NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]


Concern in Iran After a Scholar Is Held 3 Weeks (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/world/middleeast/21tehran.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By NAZILA FATHI
Published: May 21, 2006
TEHRAN, May 20 — An Iranian philosopher and writer who also holds Canadian citizenship has been detained for three weeks without formal charges, raising concerns that his arrest could signal greater repression of intellectuals.

The scholar, Ramin Jahanbegloo, was arrested at the Tehran airport late last month as he headed to Brussels to attend a conference sponsored by the German Marshall Fund. He had just returned from a six-month teaching program in India.

A few days after the arrest, security officers took Mr. Jahanbegloo to his home and searched it, removing his computer.

The minister of information, Mohsen Ejei, told reporters this month that he was arrested because of "his contacts with foreigners." On Monday, the daily newspaper Jomhouri Eslami, which is close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Mr. Jahanbegloo "an element of the United States who was part of the plot to overthrow the regime under the guise of intellectual work by peaceful means."

Mr. Jahanbegloo, who has delivered lectures on the prospects for democracy in Iran, wrote nearly 20 books in English, French and Persian on culture and philosophy. He is now the director of contemporary studies at Iran's Cultural Research Bureau and an advocate of nonviolence and intercultural dialogue.

Mr. Jahanbegloo's wife and mother have declined to talk to reporters in an effort to avoid complicating his case.

The arrest coincided with a crackdown on student advocates. A court has issued a suspended five-year sentence for Abdullah Momeni, a student leader, and an 18-month sentence for Mehdi Aminzadeh, another leader. Each was accused of being part of the pro-democracy demonstrations in 2002 during which students demanded the release of Professor Hashem Aghajari, who received a death sentence after questioning the authority of high-ranking clerics.

However, he has been arrested by the Ministry of Information, unlike the others, who were arrested by the judiciary. His arrest was a shock since he was not involved in activism and had advocated dialogue and tolerance in his writings.

Mr. Momeni said the arrest of Mr. Jahanbegloo made sense only as an effort to frighten dissidents. "He was just a university professor and intellectual who advocated philosophical theories," he said. "He had no access to any classified information."

"It seems that the authorities want to intimidate freethinkers and professors," he added. "They do not want intellectuals to have the freedom to advocate secular and democratic theories which can lay the foundation for democracy."

The arrest has further strained relations between Canada and Iran, which soured after an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, was killed in detention in the notorious Evin prison in 2003.

Mr. Jahanbegloo is also in Evin, in solitary confinement in Section 209, an area controlled by the Iran's Ministry of Information, people familiar with his case say. Former prisoners said people held in this section received better treatment than those in the section controlled by the Judiciary. Mr. Jahanbegloo told his family over the phone that he was being treated well and fed well.

Former detainees said they were usually interrogated for long periods, then returned to a tiny room with just a toilet, sink and a lamp that never turned off. After their release, many have said they had been forced to make false confessions.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

Could you explain this again for Australians and so one who don't really get what you are trying to say? Are you saying that contact with foreigners is terrorism?

In other news, Iran is planning to force all Muslims to wear uniform clothing in 'Islamic' colours (ie black, grey, brown).

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20642_Yellow_Badges_for_Iranian_Jews&only

Non-Muslims will be forced to wear coloured markings identifying their faith. Jews will be forced to wear Yellow marks on their clothes and Christians would be forced to wear red.

Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Hmmm, now where was it...

That's right, Nazi Germany!

And people seriously want Iran to have unrestricted access to nuclear technology?

Could you explain this again for Australians and so one who don't really get what you are trying to say? Are you saying that contact with foreigners is terrorism?

No, what he means is there are people who go on and on about America detaining terrorists without charge, yet say nothing when countries like Iran lock up academics and students and other 'dissedents' for not agreeing whole heartedly with the 'leader'

See also China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc etc

In other news, Iran is planning to force all Muslims to wear uniform clothing in 'Islamic' colours (ie black, grey, brown).

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...nian_Jews&only

Non-Muslims will be forced to wear coloured markings identifying their faith. Jews will be forced to wear Yellow marks on their clothes and Christians would be forced to wear red.

Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Hmmm, now where was it...

That's right, Nazi Germany!

And people seriously want Iran to have unrestricted access to nuclear technology?

This is not the truth. Check around on the internets and you'll see.

Non-Muslims will be forced to wear coloured markings identifying their faith. Jews will be forced to wear Yellow marks on their clothes and Christians would be forced to wear red.

Iran has actually denied that this is the case.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

If you get out the Anarchist's Cookbook now in the USA you are a terrorist threat because of the PATRIOT act. You can get imprisoned for just about anything, for any period of time, on "secret evidence".

But yeah, I don't agree with what Iran's doing.

And you'll find it's "Persians", not "Iranians".



Oh - Bobghanistan - what the hell does making people wear certain colours (which has been denied) have to do with whether they're responisible enough to have nuclear capabilities?

No, what he means is there are people who go on and on about America detaining terrorists without charge, yet say nothing when countries like Iran lock up academics and students and other 'dissedents' for not agreeing whole heartedly with the 'leader'

See also China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc etc

But we do say something.

