NationStates Jolt Archive

I recommend this movie to anyone. While it's kinda old, its insights to Iran and Islamic culture is still valid. And it was interesting to see how the charachter of lead actor changed from being a "good muslim" in USA to a regular muslim in Iran. This movie is from a true stroy btw. And no, this is not a propaganda just because *I* recommend it. There are good Iranians as well and the comment about how USA supported Iraq during Iraq-Iran war was very valid.




Not Without My Daughter (1991)

"Moody" is an Iranian doctor living in America with his American wife Betty and their child Mahtob. Wanting to see his homeland again, he convinces his wife to take a short holiday there with him and Mahtob. Betty is reluctant, as Iran is not a pleasant place, especially if you are American and female. Upon arrival in Iran, it appears that her worst fears are realized: Moody declares that they will be living there from now on. Betty is determined to escape from Iran, but taking her daughter with her presents a larger problem.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/

hater racist fascist Nazi

:) :) :)

ZOMG PROPAGANDA!!!!one!!!two

It sounds boring and cliche'.

Oh dear.... you dug up THAT again? Yep, big hit in the 80s, but even back then dismissed by East and West alike as ridiculous.

I even read the book back then, and despite my age realised that most of the claims she made were somewhat hard to believe. If you really want to get a balanced account, there was a documentary a while ago on BBC, when a camera team had visited all the people she names in the book, including the friends she made in Teheran and the people at the US embassy there. Turns out, she never ever showed up there asking for a way out of Iran and back home.

It sounds boring and cliche'.

Cliché? Ah...That's right, you are a muslim. You must be used to stories like in the movie....

Oh dear.... you dug up THAT again? Yep, big hit in the 80s, but even back then dismissed by East and West alike as ridiculous.

I even read the book back then, and despite my age realised that most of the claims she made were somewhat hard to believe. If you really want to get a balanced account, there was a documentary a while ago on BBC, when a camera team had visited all the people she names in the book, including the friends she made in Teheran and the people at the US embassy there. Turns out, she never ever showed up there asking for a way out of Iran and back home.

What the fuck are you on? There is no USA embassy there. And there wasnt neither, during the time of her stay.

What the fuck are you on? There is no USA embassy there. And there wasnt neither, during the time of her stay.

My bad, the part of the Swiss embassy that had taken over administrative work for the absent US embassy.

And could you please stop swearing at me? Thanks.

when in iran, you are subject to their laws. that includes child custody which is very hard for a woman to get no matter where she was born.

yes its different from US or european laws. *shrug* you should take that and all the other legal differences into account when you visit other countries.

It sounds boring and cliche'.

I have seen it ... it is as you describe

My bad, the part of the Swiss embassy that had taken over administrative work for the absent US embassy.

And could you please stop swearing at me? Thanks.

And could you please stop mentioning me at threads I'm not even present at? Thanks. I'd also fucking appreciate if you also completely ignore me.

Anyone seen My son the fanatic? Thats far better

And could you please stop mentioning me at threads I'm not even present at? Thanks. I'd also fucking appreciate if you also completely ignore me.

Thanks for ceasing the swearing... I'll be sure to keep mentioning you whenever I feel like it.

Anyone seen My son the fanatic? Thats far better

Never heard about that one... any description or links?

And could you please stop swearing at me? Thanks.
Come on, swearing is cool!

Thanks for ceasing the swearing... I'll be sure to keep mentioning you whenever I feel like it.

You are a total waste of my time, arent you? Do you recognize the difference between swearing *at* someone and swearing inside a sentence?

You are a total waste of my time, arent you? Do you recognize the difference between swearing *at* someone and swearing inside a sentence?

I do, and I find them both offensive.
And feel free to ignore me any time you like. There is a thing called "ignore list".

Now, do you want to go on arguing about nothing, or should we return to the topic?

I do, and I find them both offensive.
And feel free to ignore me any time you like. There is a thing called "ignore list".

Now, do you want to go on arguing about nothing, or should we return to the topic?

I don't mean to intrude but I personally feel that the argument between the two of you is more interesting than the topic.

You are a total waste of my time, arent you? Do you recognize the difference between swearing *at* someone and swearing inside a sentence?

Congratulations, you just jacked your own thread.

I don't mean to intrude but I personally feel that the argument between the two of you is more interesting than the topic.

*lol

Says a lot about the topic, doesn't it? ;)

Congratulations, you just jacked your own thread.

It's mine, I can jack it or jerk it or whatever. ;)

*lol

Says a lot about the topic, doesn't it? ;)

Then FUCKING LEAVE!

*lol

Says a lot about the topic, doesn't it? ;)

I try to never miss a Nordland thread...

but to be nice, I'll just nod my head and give you a sly wink.

Then FUCKING LEAVE!

Nope. :p

Never heard about that one... any description or links?

Its a good film made in the 90s set in North England

The gentle friendship between Parvez (Om Puri), a pathetic Pakistani taxi driver and Bettina (Rachel Griffiths), a young prostitute gradually develops into a deeper and more passionate relationship as Parvez's home life gradually crumbles. This is due to his son's, Fravid (Akbar Kurtha), gradual rejection of Western institutions and values and acceptance of Islamic Fundamentalism. More pressure is brought to bear by a German business man Schitz ('Stellan Skarsgard' ) who makes continual use of both Parvez and Bettina in their professional capacities culminating in his demand for them to organise an orgy to impress some local business colleagues. Everything comes to a head when Farvid and his group decide to rid the town of its corrupting influence and attack the local prostitutes trapping Parvez in the middle forcing him to decide just where his loyalties lie.

I recommend this movie to anyone. While it's kinda old, its insights to Iran and Islamic culture is still valid. And it was interesting to see how the charachter of lead actor changed from being a "good muslim" in USA to a regular muslim in Iran. This movie is from a true stroy btw. And no, this is not a propaganda just because *I* recommend it. There are good Iranians as well and the comment about how USA supported Iraq during Iraq-Iran war was very valid.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/

This piece of propaganda is your argument? Really? You're really getting to the bottom of the barrell.

One, it's a single story about a single event. It's hardly capable of being representative of anything about a culture as old or as large as that of Islam or Persia. Meanwhile, it's not as if you bring up a documentary. You bring up a one-sided story intentionally designed to paint Islam and Iran badly. And your evidence is that it did it, so it must be true. This argument was settled over a decade ago. The people who want to hyperbolize this even for financial or political gain lost. Deal with it.

Its a good film made in the 90s set in North England

The gentle friendship between Parvez (Om Puri), a pathetic Pakistani taxi driver and Bettina (Rachel Griffiths), a young prostitute gradually develops into a deeper and more passionate relationship as Parvez's home life gradually crumbles. This is due to his son's, Fravid (Akbar Kurtha), gradual rejection of Western institutions and values and acceptance of Islamic Fundamentalism. More pressure is brought to bear by a German business man Schitz ('Stellan Skarsgard' ) who makes continual use of both Parvez and Bettina in their professional capacities culminating in his demand for them to organise an orgy to impress some local business colleagues. Everything comes to a head when Farvid and his group decide to rid the town of its corrupting influence and attack the local prostitutes trapping Parvez in the middle forcing him to decide just where his loyalties lie.

Sounds very interesting... I'll keep an eye open to see if I can find it at the video store. Thanks :)

Then FUCKING LEAVE!

Wow. Your style of argument just keeps getting better. Everytime you swear a black person sleeps with a white person.

This piece of propaganda is your argument? Really? You're really getting to the bottom of the barrell.

One, it's a single story about a single event. It's hardly capable of being representative of anything about a culture as old or as large as that of Islam or Persia. Meanwhile, it's not as if you bring up a documentary. You bring up a one-sided story intentionally designed to paint Islam and Iran badly. And your evidence is that it did it, so it must be true. This argument was settled over a decade ago. The people who want to hyperbolize this even for financial or political gain lost. Deal with it.

My argument? You've got too much time on your hands, right? I'd assume that you being "settling arguments authority" would take more time...Anyway, why dont you and CW get lost and chat on MSN or something?

Its a good film made in the 90s set in North England

The gentle friendship between Parvez (Om Puri), a pathetic Pakistani taxi driver and Bettina (Rachel Griffiths), a young prostitute gradually develops into a deeper and more passionate relationship as Parvez's home life gradually crumbles. This is due to his son's, Fravid (Akbar Kurtha), gradual rejection of Western institutions and values and acceptance of Islamic Fundamentalism. More pressure is brought to bear by a German business man Schitz ('Stellan Skarsgard' ) who makes continual use of both Parvez and Bettina in their professional capacities culminating in his demand for them to organise an orgy to impress some local business colleagues. Everything comes to a head when Farvid and his group decide to rid the town of its corrupting influence and attack the local prostitutes trapping Parvez in the middle forcing him to decide just where his loyalties lie.

I've seen part of it. I thought the issues raised were similar to some of the issues in "White Teeth" by Zadie Smith.

My argument? You've got too much time on your hands, right? I'd assume that you being "settling arguments authority" would take more time...Anyway, why dont you and CW get lost and chat on MSN or something?

No, thanks. It's more fun to point out that your argument is so ridiculous that even you are getting frustrated with it. And, given your history, that's an incredible statement of how weak your OP was.

Seriously, do you even have an argument here or was it just "Look a movie says Muslims are evil so it must be true!!!"?

Then FUCKING LEAVE!

Why? then we would be left with a boring topic about a boring movie

My argument? You've got too much time on your hands, right? I'd assume that you being "settling arguments authority" would take more time...Anyway, why dont you and CW get lost and chat on MSN or something?

Because you wouldn't have anyone to talk to, then.

And what exactly is your point, if not agreeing with the description of Iranian society in the early 1980s by one highly biased account?

Why? then we would be left with a boring topic about a boring movie

You forgot distorted and absurd in your description of the movie.

Why? then we would be left with a boring topic about a boring movie

...he left, dude...

...he left, dude...

He never changes his style of argument...

Bland tripe concocted for some long-forgotten ratings sweeps week. Best left forgotten, too.

Bland tripe concocted for some long-forgotten ratings sweeps week. Best left forgotten, too.

If we're going to talk about 80's TV, I suggest that we talk about Street Hawk.

If we're going to talk about 80's TV, I suggest that we talk about Street Hawk.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6300183769.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Indeed. I would like to know more.

