look into your own backyard first....

[geek tragedy]

27. So a female Nobel Peace Prize winner speaks out in favor of human

rights and against the patriarchal mullahs who rule her country, and DU'ers respond by siding with the mullahs?

The responses here are appalling.

[AngryAmish]

30. We are not siding with the mullahs

We are siding with the Ayatollahs. Different clerical system in Shiite Islam. However, we must do anything and side with anyone as long as it makes B*** look bad.

[geek tragedy]

42. Was that supposed to be sarcastic? Excellent post if it was. n/t

[Mizmoon]

31. There are few true liberals in the world

very few.

[Lerkfish]

33. speaking for myself only, I'm just highly skeptical at this report...

...and its timing, just as we are ramping up invasion plans of Iran.

babies ripped from incubators ringing any bells?

[geek tragedy]

41. This is a Nobel Peace Prize winning human rights activist, and elections

were held less than a week ago. There is no suspicious timing here.


There's actual video out there of people being stoned to death in Iran. It's not pretty.

[Lerkfish]

48. sorry, in this new world, ALL timings are suspicious to me.

I find it odd that you can unequivocably declare there is no suspicious timing...but hey, we can choose to disagree.

:toast:

[geek tragedy]

50. The elections were held last week. This is exactly when you would

expect the comments to come.

It's not like the US has troops ready to go within the next four months.


Here's my test for worrying about Iran: When the Bushies start talking draft, then we'll know Iran is next.

[Lerkfish]

53. "It's not like the US has troops ready to go within the next four months"

we are obviously operating in two different sets of assumptions.
Under mine, we WILL attack Iran within 4 months.

see my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1567110&mesg_id=1567148

[geek tragedy]

61. Doesn't seem like a plausible scenario.

The Iraqi army can't handle a rag-ass group like the insurgents. The Iranian military, after digging in, would chew them up.

And it would mean certain defeat for Bush and his crowd at the polls here.

[Lerkfish]

65. I didn't say it a viable or intelligent scenario: the neocons are naive.

I'm saying its THEIR scenario, and one they will use.
I'm not avocating or saying its a good idea, in fact I feel the opposite. But they have telegraphed their agenda for many years now..


here: do some reading, it may open your eyes to something:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[smirkymonkey]

36. I agree....anytime there is a report of a human rights abuse

against a WOMAN, a majority of DU'ers chime in with their usual "cultural sensitivity" or complaint about how the U.S. isn't much better. The sexism here is disgusting.

"When a man is oppressed, it's a tragedy. When a woman is oppressed, it's tradition." - Bernadette Mosala

[geek tragedy]

45. That Mosala quote is great!

I would qualify that statement, though. If the country in question is a Bush/US ally, they'll criticize the abuses against women.

If it's a country opposed to the US/Bush, then not only should liberals not talk about human rights abuses there, but those stupid internal dissidents should just STFU.

Because all that matters is Bush.

[QC]

64. Appalling, but par for the course around here.

Welcome to the New DU, where kneejerk thinking is the order of the day!

Bush doesn't like somebody? That means they're good! Somebody doesn't like Bush? That means they're good! Could it be that both Bush and the ayatollahs are assholes? BEEP! THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE! BEEP! THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE!

Much easier than thinking, and besides, it provides so many opportunities to play the drama queen, which is always a great benefit.

[geek tragedy]

81. I guess the logic goes: The enemy of Bush's enemy is Bush's friend,

and therefore my enemy.

[SOS]

69. "siding with the mullahs?"

No. Stoning is appalling. So is rape and murder by the Burmese military, boiling dissidents in Uzbekistan, torture in Equatorial Guinea, whippings and beheadings in Saudi Arabia, mass executions in China and the torture of the rendered in Egypt.
People are simply suspicious of the US "concern" for Iranian women while forging alliances with other human rights abusers. Why only Iran? Is the concern real or just another excuse for more imperial hubris? Liberals must fight for human rights in every corner of the earth and demand sanctions for the most egregious abusers. And that includes Iran, China and Saudi Arabia. If Wal-Mart plastic lawn chairs and cheap gasoline trump human rights, then we have no human rights legs to stand on.