The difference is that we have no power to directly effect change within these countries, whereas western liberal-democracies are at least in theory supposed to be representative of the wishes of their populace; and at least in theory, change is easier to effect through popular dissent.

And then there's the assumption that because we do not wish to turn these nations into glass, that we somehow support the actions of the government.

No, what he means is there are people who go on and on about America detaining terrorists without charge, yet say nothing when countries like Iran lock up academics and students and other 'dissedents' for not agreeing whole heartedly with the 'leader'

See also China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc etc

Is he talking about American people? If he is, I would hypothesize that it is due to Americans haveing more knowledge about and caring more about what America is doing rather than what foreign nations are doing. Which is sort of to be expected. Personally I think it would be nice if Americans cared more about what happened in foreign countries but it's kind of silly to expect them to be just as concerned about what is happenind in other countries as their own country.

What religion gets to wear green? I like green. :)

This is not the truth. Check around on the internets and you'll see.

I've checked, and it looks like you may be right. It hasn't been confirmed as true, although there are key figures in Iran who have spoken out in favour of such a policy. The law was also attempted a few years ago, but was turned down by the 'moderate' former President.

I am happy to accept that my post may have been incorrect. However, I'm not going to change my view that Iran, a country run by radical Islamists who support international terror (Hizbollah is funded by Iran) and have called for Jews and Israel to be wiped off the face of the planet, should under no circumstances be allowed access to nuclear technology until it allows full and unfettered access to international inspections, like the US, France, Britain and 99% of other nuclear states. (Don't get me started on Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India. I fully agree that the US should be putting the same kind of pressure on them too and that they should also be subject to the same kind of inspections).

After all, if the programme is peaceful and designed purely for power generation, what do they have to hide? Plus it would be a huge propaganda victory for them. The Americans would look like idiots. By keeping the international community out of the loop and constantly being secretive and deceptive about their programme the Iranians are only helping the case that they are making nuclear weapons.

The Brazilians have shown how new nuclear power generation SHOULD be done. Through full and open cooperation with the IAEA.

Oh - Bobghanistan - what the hell does making people wear certain colours (which has been denied) have to do with whether they're responisible enough to have nuclear capabilities?
I think Bobghanistan was comparing giving Iran nuclear capabilities, to giving the Nazis nuclear capabilities, due to the similarity of policy asserted here. But the debate from that link is here, over whether or not it is true: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20642_Yellow_Badges_for_Iranian_Jews&only

LOL - why do I seem to post reiterations straight after it's already been answered? :rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

Well, Iran doesn't parade itself as a pillar of freedom and human rights, so that means the victims of their human rights abuses suffer less than America's victims. :rolleyes:

Oh - Bobghanistan - what the hell does making people wear certain colours (which has been denied) have to do with whether they're responisible enough to have nuclear capabilities?

Would you have like the Nazis to have nuclear weapons? My point was (and I have just retracted it) that a nation with so many similarities to Nazi Germany should not be allowed unrestricted access to nuclear technology.

I think Iran is perfectly responsible to have it if it is under the same kind of strict international inspection that say Brazil has, or the US or UK. However if we turn a blind eye to it, we will have a country that supports terrorism (ie Hizbollah), supports an Islamic conquest of the world and wants to annihilate Israel with nuclear arms, and the ability to fire them as far away as continental Europe.

If they want a peaceful programme, then fine. Allow the inspectors in and do it like Brazil has done. If they keep being deceptive and secretive, then of course people are going to think they're developing nuclear weapons, especially when weapons-grade nuclear material has been found in one of their old, deactivated facilities.

Well, Iran doesn't parade itself as a pillar of freedom and human rights, so that means the victims of their human rights abuses suffer less than America's victims. :rolleyes:

How does that work? In what way do they "suffer less"?

Well, Iran doesn't parade itself as a pillar of freedom and human rights, so that means the victims of their human rights abuses suffer less than America's victims. :rolleyes:

So the detainees at Gitmo who have a bit of white noise and some stress positions for being terrorists (I'm not going to debate whether or not its 'torture', but suffice to say I've been through it on an Army exercise and didn't think it was) are suffering more than the people in Iran, who are beaten, electrocuted, flogged and stoned for such 'crimes' as being gay, being raped (yes, the victim of the rape is punished for 'tempting' the rapist) or changing their religion.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

...and have called for Jews and Israel to be wiped off the face of the planet...

I'm afriad this isn't quite true either. The President was quoted as saying "Israel should be wiped off the map," but it's a mistranslation. That idiom does not exist in Persian. What he apparently was said was much milder. Not that he is in the habit of saying nice things about Israel, but aparently it wasn't nearly so bad.

Full disclosure: I don't speak Persian myself but my source seems trustworthy. Please check the internets again if you have any doubts.

So the detainees at Gitmo who have a bit of white noise and some stress positions for being terrorists (I'm not going to debate whether or not its 'torture', but suffice to say I've been through it on an Army exercise and didn't think it was) are suffering more than the people in Iran, who are beaten, electrocuted, flogged and stoned for such 'crimes' as being gay, being raped (yes, the victim of the rape is punished for 'tempting' the rapist) or changing their religion.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Shhh. The people on this forum thing that the US is the big Evil, and that if a country like Iran does something, it's not a big deal. No matter who gets electrodes shoved up their ass, or how much their hair lights up like a Chrismas tree when the current goes on.