I'm glad people realise that nothing could possibly have changed in Iran the last 22 years (since Mahmoody was there) :)

My argument? You've got too much time on your hands, right? I'd assume that you being "settling arguments authority" would take more time...Anyway, why dont you and CW get lost and chat on MSN or something?

Oooh, lucky Jocabia who gets to chat with Cabra :(

;) :p

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6300183769.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Indeed. I would like to know more.

Motorcycle. Cop. US Government Secret. 13 episodes.

Indeed... I suspect that this topic will break records in terms of things we can discuss on the subject.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6300183769.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Indeed. I would like to know more.

No, no you wouldn't.

Think Knightrider on two wheels. And about as corny.

Motorcycle. Cop. US Government Secret. 13 episodes.

Indeed... I suspect that this topic will break records in terms of things we can discuss on the subject.

So, it's a secret that the US Government wants to fight crime - with state-of-the-art motorcycles? Well - it beats out watching Sally Field in a chadoor, anyway.

Think Knightrider on two wheels. And about as corny.

Still beats out Sally Field in a chadoor.

So, it's a secret that the US Government wants to fight crime - with state-of-the-art motorcycles? Well - it beats out watching Sally Field in a chadoor, anyway.

LOL, true, but not by all that much.

Wow. Your style of argument just keeps getting better. Everytime you swear a black person sleeps with a white person.

Quoted for the fact that my monitor is now testing whether it is resistant to having "Sierra Mist" spat on it.

My argument? You've got too much time on your hands, right? I'd assume that you being "settling arguments authority" would take more time...Anyway, why dont you and CW get lost and chat on MSN or something?

You make it sound like talking to Jocabia or Cabra West would be a bad thing...

Motorcycle. Cop. US Government Secret. 13 episodes.

Indeed... I suspect that this topic will break records in terms of things we can discuss on the subject.

Street Hawk? If we are going there, Manimal and Automan were both better.

Street Hawk? If we are going there, Manimal and Automan were both better.

Manimal was the AWESOMEST!!!

Street Hawk? If we are going there, Manimal and Automan were both better.

Airwolf trumps all three, though.

Street Hawk? If we are going there, Manimal and Automan were both better.

I'm sorry. I fail to see a motorcycle in any of these shows. I think we can all agree on the importance of a motorcycle when fighting crime.

Manimal was the AWESOMEST!!!

I liked Manimal... but I still preferred the not-so-subtly-ripping-off-Tron overtones of Automan. :)

You make it sound like talking to Jocabia or Cabra West would be a bad thing...You mean its not? And I thought I was being naughty... :(

Airwolf trumps all three, though.

Sans motorcycle. I'm sorry... not appropriate to this topic.

I'm sorry. I fail to see a motorcycle in any of these shows. I think we can all agree on the importance of a motorcycle when fighting crime.

I'm trying to think of a comment. I'm sure with all those components waiting to be used... men in leather, shiny black helmets, etc... I should be able to come up with something that would make Ny's thread explode....

Sans motorcycle. I'm sorry... not appropriate to this topic.

Having Ernest Borgnine as a series regular makes up for no motorcycles, IMO.

You mean its not? And I thought I was being naughty... :(

Ah - but you weren't using the 'mature content' filter... isn't Ny still at school?

isn't Ny still at school?

Who? Oh, right.

Having Ernest Borgnine as a series regular makes up for no motorcycles, IMO.

An interesting argument. Ernest Borgnine or a motorcyle. Which would I rather have in my garage? I'll have to get back to you. I bow to your debating skills.

Can I just say that it'll be my 37th birthday in just under fifteen minutes?

Airwolf trumps all three, though.

And we now have proof that DW drinks too much.

Airwolf trumps all three, though.Quaddaffi makes a good villain :D

Can I just say that it'll be my 37th birthday in just under fifteen minutes?

Yay!

This thread is now the official Dobbsworld birthday thread.

Ah - but you weren't using the 'mature content' filter... isn't Ny still at school?Could be. He considers Wikipedia the ultimate source for arguments.

Happy birthday! May the world be your Dobb!

Seriously, do you even have an argument here or was it just "Look a movie says Muslims are evil so it must be true!!!"?
The film doesn't say Muslims are evil and I don't think that Ny was claiming that.

Yay!

This thread is now the official Dobbsworld birthday thread.

I re-christen this thread: "Not Without My Bong".

Can I just say that it'll be my 37th birthday in just under fifteen minutes?

Negative.


But Happy Birthday.

At 4:26 PM, September 17th 1969, I was born. Thanks for carrying me to term, Mom.

Happy birthday! May the world be your Dobb!


The film doesn't say Muslims are evil and I don't think that Ny was claiming that.

I guess I must have applied logic to his comments about her husband went from being a 'good muslim' (which he put in quotes) to a 'regular muslim' (which he didn't put in quotes) suggesting that the person depicted in the film, decidedly evil, is a regular muslim by NN's standards.

But, hey, that's logic for you. Despite the fact he tries to mitigate the comments he makes, his intention is clear.

At 4:26 PM, September 17th 1969, I was born. Thanks for carrying me to term, Mom.

You don't count it as your birthday until the precise minute you're born? Isn't that more of a 'birth-moment'?

Happy birth-moment, anyway. :)

You're all forgetting about the A-team!! :(

Can I just say that it'll be my 37th birthday in just under fifteen minutes?

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/bday.gif

That should say it all :p

At 4:26 PM, September 17th 1969, I was born. Thanks for carrying me to term, Mom.Happy birthday! :)

...thanks there, people. I used to make a point of calling her up every year at that precise time to thank her...

(alas, I miss that ritual.)

Blablabla
I recommend you read the book instead of watching that really bad movie, you dolt!

And now a bit of fun:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/boners.jpg

@ Dobbsworld: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11693930

Because you wouldn't have anyone to talk to, then.

And what exactly is your point, if not agreeing with the description of Iranian society in the early 1980s by one highly biased account?

You think so? Frankly, I'd prefer that. I'm so bored of talking with same people I dont like over and over here.

I'm glad people realise that nothing could possibly have changed in Iran the last 22 years (since Mahmoody was there) :)
<snip>


Will you really defend Iran now?

I guess I must have applied logic to his comments about her husband went from being a 'good muslim' (which he put in quotes) to a 'regular muslim' (which he didn't put in quotes) suggesting that the person depicted in the film, decidedly evil, is a regular muslim by NN's standards.

But, hey, that's logic for you. Despite the fact he tries to mitigate the comments he makes, his intention is clear.

*sigh* I'm not American. I havent got this good vs evil, black and white vision built into me. I dont call people evil.

You think so? Frankly, I'd prefer that. I'm so bored of talking with same people I dont like over and over here.

Then FUCKING LEAVE!

...

*sigh* I'm not American. I havent got this good vs evil, black and white vision built into me. I dont call people evil.

But you are a pompous ass.

Will you really defend Iran now?

I don't need to. I'm just questioning whether your statement that the movie's "insights to Iran [...] is still valid" is correct.

...

I was hoping for someone else to show up besides Jocabia, GnI and CW and some other regulars...

palm the pasty fucks.

I don't need to. I'm just questioning whether your statement that the movie's "insights to Iran [...] is still valid" is correct.

Ok...

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm

NY, why post your statements on these boards when you know certain people who you don't want to debate the statements with will read it?

I have seen it ... it is as you describe


O its far worse. I sat through about 60% of it. Vile shite.

...I havent got this ... black and white vision built into me.Actually, yes you do...

NY, why post your statements on these boards when you know certain people who you don't want to debate the statements with will read it?

I'm not sure. The whole forum seems to be reduced to 10 people with regards to my threads despite it shows hundreds of viewers.

I'm not sure. The whole forum seems to be reduced to 10 people with regards to my threads despite it shows hundreds of viewers.And most of the people that would agree with you scamper off to regional forums because they get met with the same wave of "robust tolerance".

I'm not sure. The whole forum seems to be reduced to 10 people with regards to my threads despite it shows hundreds of viewers.

I think it is because there are about 10 masochists on NS who can't help but respond to your posts.

The people who can't help responding are usually as bad as the ones who originally posted.

And most of the people that would agree with you scamper off to regional forums because they get met with the same wave of "robust tolerance".

If you say so...

I'm not sure. The whole forum seems to be reduced to 10 people with regards to my threads despite it shows hundreds of viewers.

What I mean is, you know your views seem unreasonable to most people. And you know that the usual group of people shoots you down every time, and you find yourself in a position where you can't debate your point effectively because your arguments have holes torn into them by this group of people with wildly varying political stances. And now you've started to complain that the same thing happens every time. Why don't you just give up already? Or is it your hope to make people to "see the light" of your message using logical fallacies, blatant intolerance and whiny emotional appeals?

It sounds boring and cliche'. And full of stereotypes.

If you say so...If have a better theory for why all the guys in the Nazi regions don't frequent the forums, I'm all ears.

Ok...

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm
I'm sorry, I couldn't see the state dept. refer to the book or the movie.

Nor could I see any mention of whether or not the situation has improved, worsened or stayed the same for the last 22 years.

What I mean is, you know your views seem unreasonable to most people. And you know that the usual group of people shoots you down every time, and you find yourself in a position where you can't debate your point effectively because your arguments have holes torn into them by this group of people with wildly varying political stances. And now you've started to complain that the same thing happens every time. Why don't you just give up already? Or is it your hope to make people to "see the light" of your message using logical fallacies, blatant intolerance and whiny emotional appeals?

You expect an answer after that?

I'm sorry, I couldn't see the state dept. refer to the book or the movie.

Nor could I see any mention of whether or not the situation has improved, worsened or stayed the same for the last 22 years.

Has the women rights situation improved in Iran? You honestly dont see the connection of that with the movie?

You expect an answer after that?

Don't prove his point, Nordy, by not responding.

You expect an answer after that?

Yes.

Has the women rights situation improved in Iran? You honestly dont see the connection of that with the movie?

And you are claiming that a 15-year old movie based on one single incident dating back 22 years gives an accurate description of the lives of women in Iran today?

Never saw the movie, it always seemed like typical Hollywood emotional pandering to me. Based on a true story? Yeah okay, so was The Perfect Storm, and that sucked too.

I was hoping for someone else to show up besides Jocabia, GnI and CW and some other regulars...

Yeah, I can see why you'd be tired of seeing us. We have been shreading your arguments since you arrived. Seriously, now you've resorted to use Hollywood movies as if they're a source of evaluation of the situation. This movie has nothing to say about the state of Iran or of Islam which are fairly clearly not directly linked.

