Iran hangs 16 year old girl because of her sharp tongue.

Topic: 

mdoneil writes "I guess Iran's Constitution differs slightly from that of the USA. A young woman was executed for what she said. The article here

I guess I'll cross Iran off of my vaction plans list.

An interesting side note is that the above page has a blurb about "France steps up its investments in Iran". That article is here. Yipee lets here it for France! Lets all pitch in and help developing nations!"

Comments

They're an awfully secretive organisation. Their about us page gives no contact details other than email, they don't list any names of their writers or editors, as far as I can see.

And [sarcasm] perhaps most seriously of all, their site has a Francophone version [/sarcasm].

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I went through library school they taught us some criteria for evaluating information sources. And against those criteria, Iran Focus doesn't stack up very well.

The article Blake linked to was dated April of this year I assumed the business dealings were current. Anything pre-9/11 I really don't care about. The rules completely changed after that.

So since our hands are dirty we should just leave them alone?

"Yes but, if and when the time comes that we will have to deal with Iran which country will mostly like get in the way?"

Well, we've been dealing with Iran, but we've been doing it through foreign subsidiaries or middlemen in Dubai.

To stand by and do nothing while a crime is committed in front of you is, to me, to be morally responsible for the crime. So which deaths are Canada responsible for? The ten thousand for not trying to stop us or the hundreds of thousands for not trying to stop Saddam?

There is an old poem:
"Freedom now so seldom wakes
That the only sign she gives,
Is when some heart, indignant, breaks,
To show that she still lives."
It is sorrowful when a country devours it's young, but the only cure for this must come from within. when the parents of this girl and others in the town accept this style of harsh judgement without protest or revolution, then the whole society agrees that conformity to community standards is more important than life itself. Those with sharp tongues to attack the society's norms will always be in danger from those who want to protect it at all costs. Sharp tongued heretics will always be a minority, and will always be at risk. It is sad to see a courageous woman die for speaking out, and to see the censors win.

In an oppressive, patriarchic regime, a sharp tounged woman is any woman who will tell a man the truth to his face. My call on it in this case is: Ms. Sahaleh basically told a member of the priest class that the priest class is responsible for all the moral corruption and is deserving of punishment instead of the people the priests oppress.

There's no words for this. I share others sorrow on this. We should remember that a number of Mideast societies treat their women brutally, killing them for minor offenses, tolerated if not carried out by the State. None of that excuses Iran or the judge." An interesting side note is that the above page has a blurb about "France steps up its investments in Iran". That article is here. Yipee lets here it for France! Lets all pitch in and help developing nations!"I'm not a Francophile, but it's important to realize they're hardly alone in providing economic support to Iran. Some of our "better behaved" allies are Iran's top trading partners, according to the 2004 CIA World FactBook:----------------Exports - commodities: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, carpetsExports - partners: Japan 20.1% (Has troops in Iraq), China 9.9%, Italy 7.6% (Has troops in Iraq), South Korea 5.7% (HAD troops in Iraq) (2002)----------------Imports - commodities: industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military suppliesImports - partners: Germany 17.1%, Switzerland 9.3%, UAE 9.1%, France 5.9%, Italy 5.8% (Has Troops in Iraq), South Korea 4.8% (Had troops in Iraq), China 4.7%, Russia 4.3% (2002)----------------------Another obstensible US ally helping Iran economicly is Pakistan, which is joining with India on a new oil pipeline from Iran. The same article I cited indicates that Pakistan will be giving Iran a "Preferential Trade Agreement"Again, I'm not trying to excuse Iran, or even France, but these days it is vitally important to recognize failings everywhere, not just in the people out of favor with us. Only that way can we build moral clarity and show the world we actually mean what we say about standing for liberty and truth.

I think it's interesting that you would take a chance juxtoposition of articles as an opportunity to snipe at France. France is not the only country to invest in repressive countries around the world. The US hasn't exactly been morally discriminating when it comes to choosing places to
set up shop. As for pitching in and helping developing nations - do you think that by isolating and ignoring these types of places that they will improve?
This event was truly awful - but please don't sarcastically condemn an entire nation and those who do business with it on the basis of a single horrible act.
And that's "hear it for France", by the way, not "here it for France".