So the detainees at Gitmo who have a bit of white noise and some stress positions for being terrorists (I'm not going to debate whether or not its 'torture', but suffice to say I've been through it on an Army exercise and didn't think it was) are suffering more than the people in Iran, who are beaten, electrocuted, flogged and stoned for such 'crimes' as being gay, being raped (yes, the victim of the rape is punished for 'tempting' the rapist) or changing their religion.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
How does that work? In what way do they "suffer less"?
They don't. I was just making a typical apologists' answer. I thought the :rolleyes: indicated my sarcasm

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]
This is completely unacceptable, and although not surprising it is nevertheless a cause for concern.

(Now, am I qualified to be critical of the US governments handling of the detainees in the future hmm?)

Oh, and the "Iran & badges for jews"-story, which seems to be false... There is a long thread about it floating about General already.

Shhh. The people on this forum thing that the US is the big Evil, and that if a country like Iran does something, it's not a big deal. No matter who gets electrodes shoved up their ass, or how much their hair lights up like a Chrismas tree when the current goes on.

I think the difference is that people feel more disapointed when they discover their best friend is a child beater than when they read about a complete stranger actually killing children in the newspaper. It's human nature.

Could you explain this again for Australians and so one who don't really get what you are trying to say? Are you saying that contact with foreigners is terrorism?
No. What I'm saying is that anything America does is immediately jumped on as if the frakking world were coming to an end, yet none of those same people give a peep about a terrorist state like Iran detaining intellectuals.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

So what? We get sooo concerned when US/UK does it because we don't think anyone should be detained without trial, in Iran or America. It's more you just expect it from Iran.

No. What I'm saying is that anything America does is immediately jumped on as if the frakking world were coming to an end, yet none of those same people give a peep about a terrorist state like Iran detaining intellectuals.

There are several reasons for this, Eut.

1. These people are cowards who would never walk into Iran and liberate anyone, not even oppressed gay men, or oppressed women (note how many went to Afghanistan and liberated anyone), or oppressed mentally retarded people. They require a country with freedom of speech, because all they are going to do is talk - they NEVER walk the walk.

2. They hate America, and half of them won't admit it.

The difference is that we have no power to directly effect change within these countries, whereas western liberal-democracies are at least in theory supposed to be representative of the wishes of their populace; and at least in theory, change is easier to effect through popular dissent.
Ah! So you attack countries' governments who are democracies because it's easy to do so, and leave oppressive theocracies alone because it's just too hard to protest their idiocy? How ... disengenuous ( not to mention lazy ) of you. :rolleyes:

Well, Iran doesn't parade itself as a pillar of freedom and human rights, so that means the victims of their human rights abuses suffer less than America's victims. :rolleyes:
ROFLMAO! Riiiiight! :rolleyes:

Ah! So you attack countries' governments who are democracies because it's easy to do so, and leave oppressive theocracies alone because it's just too hard to protest their idiocy? How ... disengenuous ( not to mention lazy ) of you. :rolleyes:

It's called, "I have no balls." Alternatively, "I weep for <fill in the blank>, but I'm not willing to do more than attend a protest 10,000 miles away from the problem."

What religion gets to wear green? I like green. :)

I want to be a blue religion! :D

I'm afriad this isn't quite true either. The President was quoted as saying "Israel should be wiped off the map," but it's a mistranslation. That idiom does not exist in Persian. What he apparently was said was much milder. Not that he is in the habit of saying nice things about Israel, but aparently it wasn't nearly so bad.

Full disclosure: I don't speak Persian myself but my source seems trustworthy. Please check the internets again if you have any doubts.

He did actually say that, the 'mis-translation' excuse was put out afterwards by his spin-doctors as a 'damage limitation' exercise. Arman-dinner-jacket (or however you spell his name) He has frequently called for Israel, Zionism and the Jews to be annihilated and has promised that this will come soon, both in Persian and English.

Would you have like the Nazis to have nuclear weapons? My point was (and I have just retracted it) that a nation with so many similarities to Nazi Germany should not be allowed unrestricted access to nuclear technology.

To be honest, why the hell should the USA get nuclear weaponry?

Who've had the most wars over the last 60 years?

Oh look, it's the world police again, sticking their noses into conflicts where they're not needed and ignoring much more pressing matters!

Ah! So you attack countries' governments who are democracies because it's easy to do so, and leave oppressive theocracies alone because it's just too hard to protest their idiocy? How ... disengenuous ( not to mention lazy ) of you. :rolleyes:

Don't be so damned immature, and listen to what i'm actually saying.

Western nations are meant to operate with respect to human rights. It is the responsibility of every citizen in western nations to ensure that their government does this. If we don't, we lose any moral high ground when it comes to oppressive dictatorships.

Sitting around bitching about what Iran is doing isn't going to change anything until we have our own houses in order. For example, I cannot point to a country that detains refugees indefinitely and decry their abuse when the same thing is happening in my own backyard and I am doing nothing about it.