You make the same old comments like how the movie's obviously and logically biased account of this woman's husband is a description of a 'regular Muslim'. Your arguments are unsupported, easily debunked, often nonsensical and almost never even remotely related to the accepted understanding of science, culture, or religion.

We have been shreading your arguments since you arrived.

I think you owe NN thanks; if it wasn't for him, you would no longer know the delights of General. You came back to answer him, and have now added 4,000 posts since you 'left'. :p

I think you owe NN thanks; if it wasn't for him, you would no longer know the delights of General. You came back to answer him, and have now added 4,000 posts since you 'left'. :p

The people he is complaining view and don't post, email me and ask me how I can let him get away with some of the things he says. And it gets to me. It's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who won't respond to him themselves.

The people he is complaining view and don't post, email me and ask me how I can let him get away with some of the things he says. And it gets to me. It's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who won't respond to him themselves.

Oh, I'm not complaining. The forum needs people like you, who can argue the same point over and over while staying reasonable.

I've never been TGed by lurkers. I feel rejected now. :(

Based on a true story? Yeah okay, so was The Perfect Storm, and that sucked too.

The trues words of the thread... :(

I want my time back you bastards!! :mad:

The trues words of the thread... :(

I want my time back you bastards!! :mad:

Actually, now that I think about it, it did have Marky Mark and George Clooney die horribly. That's a plus. And that fat chick was kind of hot. I'd hit it.

Oh, I'm not complaining. The forum needs people like you, who can argue the same point over and over while staying reasonable.

I've never been TGed by lurkers. I feel rejected now. :(

A lot of people are remarkably restrained. I get a lot of "if I respond I'm gonna get modded" comments.

But you are a pompous ass.

And you are a muslim.

If have a better theory for why all the guys in the Nazi regions don't frequent the forums, I'm all ears.

If you think I'm Nazi, you arent worth me explaining anything to you.

And you are a muslim.

So?

And you are claiming that a 15-year old movie based on one single incident dating back 22 years gives an accurate description of the lives of women in Iran today?

1) Women are still subject to mass-violance. Men are protected by law. For ex: Women who gets raped are killed.

2) Women still havent got custody of children.

Seriously, are you defending Iran just to disagree with me? Wow.

If you think I'm Nazi, you arent worth me explaining anything to you.If you read that into my statement, then perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

If you think I'm Nazi, you arent worth me explaining anything to you.

Where did he say that you were a Nazi?

Yeah, I can see why you'd be tired of seeing us. We have been shreading your arguments since you arrived. Seriously, now you've resorted to use Hollywood movies as if they're a source of evaluation of the situation. This movie has nothing to say about the state of Iran or of Islam which are fairly clearly not directly linked.

You make the same old comments like how the movie's obviously and logically biased account of this woman's husband is a description of a 'regular Muslim'. Your arguments are unsupported, easily debunked, often nonsensical and almost never even remotely related to the accepted understanding of science, culture, or religion.

Considering how desperate you are to win arguments and how subjective you are about the outcome of arguments, you might take it as whatever you please. I just dont have the patience nor time to write a response to all your huge posts.

If you read that into my statement, then perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Since "most of the people that would agree with me are nazis", isnt that implied?

And most of the people that would agree with you scamper off to regional forums because they get met with the same wave of "robust tolerance".

If have a better theory for why all the guys in the Nazi regions don't frequent the forums, I'm all ears.

Since "most of the people that would agree with me are nazis", isnt that implied?Not really. It's a factual statement. Most people that agree with you (judging from their RMB posts) don't venture into general but go off to their regional forums to plot there. They just happen to hate jews in addition to bickering on about "race" and "evil islam".

Since "most of the people that would agree with me are nazis", isnt that implied?

No. That's Federalism. Muslims havent got their own muslim state in the Netherlands.

Not really. It's a factual statement. Most people that agree with you (judging from their RMB posts) don't venture into general but go off to their regional forums to plot there. They just happen to hate jews in addition to bickering on about "race" and "evil islam".

Prove it. Or at least some examples...

Prove it. Or at least some examples...
Nice try. Go searching for a new region to locate to on your own.

Nice try. Go searching for a new region to locate to on your own.

Right...

Right...

You are wrong. The public opinion towards mass immigration is skeptical in most, maybe all countries. And even if we move beyond culture, religion, race, all that, there is the issue of unemployement. Germany got 10% unemployement rate but still gets something like 200,000 immigrants per year. How the goverment lets this if there is too high unemployement already? Leftist say all those equality stuff but how is it equal to give dirty jobs to immigrants while germans get by welfare? Am I the only one who thinks this is paradoxal?

You are wrong. The public opinion towards mass immigration is skeptical in most, maybe all countries. And even if we move beyond culture, religion, race, all that, there is the issue of unemployement. Germany got 10% unemployement rate but still gets something like 200,000 immigrants per year. How the goverment lets this if there is too high unemployement already? Leftist say all those equality stuff but how is it equal to give dirty jobs to immigrants while germans get by welfare? Am I the only one who thinks this is paradoxal?

You got too much time on your hands...Or are you 12 or something?

You got too much time on your hands...Or are you 12 or something?

Please. Dont be this dogmatic and subjective. You are the one here arguing against the very principle of democracy...

You got too much time on your hands...Or are you 12 or something?Are you even 21 yet? No? Then quit bitchin about age.

Prove it. Or at least some examples...

I would think it's rather obvious.
Go around and ask "Are Muslims evil?". Then go around and ask "Are Jews evil?". You tend to get two of the same answer.
And feel free to test it for yourself, but I'm not responsible for the outcome of you asking a Jew or a Muslim that.

Right...Actually, I'm sure you'll find some friends in "Israel", that is, if the current rulers let you in. They're a bit paranoid about the Israel-friendly crowd taking it back, so it may still be password protected.

What, I personally think of this movie that the fact is that it was released in the period where the Iranians had held the hostages taken from the U.S Embassy and when you think of it fits in quite while with that quite well and suits it. As well, if you look on it there currently is a film about how U.S. soldiers in Iraq transport civilians to an Israeli doctor who then harvests their organs and sells them to wealthy people in the west.

Actually, I'm sure you'll find some friends in "Israel", that is, if the current rulers let you in. They're a bit paranoid about the Israel-friendly crowd taking it back, so it may still be password protected.

Thx for helping me bringing my sleep. You were useful tonight but dont expect future responses from me.

I recommend this movie to anyone. While it's kinda old, its insights to Iran and Islamic culture is still valid. And it was interesting to see how the charachter of lead actor changed from being a "good muslim" in USA to a regular muslim in Iran. This movie is from a true stroy btw. And no, this is not a propaganda just because *I* recommend it. There are good Iranians as well and the comment about how USA supported Iraq during Iraq-Iran war was very valid.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/

Actually it was quite crap.
Though if one is into emotional-porn and having ones emotions manipulated, I'm sure it satisfies those strange urges.

Thx for helping me bringing my sleep. You were useful tonight but dont expect future responses from me.
And I couldnt care less about the opinions of a non european saying european is an arbitrary term.

Thx for helping me bringing my sleep. You were useful tonight but dont expect future responses from me.
He used me.

He USED me! :eek:

He used me... :D

He used me.

He USED me! :eek:

He used me... :D

I hope he remembers to wash you afterward this time. :p

Considering how desperate you are to win arguments and how subjective you are about the outcome of arguments, you might take it as whatever you please. I just dont have the patience nor time to write a response to all your huge posts.

Yes, I realize that rather than make an argument and actually do some research, you're busily trolling and trying to use Hollywood movies as if they are documentaries.

It's not just me you can't field a response to, it's all of the people who have been nailing you for the better part of a year.

Now, go ahead. Tell me how I can't read or how I'm not intelligent or I'm twelve or dyslexic, all the arguments I've seen come from your hands in just the last week. You're trolling. I know it. You know it. The mods know it. That's why you don't put together real responses.

You got too much time on your hands...Or are you 12 or something?

That's odd, I seem to recall you saying you were 16 or something. You know what they say about kids who live in glass houses, right?

1) Women are still subject to mass-violance. Men are protected by law. For ex: Women who gets raped are killed.

2) Women still havent got custody of children.

Seriously, are you defending Iran just to disagree with me? Wow.


Women are still subject to mass violence in many, many countries around the world, and in every country in the world men are still favoured by the law.

Women don't have custody of the children in an awful lot of "enlightened" countries too.

Why don't you pick on Russia or Moldova or the former Yugoslavian States where women are being trafficked into the West as sex slaves while their government looks on? Why aren't you criticising Ireland for the Magdalene laundries, the last one of which closed down in 1996 (nearly a decade after Not Without My Daughter was produced.)? There is evil in every government in the world, and in every group of people. Stop being selective in who you launch your vitriole at.

Wow. Your style of argument just keeps getting better. Everytime you swear a black person sleeps with a white person.

Oh come on, thats just cheap.

The people he is complaining view and don't post, email me and ask me how I can let him get away with some of the things he says. And it gets to me. It's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who won't respond to him themselves.Great.. We get deat'ed if we reply & blamed if we don't. Where's the justice I ask? :p

It's very hard not to get flamey when it is so abundantly clear that honest debating is out of the question. Especially for those of us who've had to deal with real-life people sharing similar prejudiced views.

Has the women rights situation improved in Iran? You honestly dont see the connection of that with the movie?

Ok, so if examples suffice to prove the overall situation for all women in Iran...


I've got a good friend living in Montreal who is originally from Iran. She got married there, just before leaving to study architecture in Munich. Her husband came along to study astrophysics. They had two children, both sons, in Munich. In the mid 90s, they went back to Teheran, firstly because the situation there seemed to have improved sufficiently, and secondly because they both were scared to raise their children in Germany due to the drastic rise in neo-nazi violence around this time.
In Teheran, my friend found out that her husband cheated on her. She went to the court - without him even knowing about that - got a divorce and the custody for both her sons, packed up her things and left for Canada a few days later.

So, overall, it's not that difficult to get a divorce or custody for your kids in Iran. It might well just be a matter of how you approach officials.

1) Women are still subject to mass-violance. Men are protected by law. For ex: Women who gets raped are killed.

2) Women still havent got custody of children.

Seriously, are you defending Iran just to disagree with me? Wow.

Read my post again. And then do it once more.

Am I defending Iran? No.
Am I challenging your assertion that the 15 year old movie based on a 22 year old incident paints a representative picture of the situation in Iran today? Yes.
Am I saying that the situation is better or worse today? Neither, but I am saying it's very likely different from what it used to be.