Yes but, if and when the time comes that we will have to deal with Iran which country will mostly like get in the way?

Do you mean "deal with Iran" as in "admit that sanctions aren't helping anyone and start a diplomatic dialogue" or "deal with Iran" as in "invade a soverign nation over the objections of most of the world"? If you mean the former, I don't think France or anyone else will "get in the way". If you mean the latter, I deeply hope that France, Germany, and the rest of the world once again "get in the way".

Diplomatic: Characterized by tact and shrewdness; dexterous; artful

Diplomatic dialogue: a stalling technique used by dictatorships to hold off outside interference in order to shore up military power usually by creating The Bomb and therefore solidifying their rule and the continued oppression of the people within their borders, ex. North Korea.

Yes but, if and when the time comes that we will have to deal with Iran which country will mostly like get in the way?

The Republican regime of George Bush. I have no doubt that the worst enemy of the U.S. is the enemy within. One that is morally and ethically responsible for the genocide of 11 to 15 thousand people. One whose murder of those innocents was founded on the most egregious disinformation and propaganda.

Yeah, if a time should come when Iran does something that ticks off Bush the baby-killer while he's still in office, he certainly won't make any effort to deal with it in a sane and rational manner.

1. Iraq does have WMDs or at least did. If they used them all killing their own people that was pretty dumb of them but hardly something we would or should have assumed.

2. Iraq did have ties with Al-Queda, the 9-11 commission said they didn't have ties with 9/11 they did not say they didn't have ties with Al-queda.

3. North Korea already had nukes by 2002, funny how you ignore the joke-known-as-diplomacy in the early 90's led by Carter, approved by Clinton, which led to NK having nukes by 2002.

So it was OK for the US to trade with Iran, no matter how evil their regime, until 9/11, and not OK after 9/11, even though Iran had nothing to do with 9/11?

I'm just trying to clarify here, because that truly makes no sense to me, if it's what you are saying.

Disregarding those international laws to perpetrate your own genocide is vile and disgusting and every free American should be ashamed of the Bush regime and the slaughter being committed in their name for a few buckets of oil.

You failed to address any of the facts I posted, by the way.

I have seen no indications that you actually do value the lives of innocents.

Abortion, like it or not, is a matter of personal choice. Having George Bush blow you up with 1,000 pounds of fulminating high explosives is not a personal choice. It is something forced on you by outside forces.

Come to that, however, kindly explain how opposing abortion puts you on the moral high ground when you so volubly cheer for the mass murder in Iraq. Or how you can proclaim yourself to be in favour of freedom and democracy in Iraq while advocating slavery for American women. That strikes me as a clear and present double standard morality.

Just for the record, by the way, I'm opposed to abortion. Which is why, although it's a moot point, I will never choose to have one. What you probably will not understand is that I can oppose abortion and still support a system of personal liberty where someone else can opt to have one at their sole discretion. It goes to heart of what makes a free person free in the first place.

I've been pretty consistent in saying we made some big mistakes pre-9/11. Rules changed that day. Its a whole new game.

I notice you still haven't come up with an excuse for Canada sitting on the sidelines, neither with us, nor against us, yet people dying either way.

...Abortion, like it or not, is a matter of personal choice.

Which makes it no different than other flavor of murder. In other words, this obvious fact does nothing to justify the killing.

If you truly respect the lives of the innocent, let's see these abortion photos added to your postcards. Surely you would agree the 800,000+ American babies killed annually deserve the equivalent outrage you have for the children of Iraq?

Not sure about the reliability of this resource but -

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=42298

08/22/2004 01:15 PM ID: 42298

16-Year-Old Iranian Girl Hanged For Being A Rape Victim

A young girl who was accused of "moral corruption" (premarital sex) as a result of being raped was executed by hanging in Iran on Sunday the 16th.