However, I am not saying that we shouldn't do or say anything about these oppressive nations. It is a lot more difficult to effect any change that we can objectively state is an improvement for the people of these nations, however. I am sure that the Mullahs in Iran could not care less about a 20 year old living many thousands of kilometers away from them. I need to convince the government to make a standpoint against it. This is virtually impossible when the government is committing breaches of human rights itself. And at the end of the day, nothing is going to happen without the consent of the people of these nations (unless it is forced upon them - which, from my ethical point of view is also wrong, and ineffective) decide to protest the governments themselves. It will happen; no dictatorship has maintained that system forever. The best way to get the people of these nations to do this is by setting a good example.

Lastly, I resent your implication that I am lazy, which is frankly untrue; I am quite politically active despite my limited reserves of time.

1. These people are cowards who would never walk into Iran and liberate anyone, not even oppressed gay men, or oppressed women (note how many went to Afghanistan and liberated anyone), or oppressed mentally retarded people. They require a country with freedom of speech, because all they are going to do is talk - they NEVER walk the walk.

2. They hate America, and half of them won't admit it.

You would walk into Iran to free those oppressed gay men/woman/mentally retarded people? You are either very brave, or very, very, stupid. An attack on Iran would make the government more oppressive, as it would have "proof" that external heathen forces are trying to destroy Iran and probably Shi'ite Islam as well.

And yeah, I hate America because I criticize the government. But wait! I love democracy, I love some aspects of the free market, and I'm a big fan of multiculturalism, and I do agree that even George anti-Christ Bush is probably preferable to...to...damn, how do you spell the Iranian president's name? Anyway, just because I don't like some aspects of America doesn't mean I hate America entirely.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

By NAZILA FATHI
-snippage-
Former detainees said they were usually interrogated for long periods, then returned to a tiny room with just a toilet, sink and a lamp that never turned off. After their release, many have said they had been forced to make false confessions.
Come on Eut this is obviously Bush propoganda, look at the reporters name NAZI!
And it is actually an Anagram for 'LA NAZI FAITH'!:eek:

Hm
You said "Hezbollah" but that's not from Iran, it's a South Lebanese Socialist group of f* ass* which group have been banned of politic in Iran 'coz they were too stupid.

Your media are playing with you. Iran is a great state and has more internal affairs to solve than to try to conquer any USA or destroy an Israel, just for the fun of it...

You want to take literally the words of an Iranian speech, should you first try to do that with a US speech!!!

No motive for this emprisonment? Are you joking?
That professor was arrested on suspicion of destabilizing the state, that's a reason, not in your country? You can make speeches freely against your gouvernement? It certainly means your voice is not considered as important or serious enough and that you can prove zilch in you allegations, like here.

That prof was undermining the job of the state in a moment when diplomacy is very important and when big mouths (even with good intentions) better shurrup for a little time. Nothing very serious.

But please, wit for the second act of the Persian story, and remember it's not North Korea...

Is the bomb very serious in another country? What nazism has to do here?

Hm
You said "Hezbollah" but that's not from Iran, it's a South Lebanese Socialist group of f* ass* which group have been banned of politic in Iran 'coz they were too stupid.

Your media are playing with you. Iran is a great state and has more internal affairs to solve than to try to conquer any USA or destroy an Israel, just for the fun of it...

You want to take literally the words of an Iranian speech, should you first try to do that with a US speech!!!

No motive for this emprisonment? Are you joking?
That professor was arrested on suspicion of destabilizing the state, that's a reason, not in your country? You can make speeches freely against your gouvernement? It certainly means your voice is not considered as important or serious enough and that you can prove zilch in you allegations, like here.

That prof was undermining the job of the state in a moment when diplomacy is very important and when big mouths (even with good intentions) better shurrup for a little time. Nothing very serious.

But please, wit for the second act of the Persian story, and remember it's not North Korea...

Is the bomb very serious in another country? What nazism has to do here?

Wait...wait...


Are you seriously trying to justify the actions of the Iranian government here?

Sweet jesus, that's a new one.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]


Concern in Iran After a Scholar Is Held 3 Weeks (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/world/middleeast/21tehran.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By NAZILA FATHI
Published: May 21, 2006

A couple of points:
1. those 'bleeding hearts' who are so concerned about America abducting people and holding them for months without charge are also protesting against other abuses of human rights worldwide. If you don't believe me, check out amnesty international website. You'll be surprised to find that they do actively complain and lobby any and every country that abuses human rights.
Then again, I wouldn't expect you to do that, as it would no doubt cause a bit of cognitive dissonance when forced to admit you just ignore the facts when they go against your predetermined assumptions and intolerances.

2. If you notice the date this was published, it was today. Which doesn't really give your depised 'bleeding hearts' much time to condemn it. So the fact that there's been little out there is rather a moot point. If, in a couple of weeks time, there's still be no condemnation of this then you might have a point.
But again, why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh? Much easier to ignore them than have to re-evaluate your own stubborn beliefs.

3. Why are you so happy that America and Iran are doing the same thing (ie detaining people without trial)? Is that what you really want your country to be like?

3. Why are you so happy that America and Iran are doing the same thing (ie detaining people without trial)? Is that what you really want your country to be like?