Its a good film made in the 90s set in North England

The gentle friendship between Parvez (Om Puri), a pathetic Pakistani taxi driver and Bettina (Rachel Griffiths), a young prostitute gradually develops into a deeper and more passionate relationship as Parvez's home life gradually crumbles. This is due to his son's, Fravid (Akbar Kurtha), gradual rejection of Western institutions and values and acceptance of Islamic Fundamentalism. More pressure is brought to bear by a German business man Schitz ('Stellan Skarsgard' ) who makes continual use of both Parvez and Bettina in their professional capacities culminating in his demand for them to organise an orgy to impress some local business colleagues. Everything comes to a head when Farvid and his group decide to rid the town of its corrupting influence and attack the local prostitutes trapping Parvez in the middle forcing him to decide just where his loyalties lie.

Haven't seen, though I have heard about it.
Skarsgaard is one of my favourite actors though, which certainly improves the film immenselt, imo. I've yet to see any movie in which he stars where he hasn't been outstanding. Anyone here seen Zero Kelvin? A superb Norwegian film about 3 trappers stuck in a hut somewhere in the Artic.
Great movie, and Skarsgaard as always is superb.


(My attempt at changing this thread's direction)

Ok, so if examples suffice to prove the overall situation for all women in Iran...


I've got a good friend living in Montreal who is originally from Iran. She got married there, just before leaving to study architecture in Munich. Her husband came along to study astrophysics. They had two children, both sons, in Munich. In the mid 90s, they went back to Teheran, firstly because the situation there seemed to have improved sufficiently, and secondly because they both were scared to raise their children in Germany due to the drastic rise in neo-nazi violence around this time.
In Teheran, my friend found out that her husband cheated on her. She went to the court - without him even knowing about that - got a divorce and the custody for both her sons, packed up her things and left for Canada a few days later.

So, overall, it's not that difficult to get a divorce or custody for your kids in Iran. It might well just be a matter of how you approach officials.

You call this anectodal story an "evidence"? Pathetic. Read the link to US State Dept.

Read my post again. And then do it once more.

Am I defending Iran? No.
Am I challenging your assertion that the 15 year old movie based on a 22 year old incident paints a representative picture of the situation in Iran today? Yes.
Am I saying that the situation is better or worse today? Neither, but I am saying it's very likely different from what it used to be.

Clearly, women are still opressed and Iran is still primitive. So no real difference related to the topic. Only the scenary might have changed a bit with new buildings not the minds of Iranian muslims.

You call this anectodal story an "evidence"? Pathetic. Read the link to US State Dept.

So the other story is, because Holltwood turned it into a movie? Cool.... so Star Wars is true as well, then?

Yes, I realize that rather than make an argument and actually do some research, you're busily trolling and trying to use Hollywood movies as if they are documentaries.

It's not just me you can't field a response to, it's all of the people who have been nailing you for the better part of a year.

Now, go ahead. Tell me how I can't read or how I'm not intelligent or I'm twelve or dyslexic, all the arguments I've seen come from your hands in just the last week. You're trolling. I know it. You know it. The mods know it. That's why you don't put together real responses.

You are not worth me responding because of the explained reasons. If you say "you don't put together real responses" after all this time, it clearly shows your lack of reading comprehension or your huge bias, especially considering you chose to ignore the link to human rights violiations in Iran, in this case. Hence, as I said, I've got no patience to explain anything to you, especially considering your idiotic self-centered notion of being argument settling authority. Now get lost...

Clearly, women are still opressed and Iran is still primitive. So no real difference related to the topic. Only the scenary might have changed a bit with new buildings not the minds of Iranian muslims.

If I had to choose a country in the Middle East to live in as a woman it would quite possibly be Iran. Why? Study the role of woman in Iranian culture and you’ll see ;)

So the other story is, because Holltwood turned it into a movie? Cool.... so Star Wars is true as well, then?

You are boring exactly because your inability or refusal to understand. First of all Star Wars wasnt a true story while NWMD was. If you cant recognize the difference between them, it's pathetic. Second of all we all know the human rights situation in Iran, so even if Hollywood polished the movie a bit, Iran is still a primitive country and that's the point of the topic, which you never understood. Hence you are boring and not worth debating because you'll never get what I say.

I think we should start a drinking game of sorts, where you read through a thread like this and take a shot for every time the words "reading comprehension", "bias", "ignorant", or "race" appear on the screen :D

You are boring exactly because your inability or refusal to understand. First of all Star Wars wasnt a true story while NWMD was. If you cant recognize the difference between them, it's pathetic. Second of all we all know the human rights situation in Iran, so even if Hollywood polished the movie a bit, Iran is still a primitive country and that's the point of the topic, which you never understood. Hence you are boring and not worth debating because you'll never get what I say.

I think if you're going to point out violation of women's rights, Iran is a lousy example to pick. Had you been talking about Sudan, about Suadi-Arabia, about Jemen or even about Afghanistan, we would have had basis for discussion.
You, however, picked a Hollywood movie based on book that's highly biased and generally dismissed as propaganda against an enemy nation.

Here's what independent sources say :

After the establishment of the Islamic government in Iran, a move was made to expand the Sharia law further. The outcome of the "fundamentalist" interpretation of Sharia in Iran, though not as harsh as in Saudi Arabia or that of the Taliban, did include the exclusion of women from judgeship, the imposition of Islamic code of dress on women, and inclusion of strict Sharia rules in the judiciary. These meant that some punishments for crimes were to comply with the Islamic tradition as interpreted by the ruling hard liners. It is important to realize that almost all countries with majority Moslem population follow some interpretation of Islamic law in their laws.

The new rulers, however, emphasized the early Islamic tradition of inclusion of women in civil and political life. The voting right for women was maintained and women were encouraged to participate fully in all forms public life. Consequently a very complex and sophisticated system of inclusion and exclusion were developed. Meanwhile two types of women activism were developed. One was by the women who support an Islamic government but believe in a different interpretation than the hardliners, and the other by secular women. The secular women also practiced two forms of struggle. One was by women who published and worked in the legal interpretation of Sharia to promote a more liberal view. The other were the women who worked through long and difficult non-cooperation, refusing to comply with the dress and behavior codes in social life, thus testingand pushing the limits.

As a result of the combination of all these efforts within and in opposition to the system women have made progress in many areas. Today, female students form more than half of the entering class in Iran’s universities. There are many more women in Parliament than there ever were during the previous government; there is a well developed birth control program in place which received an award from the UN about five years ago.

According to UN WHO statistics, infant mortality and teen-age pregnancy rates in Iran are much lower than those in most third-world countries. For the last two years several women's organizations have publicly celebrated March 8th as International Women’s Day in Tehran and other cities around the country. Now, there are women publishers and all-women publishing houses, printing books and pamphlets on women’s issues from secular and even left points of view.

http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html

I think if you're going to point out violation of women's rights, Iran is a lousy example to pick. Had you been talking about Sudan, about Suadi-Arabia, about Jemen or even about Afghanistan, we would have had basis for discussion.
You, however, picked a Hollywood movie based on book that's highly biased and generally dismissed as propaganda against an enemy nation.

Here's what independent sources say :

http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html

:D

It is always good to see at least some people who know what they are talking about…

I think we should start a drinking game of sorts, where you read through a thread like this and take a shot for every time the words "reading comprehension", "bias", "ignorant", or "race" appear on the screen :D
You'd get alcohol poisoning, I think.
I agree with Cabra West: you could pick much worse countries than Iran to criticise on women's rights and suchlike. I read an article or two lately on how the populace of Iran doesn't really subscribe to it's government's crackpot views and tends to live normal lives.

Clearly, women are still opressed and Iran is still primitive.
:rolleyes: *sigh*

So no real difference related to the topic. Only the scenary might have changed a bit with new buildings not the minds of Iranian muslims.
No real difference? You know, I'll take the word of Shirin Ebadi over yours:
According to the Nobel Peace laureate, who is planned to receive her award in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 'human rights have improved very much in Iran, compared with 20 years ago'. "We have moved on the right track regarding human rights, but this is not enough," she said.
(This (http://www.payvand.com/news/03/dec/1009.html)was from 2003)

One example of the change the last 22 years, from the same article:
The arbitrative Expediency Council on Saturday agreed to grant divorced Iranian mothers the right to the custody of their children up to the age of seven.

"This reform of the law is the result of 20 years of resistance of the Iranian women. I congratulate Iranians, especially women, on this victory," he told reporters at a news conference, held at IRNA building in Tehran.

The Expediency Council sided with the parliament after the bill was twice quashed by the supervisory Guardians Council on the ground that it went against the Islamic Sharia law.

Divorced mothers have already the custody right to their daughters up to the age of seven and the new law incorporates the same right to their sons.


I think if you're going to point out violation of women's rights, Iran is a lousy example to pick. Had you been talking about Sudan, about Suadi-Arabia, about Jemen or even about Afghanistan, we would have had basis for discussion.

To be fair, I do believe that Iran is a legitimate example to pick to point out violations of women's rights. The situation there is far from satisfactory.

However, to base the debate on this book/movie is just silly.

:rolleyes: *sigh*

No real difference? You know, I'll take the word of Shirin Ebadi over yours:

(This (http://www.payvand.com/news/03/dec/1009.html)was from 2003)

One example of the change the last 22 years, from the same article:




To be fair, I do believe that Iran is a legitimate example to pick to point out violations of women's rights. The situation there is far from satisfactory.

However, to base the debate on this book/movie is just silly.


I think what is silly is that you base your opinion on an Iranian who lives in Iran. Cant you imagine the reaction or maybe the torture she would recieve if she had criticized Iran negatively (i.e: iran is primitive when it comes to women) instead of positive criticizism. (i.e: there is still a lot we have to do despite improvement.) Iran is a primitive country whether with 1 mm improvement or not.


LAW OF THE LAND
Mother of 2 faces death by stoning
Petition to Iranian authorities urges clemency for 34-year-old 'adulteress'
Posted: August 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Human rights groups and concerned individuals worldwide are demanding an end to stoning executions in Iran – and right now are pressuring the head of the Islamic nation's judiciary to lift the death sentence against a 34-year-old mother of two young children.

Malak Ghorbany was sentenced to death June 28 by a court in the Iranian city of Urmia after being found guilty of committing "adultery."