[geek tragedy]

79. The person being interviewed is an IRANIAN. This is an Iranian decrying

Iranian elections as being unfair.

So what the hell does the US have to do with that?

[Lerkfish]

32. wow, and we needed to know this RIGHT NOW because...

(whisper) so we can force OUR BRAND OF vassal democracy on them at the point of a gun (/whisper)

[geek tragedy]

43. No, it's because the elections were held within the past week.

Unless one also thinks that Iran scheduled its elections in order to help the Neocon agenda, this tin foil thinking is absurd.

[Lerkfish]

49. um... I can do without the character assasination, thanks.

have a nice day.

:toast:

[geek tragedy]

51. Not talking about character, talking about an opinion and an idea.

Even the smartest and coolest people sometimes have wrong-headed ideas.

:toast:

[Lerkfish]

54. your clarification is a distinction without a difference...

but thanks anyways. Like I said, we can choose to disagree.

[Q]

35. And Saudi Arabia is still cutting off hands and heads...

...and consider women as property.

Hey...weren't most of the 9-11 hijackers from Saudi?

[Bridget Burke]

38. But Saudi Arabia is our Good Friend.

Abuse of women is abhorrent wherever it occurs. But the timing of this article is suspect. Why, let's invade--to help the women! Although Shirin Ebadi has spent time in prison, she is currently free to practice law & express her opinions--in Iran.

And the article only mentions a few of her ideas. Here are some others:

Ebadi has harsh words for the Bush Administration, its war on Iraq, and its bluster about Iran. She told AP that "the Iranian people in the case of a war from the U.S. will be united to stop an occupation of their country." .....

We also have to acknowledge that certain groups and countries benefit from waging war. Instead of dealing with the causes of terrorism, they let terrorism serve as a justification for war. Unfortunately, violence begets violence. And this is how the war on terrorism seems to be going at this juncture. A lot of people are losing their lives. Many children are losing their parents. Too many houses are being destroyed. And, unfortunately, the arms industry seems to flourish.

www.ifcwtc.org/index.html

[Hamsta1]

37. catapult the propaganda?

Anybody else feel deja vu when you hear these stories? Not that I'm Pro-Stoning-Women, I'm just saying... The Guardian Council needs to take a page from the GOP handbook... Let the people stand in line at the polls and think they have a voice.

Just like the tide comes in or nighttime falls, the underhanded selling of the next war will not come all at once, but slowly and gradually it will build up and come from the most unlikely places.

[geek tragedy]

55. FACTS about the recent Iranian election:

1. 1,014 candidates who were registered qualified under Iran's election law for the ballot.

2. The Guardian Council disqualified 1,008 of these candidates, leaving only six eligible.

3. The Guardian Council is unelected, and is comprised of judges and religious figures.

4. Five of the six candidates have extremely conservative views that closely match the ideology of the Guardian Council.

5. The sixth is somewhat more moderate, but is also very well-connected politically to the Guardian Council.

6. Upon instructions from the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, two reformists were allowed back on the ballot.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0605/1.htm

This makes Florida in 2000 look like a model of democratic justice.

[Lerkfish]

56. But I guess I"m saying, why do we (americans) care....unless....

we plan to "fix" it?

There are many other countries with a much worse govt. record.

[geek tragedy]

57. Why shouldn't we care? We should care about people who are oppressed

wherever they are--whether they be Saudis, Palestinians, Iranians, or North Koreans.

[varun]

58. But why not Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

that have worse human rights records against women and minorities?

Because they are our "Allies"?

The timing is suspect.

[geek tragedy]

59. I care about those places too. Their atrocities get reported too.

And the timing is not suspect, since the elections were held on Friday. There's nothing suspicious about the timing at all.

[Lerkfish]

60. you're missing my point....

we're being TOLD to care because then we'll be TOLD to "fix" it.

I don't mean we shouldn't care, obviously we should....I mean why are we suddenly being MADE to be outraged about Iran?

Its because they will make another plea for preemptive attack, this is just the catapulted propaganda leading up to it, IMHO.

sorry for the confusion.

[geek tragedy]

62. Nobody's ever forced me to be outraged about Iran. It's had a horrendous

human rights record, and has been the enemy of the United States, for decades now.