Christo-fascism (as I'm sure the Islam right'd call it) for the win!

Thoughtcrimes are bad, remember. And don't talk to any political activists, because they'll poison your patriotic ears with commie pinko propaganda!

What religion gets to wear green? I like green.

Heh. Green is most associated with Islam, as it was the Prophet's preferred colour (apparently.)

What religion gets to wear green? I like green. :)
The holy church of little leprechauns.
Every time you see a rainbow you have to run about yelling, "You'll never get me pot o' gold" in a comical oirish accent.
Rolling in mud is optional but knowing you, I suspect it'll become a necessity.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

The 'Bleeding Hearts' hold concerns that America is supposedly a country in favour of 'Freedom of Speech' - as opposed to Iran, who quite obviously have different systems. Therefore, in order not to contradict themselves, the USA shouldn't send alleged terrorists to Guantanamo Bay without hard evidence that they ARE terrorists - afterall, if they are under suspician for being anti-American, they are practising Freedom of Speech. In Iran, where the people are oppressed, it is considered normal (but not justified!!) to be locked up/tortured if you have opposing views to the government (as they have no Freedom of Speech). Liberation is required, but not by the USA - they cause more damage than help.

Shhh. The people on this forum thing that the US is the big Evil, and that if a country like Iran does something, it's not a big deal. No matter who gets electrodes shoved up their ass, or how much their hair lights up like a Chrismas tree when the current goes on.
You mean a "Ramadan tree", don't you?

Heh. Green is most associated with Islam, as it was the Prophet's preferred colour (apparently.)

Maybe an Irish guy like Krishna Murphy the Buddhist apostle.:gundge:

Don't be so damned immature, and listen to what i'm actually saying.

Western nations are meant to operate with respect to human rights. It is the responsibility of every citizen in western nations to ensure that their government does this. If we don't, we lose any moral high ground when it comes to oppressive dictatorships.

Sitting around bitching about what Iran is doing isn't going to change anything until we have our own houses in order. For example, I cannot point to a country that detains refugees indefinitely and decry their abuse when the same thing is happening in my own backyard and I am doing nothing about it.

However, I am not saying that we shouldn't do or say anything about these oppressive nations. It is a lot more difficult to effect any change that we can objectively state is an improvement for the people of these nations, however. I am sure that the Mullahs in Iran could not care less about a 20 year old living many thousands of kilometers away from them. I need to convince the government to make a standpoint against it. This is virtually impossible when the government is committing breaches of human rights itself. And at the end of the day, nothing is going to happen without the consent of the people of these nations (unless it is forced upon them - which, from my ethical point of view is also wrong, and ineffective) decide to protest the governments themselves. It will happen; no dictatorship has maintained that system forever. The best way to get the people of these nations to do this is by setting a good example.

Lastly, I resent your implication that I am lazy, which is frankly untrue; I am quite politically active despite my limited reserves of time.
How utterally ... noble of you.

You know what ... FRACK the frakking "moral high ground!" Every time we did that, we got screwed anyway, so where's the frakking percentage in it?

Actually, I don't really mean that, but the point still stands: regardless of what America does, moral high ground or not, we get frakked over. I, for one, am sick unto DEATH of it! Yes, America should factor into her thinking the legitimate wishes of the rest of the world, to not do so is just short-sighted, BUT I have come to believe that where there is a conflict between what's best for "the world" and what's best for America, we should err on the side of doing what's best for us. All other countries on the face of the planet do exactly that ... whatever's best for them. It's high time America did much the same thing.

To be honest, why the hell should the USA get nuclear weaponry?

Who've had the most wars over the last 60 years?

Oh look, it's the world police again, sticking their noses into conflicts where they're not needed and ignoring much more pressing matters!
Because we're LARGE and IN CHARGE. That's why, you frakking dweeb! Jeeze.

Its for each countries own people to decide best for themselves and its called freedom, democracy etc. They selected Ahmedinejat as you chose Bush.
I wonder what would americans feel if Iranians were stronger and pitied on them so they came to america and liberated american people from Bush and oppressive christians who ban alice in wonderland from schools (wait it gets to seem better as I speak?) :p Meanwhile doing what Us did in Irak(now its not so nice, thinking of iranian soldiers with guns walking and killing in your lands streets). I wonder how would it feel if americans houses were bombed daily and people gunned with radioactive bullets(which makes soldiers cancer too) And they openly discussed wiping you off the map with nukes as israels important high ups did about iran.
because when Us will invade iran they will kill hundreds of thousands of civillians. destroy economy, growth, resarch and any kind of civilization. DUmbass Us soldiers stole and destroyed 10k old artifacts from Irak museums. Which included texts telling about origins of human history.
What you do to others will happen to you too, sooner or later. Better start acting like humans or you will attract God's vengeance on yourself. I dont mean anyone will even need to attack you, you minorities will split country into 50 pieces and some fool cultists will blow nukes randomly.

add on: Iranians are silly, yes they are.

Eut -

For your own good, please stop flaming and calm down.

To be honest, why the hell should the USA get nuclear weaponry?

Who've had the most wars over the last 60 years?


and in any of those wars were nuclear weapons used?