Under Iran's strict Sharia law, women sentenced to execution by stoning have their hands bound behind their back. They are wrapped from head to toe in sheets before being seated in a pit. The ditch is filled up to their breasts with dirt, and the soil is packed tightly before people assemble to execute the woman by pitching rocks at her head and upper body.

Article 104 of the Iranian Penal Code states that the stones used for execution should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones."

Ironically, the court sentenced the woman's brother Abu Bakr Ghorbany and husband Mohammad Daneshfar to only six years in jail for killing her lover. According to Sharia law, murder carries a lesser penalty than "crimes against chastity."

Stonings decreased after international pressure on former reformist President Mohammad Khatami in the late '90s. And Ayatollah Shahroudi, the current head of Iran's judiciary, issued a ruling to judges ordering a moratorium on execution by stoning in December 2002. But the brutal killings have continued and the practice was never abolished from the penal code of the Islamic Republic. In May, two other women, Abbas Hajizadeh and Mahboubeh Mohammadi, were executed for committing adultery, with more than 100 members of the Revolutionary Guards and Bassij Forces participating in the stoning.

Adding to the voices urging Shahroudi to lift the stoning order, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week unanimously passed a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to condemn the impending execution by stoning of two Iranian women, Ghorbany and Ashraf Kolhari.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, an Iranian-American, introduced the resolution and brought it to a vote August 15.

Lily Mazahery, president of the Legal Rights Institute in Washington, D.C., had the lead role in drafting the San Francisco resolution, telling WND: "Malak is receiving the penalty of death for having committed 'adultery,' which, under the Sharia legal system includes any type of intimate relationship between a girl/woman and a man to whom she is not permanently or temporarily married. Such a relationship does not necessarily mean a sexual relationship. Further, charges of adultery are routinely issued to women/girls who have been raped, and they are sentenced to death."

The other woman referenced in the resolution, Kolhari, was sentenced to 15 years in Tehran's Evin prison for allegedly participating in the murder of her husband. Her lawyer, Shadi Sadr, said: "After she was arrested, they obtained a forced 'confession' from her, stating that she had been involved in an extramarital affair with the man who had murdered her husband." This led to a sentence of stoning for adultery as a married woman. The 37-year-old mother had previously filed for divorce, but it was rejected by the court because she has four children.

An Islamic women's organization, Women Living Under Muslim Laws, announced Aug. 11 that Shahroudi had responded to pleas for Kolhari's life. The group's website stated, "We are glad to inform you that we have heard that Ayatollah Shahroudi has acted to stop the execution of Ashraf, the 37-year-old mother of four, who was sentenced to stoning for having had extramarital sex. However, her fate is not yet clear and we urge you to continue writing to the Iranian authorities on her behalf."

Sadr reportedly encouraged continuous public outcry to ensure Kolahri's safety. She said, "I am asking you to please continue your efforts and keep your voices loud until we make sure that [Kolhari] is safe."

However, Ghorbany's fate remains undecided.

The Islamic regime has officially stayed her execution until a new trial is conducted. Mazahery holds little hope for re-examination of the case, and she intends to put intense international pressure on Shahroudi. She told WND the Islamic regime tries to silence the objections of the international human rights lawyers and organizations by initially caving in and granting a stay of execution until a new trial is set.

"The Islamic regime has been known to say one thing and do exactly the opposite," Mazahery said. "It is still quite possible that the Islamic regime will schedule a rush sham trial and re-issue the same sentence before we have a chance to take the appropriate legal actions. It is also possible that even with a new trial, Ghorbany would still receive the same sentence or be sentenced to death by public hanging instead."

Ironically, Iran is a member of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has indicated that treating adultery and fornication as criminal offenses does not comply with international human rights standards. Article 7 of the ICCPR reads, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." And Article 14 guarantees the right "to have legal assistance assigned to (the accused), in any case where the interests of justice so require."

"In 99 percent of these cases," Mazahery said, "the accused women have received no legal representation, and because, under the Sharia legal system their testimony is at best worth only half the value of the testimony of men, their so-called 'trials' last only a few minutes – after which they are immediately sentenced."

"There are no scheduled dates for such killings in Iran," Mazahery told WND. "A prisoner can be executed at any time with little or no notice at all. Needless to say, that makes matters that much more complicated and urgent in these types of cases."

Her petition to save Ghorbany's life is rapidly circulating online with more than 9,847 signatures.

"Let us all express our outrage to prevent these barbaric executions," Mazahery said. "Let us – all of us – take steps to ensure that no innocent woman will ever feel a rope around her neck or any stones launched at her helpless body by the hands of her own peers."

Mazahery translated a message written in Farsi from Ghorbany, which said: "I am not guilty of a crime. I have only committed an act that is the natural right of every human."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51602

I think if you're going to point out violation of women's rights, Iran is a lousy example to pick. Had you been talking about Sudan, about Suadi-Arabia, about Jemen or even about Afghanistan, we would have had basis for discussion.
You, however, picked a Hollywood movie based on book that's highly biased and generally dismissed as propaganda against an enemy nation.

Here's what independent sources say :



http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html

Iran is a lousy example to pick? Another pathetic argument from you. I dont know why I'm even answering considering the idiocy and ignorancy of it. Maybe you are high or something and that's why you dont think a country in which raped women are stoned to death isnt a good example of women right's violations.

I think what is silly is that you base your opinion on an Iranian who lives in Iran.
... what? Who else is going to have an accurate view of the situation in Iran? :rolleyes:

Iran is a lousy example to pick? Another pathetic argument from you. I dont know why I'm even answering considering the idiocy and ignorancy of it. Maybe you are high or something and that's why you dont think a country in which raped women are stoned to death isnt a good example of women right's violations.

When was the last time you visited Iran?

Last year, 5 years ago, ever?

... what? Who else is going to have an accurate view of the situation in Iran? :rolleyes:

Someone who wont be tortured if she/he speaks his/her mind. Try to read the whole thing before answering to a sentence.

Someone who wont be tortured if she/he speaks his/her mind. Try to read the whole thing before answering to a sentence.
As hard as it may be for you to comprehend, people actually DO speak out against oppressive governments.

As hard as it may be for you to comprehend, people actually DO speak out against oppressive governments.

No shit! But in this case is it Shirin who does that? Will we trust her or NGO's and statistics?

Someone who wont be tortured if she/he speaks his/her mind. Try to read the whole thing before answering to a sentence.

I happen to know quite a few Iranians that do not live in Iran, they still would not agree with you.

No shit! But in this case is it Shirin who does that? Will we trust her or NGO's and statistics?

NGOs and statistics??!!

check your sources again...

Iran is not all good, but not as bad as you portray it to be

I happen to know quite a few Iranians that do not live in Iran, they still would not agree with you.

Maybe it's in their genes. Maybe they'll find a women beating gene in future....

No shit! But in this case is it Shirin who does that? Will we trust her or NGO's and statistics?
So you're taking the line that a Nobel laureate can't be trusted and is a less reliable source than a Hollywood movie...

Maybe it's in their genes. Maybe they'll find a women beating gene in future....

I know more Iranian women than men :rolleyes:

NGOs and statistics??!!

check your sources again...

Iran is not all good, but not as bad as you portray it to be

It's a savage country, just as bad as portrayed in the movie. And this is from an NGO, Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran


"The Iranian authorities marked International Women’s Day by attacking hundreds of people who had peacefully assembled to honor women’s rights. Once again, Iran’s government has signaled that it is ready to use violence to suppress peaceful public assembly of any sort."
Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/09/iran12832.htm

So you're taking the line that a Nobel laureate can't be trusted and is a less reliable source than a Hollywood movie...

Oh yeah that Nobel laureate:



Iran: Government Outlaws Nobel Laureate’s Rights Group

(New York, August 9, 2006) – The Iranian government should immediately reverse its threat of prosecution against Iran’s most prominent independent human rights organization, Human Rights Watch said today.

On Thursday, August 3, the interior ministry announced that the Center for Defense of Human Rights (CDHR), co-founded by the 2003 Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi, was an illegal organization. “Any activity by this center is illegal, and violators of this decision will be prosecuted,” an interior ministry statement said, claiming the CDHR “had not obtained the proper permit.”

“The attempt to silence Shirin Ebadi’s Center is a huge setback for protecting human rights in Iran,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “If Ebadi is threatened for defending human rights, then no one who works for human rights can feel safe from government prosecution.”

CDHR was co-founded four years ago by Ebadi, a lawyer based in Teheran. CDHR applied for a permit when it was founded in 2002, but never received a reply from authorities, despite numerous follow-up attempts. A permit is not required by law, but the Ministry of the Interior has imposed the practice of obtaining one.

Responding to the announcement, Ebadi stated, “Under Iran’s constitution, nongovernmental organizations that obey the law and do not disrupt public order do not need a permit.”

Human Rights Watch said the government’s threat, and the continued withholding of a permit for the CDHR, is a blatant attack on the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights and independent voices in Iran, and should be of concern to all who support peaceful democratic progress in Iran.

The CDHR has provided pro-bono legal counsel to hundreds of dissidents, journalists and students facing prosecution for exercising fundamental freedoms, such as peacefully protesting against or criticizing government policies. Lawyers from the CDHR have taken the lead in representing many high-profile victims of human rights abuses. For example, Ebadi and her colleagues represented the family of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, who died in June 2003 in Tehran’s Evin prison. Last year, CDHR also provided legal representation for Iran’s most prominent dissident, Akbar Ganji, who was imprisoned for six years.

On July 16, 2006, the Revolutionary Court of Tehran sentenced Abdulfatah Soltani, a co-founder of CDHR, to five years in prison on charges of disclosing confidential information and opposing the state. The government accused him of disclosing charges brought against some of his clients to international diplomats. Soltani appealed the court’s ruling and is awaiting the appeals court’s decision.

In January 2005, the Revolutionary Court issued a summons for Ebadi without specifying charges. The authorities withdrew the summons after extensive protests both inside and outside of Iran. Ebadi has received frequent anonymous death threats. She has repeatedly informed authorities of these threats, but no arrests or other measures to enhance her security have resulted.

As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iran is obligated to uphold freedom of association. The Iranian constitution explicitly endorses the right to form organizations, which specifically states that “no one may be banned from participating in such organizations.”

The government of Iran also has an obligation to protect Ebadi and other human rights defenders. The U.N. Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which the General Assembly adopted by consensus in 1998, declares that individuals and associations have the right “to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms,” to “develop and discuss new human rights ideas and principles and to advocate their acceptance,” and to “complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights.” It further says that states “shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of [human rights defenders] against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary actions” as a consequence of their legitimate effort to promote human rights.