Americans have hated the government of Iran since 1980, when "Ayatollah Assahollah" T-shirts were the big item. They don't need to be told how bad it is.

It's not like people are discovering these abuses just now.

[Lerkfish]

63. you're obviously not old enough to remember that the US

overthrew a democratic govt. in Iran and replaced it with the Shah, who had his own share of human rights abuses. It was when Iran overthrew the Shah, and his illicit, US-backed monarchy, that the rise of the ayatollahs took place, the hostages, etc.

politics do not occur in a vacuum, there is cause and effect. If you choose to view the US as lily-white saintly country, you will be sorely disappointed, sorry.

[geek tragedy]

68. Where did I say the US was innocent or deny the wrongdoing involving

the Shah?

Those facts don't change the fact that the Iranian government and the US have been enemies for a while, and that the Iranian government has a horrendous human rights record.

[Lerkfish]

70. well, ya see....you said....

"...and has been the enemy of the United States, for decades now.

Americans have hated the government of Iran since 1980, when "Ayatollah Assahollah" T-shirts were the big item. They don't need to be told how bad it is."

that description seemed rather one-sided. You described Iran as an enemy of the US , and how we have hated the governement of Iran since 1980, and you referred to "ayatollah Assahollah"

sorry to have misinterpreted you.

[geek tragedy]

73. I was just pointing out that there's very little need to convince people

here that Iran's government is really, really, really bad.

In fact, I would suspect that dislike of Iran has always been higher than dislike of Saddam.

Doesn't excuse in any way US behavior during the early decades of the Cold War.

[varun]

67. abuse of women under Taliban

was overlooked constantly...till 9/11

Thats when all the media suddenly picked up on the horror stories in Afghanistan. And US bombed them to oblivion...

Timing is suspect.

[geek tragedy]

85. Progressive activists were denouncing the Taliban long before 911.

Progressives have a duty to stand by women like Ebadi.

[Bridget Burke]

87. But why did this article avoid any criticism of the USA?

She's a fine woman, but the media are picking & choosing facts to convince this country that we must hate Iran & invade. Spreading democracy, you know. To countries with oil.

Did you read this article I linked earlier?

Ebadi: The United States insisted that it was justified in invading Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was discomfort in the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. To influence public opinion, to counter criticism, the United States then came with a second reason to invade Iraq--that it had invaded Iraq to advance democracy and human rights.

North Americans do not understand that you do not throw down human rights like bombs on the Iraqis. I want to take my American friends back to the end of World War II, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formulated. A group of thinkers met to come up with ways and means to prevent yet another war. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt played a crucial role in assembling this group of people. And that is why the name of the United States is synonymous with the cause of human rights around the world.

Now what has happened to the glorious American civilization that has brought us to the present phase when we see those despicable pictures of mistreated Iraqi prisoners? What do you think Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt would have said if she were alive in this day and age? The present Administration should apologize to the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt for what it has done, for the atrocities committed.

www.progressive.org/sept04/intv0904.html

This progressive stands by her. She does NOT want war between the US & Iran.

[geek tragedy]

88. Because it's an article about the IRANIAN elections. When people

were discussing US elections and the various ensuing controversies, they didn't talk about Iran.

Again, Americans have stop thinking the world revolves around us.

I agree with her that intervention by the US would be wrongheaded on a number of levels.

[Bridget Burke]

93. Then why does the headline talk about stoning of women?

She discussed several topics. But the article gave no hint whatsoever that she ever had a bad thought about Bush.

[geek tragedy]

94. Because she's IRANIAN. Not every single damn topic has to revolve around

the United States and Bush.

This was an IRANIAN human rights activist who was interviewed by an AUSTRALIAN media outlet.

Again, Amerocentrism is bad.

"You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you. . . "

[Chicago Democrat]

104. They'll stone you when driving in your car....

They'll stone you when your playing your guitar....


Well I would not feel so all alone!



Everybody must get stoned!

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. So when is the US invasion?

I'm sure the rethuglicans will just LOVE this.

And I predict 6 months from now the RW talking point will be:
But they were STONING women!!