The US has demonstrated it is responsible as far as nukes are concerned and i doubt would EVER use them unless
a) they were attacked first
b) there was a clear cut impending threat of nukes being used against them

Because we're LARGE and IN CHARGE. That's why, you frakking dweeb! Jeeze.

No the U.S. is not in charge. It had the oportunity after the cold war to be the moral leader of the world and failed to step up to the plate. That opportunity is gone now. The Iraqi occupation has demonstrated that the U.S. is incapable of being in charge of land its military occupies. The lack of WMD in Iraq makes America's allies wary of anything the U.S. says. This is not being in charge, this is losing the authority and respect that was hard earned and fairly earned. I think the U.S. can still regain the standing it once had but it will take time and care.

When intelligent level headed allies of the United States write posts like this its probably a good idea to pay attention.

Hm
You said "Hezbollah" but that's not from Iran, it's a South Lebanese Socialist group of f* ass* which group have been banned of politic in Iran 'coz they were too stupid.

Your media are playing with you. Iran is a great state and has more internal affairs to solve than to try to conquer any USA or destroy an Israel, just for the fun of it...

You want to take literally the words of an Iranian speech, should you first try to do that with a US speech!!!

No motive for this emprisonment? Are you joking?
That professor was arrested on suspicion of destabilizing the state, that's a reason, not in your country? You can make speeches freely against your gouvernement? It certainly means your voice is not considered as important or serious enough and that you can prove zilch in you allegations, like here.

That prof was undermining the job of the state in a moment when diplomacy is very important and when big mouths (even with good intentions) better shurrup for a little time. Nothing very serious.

But please, wit for the second act of the Persian story, and remember it's not North Korea...

Is the bomb very serious in another country? What nazism has to do here?

Hizbollah is an Iranian-funded, Lebanese based Shi'ite Islamic terrorist organisation, created and funded by Iran to spread jihad and terror against Israel and the West. FACT. How else to you explain the vast numbers of posters of Ayatollah al-Khomeni all over Lebanon, or the 'Iran is Wonderful' garbage spread all over Hizbollah TV?

"No motive for this emprisonment? Are you joking?
That professor was arrested on suspicion of destabilizing the state, that's a reason, not in your country? You can make speeches freely against your gouvernement? It certainly means your voice is not considered as important or serious enough and that you can prove zilch in you allegations, like here.

That prof was undermining the job of the state in a moment when diplomacy is very important and when big mouths (even with good intentions) better shurrup for a little time. Nothing very serious."

You're kidding right? "destablizing the state"? Since when has criticising the Government been 'destablizing'? No, its not a reason in my country, or in any other free western nation. Try reading Chomsky or Moore or any of the other radical communist nutters that infest our part of the world. They speak out and spread their lies all the time, but are they arrested? Of course they're not, because as vile, false and hate-filled (and hypocritical) as their speeches and writings maybe, they are entitled to their views under our laws governing freedom of speech. In the UK we are free to criticise the Government as much as we want. We are also free to vote and change it whenever we want. Unlike in Iran, where you can either vote for a radical Islamic nutter, or a slightly less radical Islamic nutter, and where you get arrested for daring to suggest that something other than the current oppressive system might be worthwhile.

and in any of those wars were nuclear weapons used?

None, because the Soviets had their fingers on the big red button. Which was exceptionally fortunate, or Vietnam and Korea could have gone horribly, horribly wrong.

The US has demonstrated it is responsible as far as nukes are concerned.

The government of Japan would beg to differ.

No, what he means is there are people who go on and on about America detaining terrorists without charge

This assumes an instant guilty verdict because "the government says so"

Considering that the same government put the names of two year olds and under on their no-fly lists for terrorist links, I don't have that much faith in their ability to pick out actual guilty people.

and in any of those wars were nuclear weapons used?

The US has demonstrated it is responsible as far as nukes are concerned and i doubt would EVER use them unless
a) they were attacked first
b) there was a clear cut impending threat of nukes being used against them
Isn't the US the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon period?

How utterally ... noble of you.

You know what ... FRACK the frakking "moral high ground!" Every time we did that, we got screwed anyway, so where's the frakking percentage in it?

The payoff is that we aren't hypocrites. That's pretty important to me. Is is not to you?

All other countries on the face of the planet do exactly that ... whatever's best for them. It's high time America did much the same thing.

Whenever has America not done what's in it's best interest?

Because we're LARGE and IN CHARGE. That's why, you frakking dweeb! Jeeze.

Possibly the rest of the world needs to tell the USA to shove its foreign policy up its oversized arse.

And yes TPH, you're right. "But the Japanese wouldn't surrender" I hear the apologists cry. You're so wrong, they tried to make several peace conferences before the bombs got dropped.

None, because the Soviets had their fingers on the big red button. Which was exceptionally fortunate, or Vietnam and Korea could have gone horribly, horribly wrong.



The government of Japan would beg to differ.

Yeah that Cold War was such a great thing... oh and the weapons used in Japan were a necessary end to the war an invasion would have cost millions upon millions of deaths to both Allied troops and Japanese citizens the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved that amount of bloodshed and ended the war without the complete and utter destruction of the Japanese Home Islands that the invasion would have caused.