Human Rights Watch called on the Iranian government to allow human rights defenders to carry out their peaceful activities without harassment and fear of prosecution.

“A government, like Iran’s, which professes to respect human rights, should welcome independent monitoring organizations like the CDHR, rather than seek to muzzle them,” said Whitson of Human Rights Watch.



http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/08/iran13928.htm

Ignorance is a bliss for you people, isnt it?

You know what they say about kids who live in glass houses, right?

That they're shameless exhibitionists?

Hey, Nordland.

I saw a movie called Titanic a while ago. It had this girl who got on a boat that sank. She had a nice necklace.

It was a true story. Do you think I could get that necklace if I went to the place where the boat sank?

Actually it was quite crap.
Though if one is into emotional-porn and having ones emotions manipulated, I'm sure it satisfies those strange urges.

My detailed responses to several earlier posters have just been ditched.
What WangWee said! I second that!

It's a savage country, just as bad as portrayed in the movie. And this is from an NGO, Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran



http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/09/iran12832.htm

Better source this time the last was ridiculous, just look at the rest of their articles

Well, I talked to an Iranian woman yesterday, named Shallya, or Shalhia. She has been here for a month or so, and yet she manages to scrap a bit of both english and spanish, so we used pidgin to talk for a while. Of course, first question that came to my mind was the woman's rights in Iran, and of course, the infamous stonings.

Guess what, she told me that said stonings were not executed by the goverment, but by groups not disimile to mobs trying to accuse women and dispose of them quickly with an excuse. Not different to the awful custom in India where the widow must throw herself to the pyre of her dead husband, (usually the poor woman is thrown). In other words, it is Lynching, no more, no less. To criticize the iranian people based on it is like criticize the southern US citizens by the deeds of the also infamous Ku Klux Klan, saying that the americans are fierce, bloodthristy racists.

By the way, I believe her over you, Hollywood, or any other wikipedia source you can throw at me. She seemed to be a smart, proud, cultured woman, raised in Iran.

Oh yeah that Nobel laureate:



http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/08/iran13928.htm

Ignorance is a bliss for you people, isnt it?

Yes. That Nobel laureate. Who criticised the same government you are criticising, for many of the same things. Except she spoke from a position of experience and moral authority.

Well, I talked to an Iranian woman yesterday, named Shallya, or Shalhia. She has been here for a month or so, and yet she manages to scrap a bit of both english and spanish, so we used pidgin to talk for a while. Of course, first question that came to my mind was the woman's rights in Iran, and of course, the infamous stonings.

Guess what, she told me that said stonings were not executed by the goverment, but by groups not disimile to mobs trying to accuse women and dispose of them quickly with an excuse. Not different to the awful custom in India where the widow must throw herself to the pyre of her dead husband, (usually the poor woman is thrown). In other words, it is Lynching, no more, no less. To criticize the iranian people based on it is like criticize the southern US citizens by the deeds of the also infamous Ku Klux Klan, saying that the americans are fierce, bloodthristy racists.

By the way, I believe her over you, Hollywood, or any other wikipedia source you can throw at me. She seemed to be a smart, proud, cultured woman, raised in Iran.

Or any HRW or news links, right? I remember you being from somewhere in South America, I dont expect you to be having high standarts when it comes to women's rights...

My detailed responses to several earlier posters have just been ditched.
What WangWee said! I second that!

Though I've got to add that "The Perfect Storm" was more crap, since it had shallower characterisation and almost no plot.
"Based on a true story" is just something they write on the cover, guys! Sometimes it says "be afraid. Be very afraid."
I swear, no matter how profound my understanding of The Rain Man or whatever old movie was, NSG would not debate the issues surrounding it for 160+ posts.
This is really all about Ny Nordland. And he doesn't deserve a tenth of it.

Or any HRW or news links, right? I remember you being from somewhere in South America, I dont expect you to be having high standarts when it comes to women's rights...

How many Latin Americans do you know? Where are they from? What do you think is the role of the Catholic Church in perpetuating machismo in South America? The role of Marxism?

Or are you just throwing racist insults around because you can not respond intelligently?


By the way, here is a modern film exploring the life of Iranian women.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301978/

Or any HRW or news links, right? I remember you being from somewhere in South America, I dont expect you to be having high standarts when it comes to women's rights...

“You are ..... so you are not allowed to speak, Iranians themselves, not allowed to speak...”

You should scrutinize your own morals towards others humans male or female

Or any HRW or news links, right? I remember you being from somewhere in South America, I dont expect you to be having high standarts when it comes to women's rights...

You, my friend, are trying to bait me using a racist statement. Always the supremacist, don't you? You are from South America so you have no moral standards? Why your intolerant arguments are tolerated on this forums?

I am part of a Women's Right Organization right here in my country, and have more facts about that than you.

I am a woman. I care about my rights and the rights deserved by my gender as human beings entirely equal to males. I have higher standards than you, I guess. I know Iran violates Woman and Human Rights, I was just pointing out that the point of that movie is heavily biased and constitutes a stupid hyperbole of the current situation.

I am a graduate from a prestigious university with a postgrade, a press manager of a radio station and a writer in the most sold newspaper in my country. I speak several languages and have traveled around the world. I am not an uneducated, simple frijolera who get a beating every saturday night by her drunk husband. on't even try to assume anything about my standards regarding Human Rights.

Women are also beaten up by their husbands in Europe and the USA everyday, did you know that? It is injustice. In Spain, to rape a prostitute deserves a lesser penalty, "because she deserved it", or something else along that line. In Japan, young girls get raped in group out in the public. Take your first world stupidity to someplace else.

Though I've got to add that "The Perfect Storm" was more crap, since it had shallower characterisation and almost no plot.
"Based on a true story" is just something they write on the cover, guys! Sometimes it says "be afraid. Be very afraid."
I swear, no matter how profound my understanding of The Rain Man or whatever old movie was, NSG would not debate the issues surrounding it for 160+ posts.
This is really all about Ny Nordland. And he doesn't deserve a tenth of it.
Hell, look at the POS docudrama "The Path to 9/11" for an example of that. They went even farther than based on a true story--they said "based on the 9/11 Commission Report." Didn't stop them from filling it with bullshit.

You, my friend, are trying to bait me using a racist statement. Always the supremacist, don't you? You are from South America so you have no moral standards? Why your intolerant arguments are tolerated on this forums?

I am part of a Women's Right Organization right here in my country, and have more facts about that than you.

I am a woman. I care about my rights and the rights deserved by my gender as human beings entirely equal to males. I have higher standards than you, I guess. I know Iran violates Woman and Human Rights, I was just pointing out that the point of that movie is heavily biased and constitutes a stupid hyperbole of the current situation.

I am a graduate from a prestigious university with a postgrade, a press manager of a radio station and a writer in the most sold newspaper in my country. I speak several languages and have traveled around the world. I am not an uneducated, simple frijolera who get a beating every saturday night by her drunk husband. on't even try to assume anything about my standards regarding Human Rights.

Women are also beaten up by their husbands in Europe and the USA everyday, did you know that? It is injustice. In Spain, to rape a prostitute deserves a lesser penalty, "because she deserved it", or something else along that line. In Japan, young girls get raped in group out in the public. Take your first world stupidity to someplace else.


South American countries arent shining examples of human rights and the situation there concerning women is worse then West, especially worse than Northern Europe. Hence my remark.

South American countries arent shining examples of human rights and the situation there concerning women is worse then West, especially worse than Northern Europe. Hence my remark.

No, you were making a previous judgment based on bias. You assume that if somethings happens in one place, everyone there agrees with it. Your remark was a show of prejudice. Women's Rights violations happens everywhere, not only in Latin America. Try Japan, or Italy.

You are from someplace in the Scandinavian peninsule, no? Just a question, do you have suicidal tendencies?

South American countries arent shining examples of human rights and the situation there concerning women is worse then West, especially worse than Northern Europe. Hence my remark.

I hope that's an apology. An admission that you characterised the residents of a whole continent according to some statistical assesment you almost certainly can't justify.

I hope I'm not being culturally insensitive, but in my country, you are what we call "a piece of shit."

Oh well. It was worth it.

I hope that's an apology. An admission that you characterised the residents of a whole continent according to some statistical assesment you almost certainly can't justify.

I hope I'm not being culturally insensitive, but in my country, you are what we call "a piece of shit."

Oh well. It was worth it.

I find it ironic considering the number of times NN bitches about all Germans being considered Nazis, for example. Or how he characterises all Russian soldiers as rapists and such.

I hope that's an apology. An admission that you characterised the residents of a whole continent according to some statistical assesment you almost certainly can't justify.

I hope I'm not being culturally insensitive, but in my country, you are what we call "a piece of shit."

Oh well. It was worth it.

Where are you from?

No, you were making a previous judgment based on bias. You assume that if somethings happens in one place, everyone there agrees with it. Your remark was a show of prejudice. Women's Rights violations happens everywhere, not only in Latin America. Try Japan, or Italy.

You are from someplace in the Scandinavian peninsule, no? Just a question, do you have suicidal tendencies?

Human rights violations occur everywhere. It's not a matter of occuring or not but it's a matter of how much and how. A women might be discriminated at work place in Italy but she wont be stoned to death (i.e: how). And the number of those cases should differ (i.e: how much).

Where are you from?

Pardon me if I don't assist you in forming an opinion of me, by declaring my nationality or race. You'll just have to work it out for yourself.

In my country, we refer to people who are unpleasant to be with, hostile, deliberately offensive and dangerous to know, as "a piece of shit." We use the same phrase to refer to a quantity of faeces.

I freely acknowledge that I formed that opinion OF YOU on the basis of insufficient information. It was something you said.

Pardon me if I don't assist you in forming an opinion of me, by declaring my nationality or race. You'll just have to work it out for yourself.

In my country, we refer to people who are unpleasant to be with, hostile, deliberately offensive and dangerous to know, as "a piece of shit." We use the same phrase to refer to a quantity of faeces.

I freely acknowledge that I formed that opinion OF YOU on the basis of insufficient information. It was something you said.

Dangerous to know...right...:rolleyes:

And I already got an opinion about you as well, so you neednt worry. Or are you ashamed of your country that you dont even name it?

South American countries arent shining examples of human rights and the situation there concerning women is worse then West, especially worse than Northern Europe. Hence my remark.