All other countries on the face of the planet do exactly that ... whatever's best for them. It's high time America did much the same thing.

Then could you please smack that factoid into the people who keep going on and on about how America is the best, etc, etc?

It's annoying when you've got mini-Goebbels running around and you're trying to squish them.

History revisionist ....:rolleyes: The poor little japenese peace conference callers....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: BULLSHIT . Horseshit and moreshit.

Read a few books and learn a little bit more .

Like the little story on the coup to kidnap the Emperor and keep the surrender from happening ..like the army rounding up the so called " peace" advocates and shutting them up..and the fact that Japan approached STALIN and his government NOT the US to put out " feelers" ....that Stalin who had his OWN plans for Japan did not pass on until after the bombs fell..by that time the Swiss had found out so he had to tell someone .
Japan NEVER tried to establish a conference with the US to discuss peace.

PERIOD...unless you have access , to new top secret, never before seen documents over a subject that has been poured over by thousands of scholars for years

This is just a small example of why "uncondition surrender" was the policy with both Japan and Germany .

From the time Japan occupied all of Manchuria in 1931-1932 until the 1945 surrender to Allied forces, the Manchurian countryside became pockmarked with ugly scientific buildings known to locals only as "lumber mills," surrounded by moats and patrolled by aircraft. In these macabre fortresses, deadly microbes - such as anthrax, typhoid, cholera, and dysentery - were tested on live human subjects, who were either kidnapped from neighboring villages or shipped in via POW boats. Once the subjects - or "material" - had exhausted their usefulness and died, the corpses were cremated on-site or dumped in mass graves. Occasionally a nearby town was surreptitiously infected with plague germs. After inhabitants showed terminal symptoms, the test was deemed successful, and the community burned to destroy all evidence.

Sheldon Harris has spent the past 10 years compiling the definitive tome on the subject. One chilling account describes an outdoor test performed on Chinese prisoners:

"The subjects were bound to stakes some 10 to 20 meters away from a shrapnel bomb that was loaded with gas gangrene. The object was not to kill the men by exploding the bomb, but to test the effectiveness of gas gangrene as a BW weapon in below zero temperatures. Consequently, 'their heads and backs were protected with special metal shields and thick quilted blankets, but their legs and buttocks were left unprotected.' Using a remote-control device, the researchers exploded the bomb, and 'the shrapnel, bearing gas gangrene germs, scattered all over the spot where the experimentees were bound. All the experimentees were wounded in the legs or buttocks, and seven days later they died in great torment.'"

According to Harris's exhaustive research, three principal leaders of the BW program - Ishii Shiro, Kitano Masaji, and Wakamatsu Yujiro - were responsible for camps with ominously nondescript names like Unit 731 or Unit Ei1644. Once the war ended, all three men escaped prosecution



Atom bombs are so much nicer than germ warfare dont you aggree:rolleyes:

Google Unit 731 or Unit Ei1644. maybe you'll learn something..add nanking..
google the words DEATH MARCH...see what comes up.

The fact the US dropped TWO atom bombs says more about the enemy it was facing than the US .

The poor peace loving people of Japan ....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


http://www.aiipowmia.com/731/vivisection.html

1. These people are cowards who would never walk into Iran and liberate anyone, not even oppressed gay men, or oppressed women (note how many went to Afghanistan and liberated anyone)
How many did? Have you analysed the opinions of the troops of the many nations that fought in Afghanistan? If only they actually liberated Afghanistan instead of just toppling the government.

They require a country with freedom of speech, because all they are going to do is talk - they NEVER walk the walk.

True, it's the fatal flaw of post-modernism.

How utterally ... noble of you.

You know what ... FRACK the frakking "moral high ground!" Every time we did that, we got screwed anyway, so where's the frakking percentage in it?

Actually, I don't really mean that, but the point still stands: regardless of what America does, moral high ground or not, we get frakked over. I, for one, am sick unto DEATH of it!
You're a superpower. You fuck other people over. It doesn't happen to you.

Yes, America should factor into her thinking the legitimate wishes of the rest of the world, to not do so is just short-sighted, BUT I have come to believe that where there is a conflict between what's best for "the world" and what's best for America, we should err on the side of doing what's best for us.
So why care about the oppressed people of Iran? What have they got to do with American self-interest? Kanabia pointed out that it's impossible to make any meaningful progress on human rights in Iran when one's own western government is also abusing human rights.

All other countries on the face of the planet do exactly that ... whatever's best for them. It's high time America did much the same thing.
America is just like every other country. It does look out for itself first.

Its for each countries own people to decide best for themselves and its called freedom, democracy etc. They selected Ahmedinejat as you chose Bush.

Indeed. If you look at the reasons Iranians give for voting for Ahmedinejat, they're eerily similar to Americans' reasons for voting Bush. They wanted a patriotic leader who stands up to foreign criticism and threats, and a leader who supports traditional morality.

The government of Japan would beg to differ.
I doubt it. The current version of Japan's government is based on a constitution drawn up by Americans in 1950.

And yes TPH, you're right. "But the Japanese wouldn't surrender" I hear the apologists cry. You're so wrong, they tried to make several peace conferences before the bombs got dropped.
The problem with all Japanese peace offerings was that they all had the condition that Japan could hold onto her overseas Empire.

Ah! So you attack countries' governments who are democracies because it's easy to do so, and leave oppressive theocracies alone because it's just too hard to protest their idiocy? How ... disengenuous ( not to mention lazy ) of you. :rolleyes:

So your suggestion would be to go over there and ... do what? They'd get thrown in jail as well, if not killed. I'm really not seeing your point here, that people who speak out against bad things are bad people because they don't do more.

So by you not speaking against them -or- going over there yourself, are you saying you agree with what happens over there? I'm just following your logic.

Its for each countries own people to decide best for themselves and its called freedom, democracy etc. They selected Ahmedinejat as you chose Bush.
I wonder what would americans feel if Iranians were stronger and pitied on them so they came to america and liberated american people from Bush and oppressive christians who ban alice in wonderland from schools (wait it gets to seem better as I speak?) :p Meanwhile doing what Us did in Irak(now its not so nice, thinking of iranian soldiers with guns walking and killing in your lands streets). I wonder how would it feel if americans houses were bombed daily and people gunned with radioactive bullets(which makes soldiers cancer too) And they openly discussed wiping you off the map with nukes as israels important high ups did about iran.
because when Us will invade iran they will kill hundreds of thousands of civillians. destroy economy, growth, resarch and any kind of civilization. DUmbass Us soldiers stole and destroyed 10k old artifacts from Irak museums. Which included texts telling about origins of human history.
What you do to others will happen to you too, sooner or later. Better start acting like humans or you will attract God's vengeance on yourself. I dont mean anyone will even need to attack you, you minorities will split country into 50 pieces and some fool cultists will blow nukes randomly.

add on: Iranians are silly, yes they are.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even have a point to this rant? And what the hell is "Us"? I have heard of the US (Note: Two capital letters!). But I have never heard of Us. And what are you talking about with soldiers looting old museums?

If Iranians had the power the US does right now, they would be invading their neighboring countries. The only reason they don't is because they feel scared of a international backlash.

What country do you live in?

Its for each countries own people to decide best for themselves and its called freedom, democracy etc. They selected Ahmedinejat as you chose Bush.
I wonder what would americans feel if Iranians were stronger and pitied on them so they came to america and liberated american people from Bush and oppressive christians who ban alice in wonderland from schools (wait it gets to seem better as I speak?) :p Meanwhile doing what Us did in Irak(now its not so nice, thinking of iranian soldiers with guns walking and killing in your lands streets). I wonder how would it feel if americans houses were bombed daily and people gunned with radioactive bullets(which makes soldiers cancer too) And they openly discussed wiping you off the map with nukes as israels important high ups did about iran.
because when Us will invade iran they will kill hundreds of thousands of civillians. destroy economy, growth, resarch and any kind of civilization. DUmbass Us soldiers stole and destroyed 10k old artifacts from Irak museums. Which included texts telling about origins of human history.
What you do to others will happen to you too, sooner or later. Better start acting like humans or you will attract God's vengeance on yourself. I dont mean anyone will even need to attack you, you minorities will split country into 50 pieces and some fool cultists will blow nukes randomly.

add on: Iranians are silly, yes they are.

American soldiers looting museums? I think you'll find that was the Iraqis after they were liberated.

'Radioactive bullets'? What the hell are you talking about? Have you been living on a diet solely of Al Jazeera? The US doesn't have 'radioactive bullets'. They have depleted Uranium tank shells, that are fired by tanks at other tanks. These are insignificantly radioactive and allegedly increase the risk of cancers (although this has never been conclusively proven). These shells are NOT fired against people, because they're useless against people.

They chose Armindinnerjacket in a democratic election, yes. One of those 'free' democratic elections that are common in the Middle East, ie one party and one system. You have a choice between a radical lunatic (Rafsanjani), or an insanely radical lunatic who thinks he's the new Messiah (Armindinnerjacket). Either way, they are controlled by the Ayatollahs (who are unelected and have the final say on everything in Iran - FACT)/, so you're not actually electing anyone with any real power. Reminds me of all those 'elections' in Iraq. You know, the ones where Saddam Hussein was the only candidate and got 99.9% of the vote.

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]
Hmm, how many 'liberal' academics in America are being harrassed for speaking freely? :rolleyes: Sounds like Iran is playing catch-up with the whole anti-intellectual thing.

Hmm, how many 'liberal' academics in America are being harrassed for speaking freely?
Who is harrassing them?

COMMENTARY: Those silly Iranians! Now they're imprisoning without charge intellectuals whose views they don't like. So where are all the bleeding hearts who get sooo concerned when America detains terrorists? Hmmm? [ sound of crickets chirping ]

Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. Shame really. Well, I assume there will be a swing back towards the moderates after the current President.
The large student population probably won't go for that.
Meh.

Meh.
Why must you continually pollute these forums with your anti-Semitic neo-Nazi/Islamist ranting?

;)

Why must you continually pollute these forums with your anti-Semitic neo-Nazi/Islamist ranting?

;)

Oh, you know me.

I'm a jew hatin, baby eatin, Muslim lovin, terrrrrist after all ;)