Prove it. Prove that women's rights in Latin America are worse than in Northern Europe. It should be easy, even for a moron.

I think what is silly is that you base your opinion on an Iranian who lives in Iran. Cant you imagine the reaction or maybe the torture she would recieve if she had criticized Iran negatively (i.e: iran is primitive when it comes to women) instead of positive criticizism. (i.e: there is still a lot we have to do despite improvement.) Iran is a primitive
country whether with 1 mm improvement or not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51602
Doesn't occur to you, does it, that positive criticism works a helluva lot better and is much more effective at getting change than negative criticism?
Actually, why do I even bother asking this? Ny's replies thus far on this forum prove beyond a doubt he is incapable of offering anything other than negative criticism. Well that and outright insults - churlish and childish ones at that.

As for your source:
Ah, the WorldNutDaily. Fantastic font of information and facts there.
Has articles in which they declare that homosexuals want to teach kindergarten children sexual perversions so as to 'recruit' and 'use' them - because homosexuals can't reproduce, so have to 'recruit'.
(edit) found it:

This is not as education. This is homosexual reproduction.
Since homosexuals don't reproduce naturally, they need to recruit – not to be their children, mind you, but to be their prey. That's why they care so much about what happens in schools – where they obviously have few of their own children.
...
Let's be honest; there's only one reason to teach kindergarteners about sexual perversion – and that is to raise a new generation of pliable sexual victims of that perversion.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51994

Which tells us a lot about the quality and relaibility of said site...


First a crappy made-for-tv-movie and now a bigoted moronic website.
Really getting desperate in your search for things to boslter your prejudices, huh NY?

Is that the sound of a barrel bottom being scrapped I hear, coming from a certain Scandavian country?
Why, yes it is!

Yes it is.

Dangerous to know...right...:rolleyes:

And I already got an opinion about you as well, so you neednt worry. Or are you ashamed of your country that you dont even name it?
If you had even a slightest clue about World geography (or indeed that marvellous internet tool called 'Google'), you would know which country he lives in. Just look at the place under his name. It tells you quite plainly. Not the country, but the city.
As I said, a slight bit of geographical awareness (or the ability to google) would tell you very quickly.

I find it interesting that you are so vigourous about criticising and condemning places elsewhere in the world, yet apparently have little knowledge of where any of them actually are.
Very. Interesting. It definitely explains a lot about your attitudes.

Prove it. Prove that women's rights in Latin America are worse than in Northern Europe. It should be easy, even for a moron.

Who's the moron?

Doesn't occur to you, does it, that positive criticism works a helluva lot better and is much more effective at getting change than negative criticism?
Actually, why do I even bother asking this? Ny's replies thus far on this forum prove beyond a doubt he is incapable of offering anything other than negative criticism. Well that and outright insults - churlish and childish ones at that.

As for your source:
Ah, the WorldNutDaily. Fantastic font of information and facts there.
Has articles in which they declare that homosexuals want to teach kindergarten children sexual perversions so as to 'recruit' and 'use' them - because homosexuals can't reproduce, so have to 'recruit'.
(edit) found it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51994

Which tells us a lot about the quality and relaibility of said site...


First a crappy made-for-tv-movie and now a bigoted moronic website.
Really getting desperate in your search for things to boslter your prejudices, huh NY?

Is that the sound of a barrel bottom being scrapped I hear, coming from a certain Scandavian country?
Why, yes it is!

Yes it is.


:rolleyes: The source is actually Reuters if you had bothered to read it. Here, another link:

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21837&sec=59&cont=5

I understand trying to discredit the source is all you are capable of, given the hard truths.

If you had even a slightest clue about World geography (or indeed that marvellous internet tool called 'Google'), you would know which country he lives in. Just look at the place under his name. It tells you quite plainly. Not the country, but the city.
As I said, a slight bit of geographical awareness (or the ability to google) would tell you very quickly.

I find it interesting that you are so vigourous about criticising and condemning places elsewhere in the world, yet apparently have little knowledge of where any of them actually are.
Very. Interesting. It definitely explains a lot about your attitudes.

Another interesting thing is that you are forgetting that some people RPG here and hence put not-really existant names in their locations. Or did you really think Gravlen was from Gravlen? HAHA, That was really silly...

I think what is silly is that you base your opinion on an Iranian who lives in Iran. Cant you imagine the reaction or maybe the torture she would recieve if she had criticized Iran negatively (i.e: iran is primitive when it comes to women) instead of positive criticizism. (i.e: there is still a lot we have to do despite improvement.) Iran is a primitive country whether with 1 mm improvement or not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51602
Yet she still does criticize Iran negatively. Have you heard of her before? She is noted and well-known for speaking out against her own government. Why shouldn't I believe someone who has lived and lives in Iran ahead of, well, your words?

And as for the threat of torture, I'll quote what the Nobel comittee said:
The chairman of the five-member selection committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, paid tribute to Ms Ebadi's work at home and abroad, saying she understood that "No society can be seen as democratic without women being represented".

She was also praised as a "courageous person" who "has never heeded the threat to her own safety".
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3181428.stm)

I'd rather say it's silly of you to dismiss her out of hand. Sure, you can (and should) be a bit sceptical - but that goes for everything you read. But you don't seem to care who she is or what she says - you dismiss her simply because she's an Iranian living in Iran.
Oh yeah that Nobel laureate:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/08/iran13928.htm

Ignorance is a bliss for you people, isnt it?
There is no spoon:

The government recently demanded that she close down her Center for Defense of Human Rights in Tehran, calling it illegal. But Ebadi insists her center conforms to Iranian law. "Even if they close us down, we will continue to do what we do," such as report on abuses.
http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_4315694

I'm sorry, I choose to believe her over you.
Another interesting thing is that you are forgetting that some people RPG here and hence put not-really existant names in their locations. Or did you really think Gravlen was from Gravlen? HAHA, That was really silly...
What? It's a nice place ;)

While we take a short intermission, here's some Nietzche for you all:

I still hate Rousseau in the French Revolution: it is the world-historical expression of this duality of idealist and rabble. The bloody farce which became an aspect of the Revolution, its "immorality," is of little concern to me: what I hate is its Rousseauan morality--the so-called "truths" of the Revolution through which it still works and attracts everything shallow and mediocre. The doctrine of equality! There is no more poisonous poison anywhere: for it seems to be preached by justice itself, whereas it really is the termination of justice. "Equal to the equal, unequal to the unequal"--that would be the true slogan of justice; and also its corollary: "Never make equal what is unequal." That this doctrine of equality was surrounded by such gruesome and bloody events, that has given this "modern idea" par excellence a kind of glory and fiery aura so that the Revolution as a spectacle has seduced even the noblest spirits. In the end, that is no reason for respecting it any more. I see only one man who experienced it as it must be experienced, with nausea--Goethe.

Ah, so refreshing! Such a clear thinker :headbang:

I find it ironic considering the number of times NN bitches about all Germans being considered Nazis, for example. I do too. He's not German.

Who's the moron?Someone that can't prove that women's rights are worse off in Latin America than Northern Europe when asked to.

What I have noticed of NN with my time on here is that he has very little experience with any of the situations he complains about and so must find statistics to prove he is right even though first hand accounts are much more reliable. Instead of complaining NN about womns rights ( aka a strawman for your own views) get off your arse and help these people. Go do something that will be productive for everyone. I can't see how you can trust an overly biased Hollywood film over a person who has lived in Iran.

Sure I agree Iran isn't great when it comes to womens rights but its better than what it used to be. And please stop generalisations of millions of people from what you see of a small minority doing. And don't keep bringing out statistics to support your bullshit racist remarks.

Or any HRW or news links, right? I remember you being from somewhere in South America, I dont expect you to be having high standarts when it comes to women's rights...

You have presented a number of 'sources'.

Most have been discredited or debunked as being plain untrue.

You have refused to acknowledge other evidences that deny your hardline beliefs... you dismiss them as being irrelevent because the people are NOT from Iran, or irrelevent because the people ARE from Iran.

You dismissed one article because the person is a native expert, famed for opposing their government, as far as I can see.

You dismissed one source because it was anecdotal... while your chief evidence has been a movie?

You dismiss opposition because of the nation a person lives in, now?

It appears you will NEVER accept any evidence that opposes one of your platforms... which makes me wonder why you keep offering your agenda up for 'debate'?

You have presented a number of 'sources'.

Most have been discredited or debunked as being plain untrue.

You have refused to acknowledge other evidences that deny your hardline beliefs... you dismiss them as being irrelevent because the people are NOT from Iran, or irrelevent because the people ARE from Iran.

You dismissed one article because the person is a native expert, famed for opposing their government, as far as I can see.

You dismissed one source because it was anecdotal... while your chief evidence has been a movie?

You dismiss opposition because of the nation a person lives in, now?

It appears you will NEVER accept any evidence that opposes one of your platforms... which makes me wonder why you keep offering your agenda up for 'debate'?


Mental masturbation?

Mental masturbation?

Not right at the moment, thanks... I'm typing...

:)

Personally, I think it's about attention. Most of the people I have met in real life that embrace these kinds of violently anti-something platforms... have been the sort of people who really didn't get noticed in a crowd. Average size, not especially popular or successful with the opposite sex - often with bad skin and or glasses... really average people.

ANd those people find that, by generating negative attention at someone else, it kind of mystically promotes positive attention towards themselves... it's easy to see HOW someone falls into that trap.

Not that I'm saying Ny is like that. But, it's a possibility to bear in mind.

You have presented a number of 'sources'.

Most have been discredited or debunked as being plain untrue.

You have refused to acknowledge other evidences that deny your hardline beliefs... you dismiss them as being irrelevent because the people are NOT from Iran, or irrelevent because the people ARE from Iran.

You dismissed one article because the person is a native expert, famed for opposing their government, as far as I can see.

You dismissed one source because it was anecdotal... while your chief evidence has been a movie?

You dismiss opposition because of the nation a person lives in, now?

It appears you will NEVER accept any evidence that opposes one of your platforms... which makes me wonder why you keep offering your agenda up for 'debate'?


Why do you offer your posts for debate if you will say idiotic things like "your prime source is a movie". It isnt. It's just more graphical than hard statistics. I thought the fact that Iran treated women very badly was common knowledge so I didnt provide any sources in the OP. I was wrong. But then I did. Refer to my answers to Gravlen and CW. But you chose to ignore them. Why are you debating with me if you are so biased that you cant even acknowledge the links?

Not right at the moment, thanks... I'm typing...

:)

Personally, I think it's about attention. Most of the people I have met in real life that embrace these kinds of violently anti-something platforms... have been the sort of people who really didn't get noticed in a crowd. Average size, not especially popular or successful with the opposite sex - often with bad skin and or glasses... really average people.

ANd those people find that, by generating negative attention at someone else, it kind of mystically promotes positive attention towards themselves... it's easy to see HOW someone falls into that trap.

Not that I'm saying Ny is like that. But, it's a possibility to bear in mind.


I've posted one of my pic in this forums. And I've seen your pic as well. However, I'm not going to lower myself to your level of personal insults or at least implications.
I just want to say you do not look like a Viking, as you claimed before.

An excellent summary of the film (which I have seen. And it was worse than Kevin and Perry Go Large which is saying something) here- http://goodbadugly.coldfusionvideo.com/notwithout.html

A few extracts:

But how! The only competent part of Not Without Your Daughter is the thoroughness in which it hits all the notes: tall, dark foreigner who seems like a good, rational person but turns evil...CHECK; a guiltless, fragile, and white middle-class woman who only wants to be a good wife and mother...CHECK; ...who finally shows some backbone when the chips are really down....CHECK; 'good foreigners' who exist only to inexplicably help our maiden in distress...CHECK; and an attempt to show that all people who inhabit foreign countries live in absolutely medieval conditions...DOUBLE CHECK.


The grating thing story-wise is that, besides the reminders that he's pressured by his family, Moody's change is sudden and grossly unrealistic. The earlier efforts to suggest any motive to Moody fall to the wayside and he becomes yet another Lifetime Movie man-villain, bad and mean to his wife just because. Worse is the depiction of his family, who sacrifice a goat to celebrate his homecoming (!), have enough members living together to populate a small city, wear their burkas indoors, and apparently have no furniture, Western or otherwise, despite the fact that they do have to be quite wealthy and affluent to have a son living in America and working as a doctor.

And Ny, did you really ask for proof that the fascist right don't like Muslims? Surely you didn't? Because five minutes on Google would have provided you with piles of evidence and I wouldn't be mean enough to accuse you of not even doing the minimal amount of research before spouting off.

Why do you offer your posts for debate if you will say idiotic things like "your prime source is a movie". It isnt. It's just more graphical than hard statistics. I thought the fact that Iran treated women very badly was common knowledge so I didnt provide any sources in the OP. I was wrong. But then I did. Refer to my answers to Gravlen and CW. But you chose to ignore them. Why are you debating with me if you are so biased that you cant even acknowledge the links?

The OP was about a movie that has been repeated debunked like a decade ago. It's the source of the topic. If you don't understand the purpose of an OP, then perhaps you should review your understand of how an argument is constructed. The irony of calling someone an idiot for considering the source of the argument you used to create a thread to be the point of the thread titled after that movie is just too good.

"You're an idiot for thinking my thread titled 'Not without my daughter' uses 'Not without my daughter' as it's prime source. But then, I don't really seem to know what the hell I'm trying to say."

Now, since you're so keen on suggesting people can't read, perhaps I'll comment on this.

You have presented a number of 'sources'.

Most have been discredited or debunked as being plain untrue.
Why are you debating with me if you are so biased that you cant even acknowledge the links?

He did acknowledge your sources and pointed out that they've been repeated debunked. Are there problems in Iran? Yes. No one is denying it. However, you are hyperbolizing those problems and so are your sources. That's why you liked that racist movie. Meanwhile, it's amusing you would attack someone else as disinterested in debate when your method of dismissing a source is saying that it's a first-hand source and thus unrealiable. A nobel-prize winning first-hand source and you never addressed the argument at all, just used ad hominem against the person as a person from Iran.

However, I'm not going to lower myself to your level of personal insults or at least implications.

Just from the last few days of his forum postings:
Who's the moron?
Ignorance is a bliss for you people, isnt it?
I dont expect you to be having high standarts when it comes to women's rights...
...you will say idiotic things...
Another pathetic argument from you. I dont know why I'm even answering considering the idiocy and ignorancy of it. Maybe you are high or something
[*watches the wheel work slowly in Ariddia's head*
The workings of an inferior intellect might also include lack of reading comprehension which you are suffering from.
I suggest you to read lots of books and develop your reading comprehension skills.
You are boring exactly because your inability or refusal to understand.
are you 12 or something?
That was a very idiotic and ignorant response. Usual Laerod.
You are a total waste of my time, arent you?
why dont you and CW get lost
your idiotic 2 line posts
can your brain consider only one post at a time
was a really idiotic thing to say, clearly displaying your ignorancy...your ignorant mind.


Makes me even more certain that Ny suffers from Anterograde Amnesia. Probably from being dropped on the head often as a child.



[Now to wait for wee little Ny to either accuse me of misrepresenting what he said (Damn! cut n paste can be sooooo tricky) or run whining to the mods that I'm being nasty to him.
*whistles nonchalantly*]

Why do you offer your posts for debate if you will say idiotic things like "your prime source is a movie". It isnt. It's just more graphical than hard statistics. I thought the fact that Iran treated women very badly was common knowledge so I didnt provide any sources in the OP. I was wrong. But then I did. Refer to my answers to Gravlen and CW. But you chose to ignore them. Why are you debating with me if you are so biased that you cant even acknowledge the links?

If your prime source isn't the movie... why use the movie as the prime source? Maybe that sounds redundant... but you created a thread in which the title, original post, and prime source were all cited as the movie "Not Without My Daughter"... and now you appear to be claiming that wasn't the intention of the thread?

Look back at the original post... look at the assertion that the abusive husband is a 'typical muslim' - that is your 'argument' that I am attacking... you have ignored most of the world. Mistreatment of women (or men) is not peculiar to the borders of Iran - thus, it is not unreasonable to assume some special significance of this particular story... and that significance SEEMS to be, that you've seen the film, no?

Regarding your last comment: "Why are you debating with me if you are so biased that you cant even acknowledge the links?"

My 'bias' hasn't stopped me acknowledging the links. The fact that they have been fairly soundly discredited might have some impact, though.

As to 'why I keep debating with you'... to be honest, it is somewhere between using you as a platform for showing how baseless such arguments are... and hoping that, if I present you with facts, and remove enough of the propoganda you have imbibed... you MIGHT actually start looking at the world in a more logical fashion.

I've posted one of my pic in this forums. And I've seen your pic as well. However, I'm not going to lower myself to your level of personal insults or at least implications.


You've posted your pic... okay. And?

In what way have I personally insulted you? Or even implied?

All I've said is you seem to be clamouring for attention.


I just want to say you do not look like a Viking, as you claimed before.

My heart is breaking? You don't think I look like a viking? How can I possibly live with such a crushing barb?

I wonder what you think a viking would look like, then?

http://www.regia.org/vikings.htm

A quick websearch threw up the following page, with a few representations of vikings... not having seen your picture, I can't make the judgement... but I wonder which of us looks more like a viking?

Just from the last few days of his forum postings:

Makes me even more certain that Ny suffers from Anterograde Amnesia. Probably from being dropped on the head often as a child.

[Now to wait for wee little Ny to either accuse me of misrepresenting what he said (Damn! cut n paste can be sooooo tricky) or run whining to the mods that I'm being nasty to him.
*whistles nonchalantly*]

Pretty conclusive, I think. Ny is hoist by his own petard.

Pretty conclusive, I think. Ny is hoist by his own petard.
Seeing as it's 'Speak like a Pirate' day, shouldn't that be:

Avast! Pretty conclusive, methinks. Ny is being hoisted by his own petArrrrrrr!d.

Seeing as it's 'Speak like a Pirate' day, shouldn't that be:

Avast! Pretty conclusive, methinks. Ny is being hoisted by his own petArrrrrrr!d.

It's 'speak like a pirate' day? I was unaware.

Perhaps I'm just one of those cultured English pirates?

(As a matter of curiousity... why do stereotypical pirates always have bad Cornish accents?)

It's 'speak like a pirate' day? I was unaware.

Perhaps I'm just one of those cultured English pirates?

(As a matter of curiousity... why do stereotypical pirates always have bad Cornish accents?)Unless ye be readin' yer posts out loud, we'll fergive ye this trespass this one toim.
(Even cultured English of the time didn't speak the English we do today :p)

Unless ye be readin' yer posts out loud, we'll fergive ye this trespass this one toim.
(Even cultured English of the time didn't speak the English we do today :p)

No, no... I've seen Pirates of the Carribean.... I'm aiming for Norrington's approach...

No, no... I've seen Pirates of the Carribean.... I'm aiming for Norrington's approach...There's a nice ship in North Carolina where they mimick the English spoken then. It's nothing like PotC.
(Besides, everyone knows that Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa has the coolest Pirate accent!)

It's 'speak like a pirate' day? I was unaware.

Perhaps I'm just one of those cultured English pirates?

(As a matter of curiousity... why do stereotypical pirates always have bad Cornish accents?)

This kind of pirate is better

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/pinguine.gif

This kind of pirate is better

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/pinguine.gif

I scared.... :o

There's a nice ship in North Carolina where they mimick the English spoken then. It's nothing like PotC.
(Besides, everyone knows that Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa has the coolest Pirate accent!)

Not like PoTC? are you forgetting which thread you are posting in? Movies are irrefutable evidence, and are beyond question in their absolute veracity and authority.

Makes me even more certain that Ny suffers from Anterograde Amnesia. Probably from being dropped on the head often as a child.



[Now to wait for wee little Ny to either accuse me of misrepresenting what he said (Damn! cut n paste can be sooooo tricky) or run whining to the mods that I'm being nasty to him.
*whistles nonchalantly*]

Is this any better than the examples of his posts ?

Are you curing him now? Is the name calling and speculation going to open his eyes to the error of his ways?

Or is it all in the excitement of a pile-on ?

Not like PoTC? are you forgetting which thread you are posting in? Movies are irrefutable evidence, and are beyond question in their absolute veracity and authority.
Alice in Wonderland is now an infinitely better film to me, since it must all be true. I wanna find that caterpillar and score something off him.

Pretty conclusive, I think. Ny is hoist by his own petard.

Dang. I did it first last night, but removed it to take it moderation. *cries* I so wanted that credit.

In all seriousness, I think this problem has moved past a long post showing how petty NN has become, however I was impressed by the effort.