When the girl told the judge that he should "punish the perpetrators of moral corruption, not the victims", the judge used his power to push (beyond normal procedures) for the 16-year-old's execution.

When asked, judge Haji Rezaii, a fundamentalist Muslim, said that he executed the girl for her "sharp tongue".

Your Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus is not a human being and does not enjoy the protections of human rights. Get them to change that. Until they do, those are not babies, only fetuses.

Then, you come up with some way to show me how your control over another person's reproductive faculties does not reduce her to the status of slave.

As long as you patriarchic slave-mongers insist on eroding or outright violating people's rights to live their lives their way, for good or ill, I will oppose the anti-abortion movement.

And that is final. Because in any cost/benefit study between slavery and freedom, anti-abortion comes out costing too much.

And if you'd like a look at a United States wherein women are the chattels of any male, read the epistolary first chapter of Alice Walker's The Color Purple. And read Jan Goodwin's essay: Buried Alive. And then read her book The Price of Honor.

Your Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus is not a human being and does not enjoy the protections of human rights. Get them to change that. Until they do, those are not babies, only fetuses.

Precious. Then you agree those were niggers in the Dred Scott case?

I found a better source for more details -
www.amnesty.org

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde1303620 04

"If Canada is morally responsible, then it is because we have chosen to stand by international laws and not violate the sovereignty of foreign powers as casually as the U.S. does."

Hiding behind international law while thousands die is very brave of you Fang, you should be proud.

My bad, I saw the B and the small number and just filled in the blanks.

While its certainly stuff to think about its a good example of a conversation I recently had with Daniel about the need for facts depending on the issue. I don't have a problem with Halburton getting contracts in Iraq, why should they not get them? But the entire arguement about which companies should be doing business there pales in comparison to the fact that we needed to go there and do what we did.

Clarification: I (not Blake) posted the links to the Forbes article and Halliburton release. (I figured those sources might be better received than, say, an article from Mother Jones.) My intended point was to suggest that Americans - and especially supporters of Bush/Cheney - might not want to be so quick to cast stones specifically at French companies for doing biz in Iran. And I'd just like to point out here that, even if we give a "9/11 changed everything" pass to Halliburton when Cheney was boss, the company - despite its post-9/11 treasonous (to use Greg's adjective) activities - was awarded billions of dollars in non-competitive contracts in Iraq, which the Vice President possibly coordinated.

Just stuff to think about, is all I'm sayin'.

1. Oh come on. Where are they? Powell told the UN that the USA knew where they were. The inspectors, as well as the French, Russians, etc were asking for more time to determine whether there were WMD. Yes, you should have known about them, because they were your justification for invading another country.

2a. The justification was that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Which it was found not to be. b. You say that the commission "did not say that Iraq had no ties with A-Q". This doesn't mean that it did.

3. Say all you like about Clinton and Carter. Whatever they did or didn't do doesn't excuse what Bush is doing now. I'm no fan of Clinton either.

Pre-9/11 Ok? No. Treasonous? No probably not. After 9/11 Ok? No. Treasonous? Yeah I'd say so. If treasonous then shoot'em? yeah ok, don't quote me but so far it makes sense.

1. He either used'em, destroyed'em, or sent them to Syria. The French and Russians were looking for more time to cover their behinds. The oil-for-food scandal takes away any credibility you want to try and give them.

2a. That's a bald-faced lie.

2b. No it doesn't mean they did but there's a whole book called The Connection by Stephen Hayes that details just how exstenive those ties were.

3. Your trying to ignore where the problem started with NK. Its helluva lot harder to deal with a country that has nukes then one that doesn't, especially when the dictator is a nutjob like Kim. At this point whatever happens happens, there won't be a clean way out.

The West that trade with Iran despite their apalling treatment of their people is as much to blame. The West will trade with the devil and sell their grandmothers if it was economically beneficial to them.

Thanks for clarifying, that makes more sense.

Considering the recent history of iran (the religious revolution), it wouldn't be suprising at all for something like this to happen. Even if religious persecution and other such abuses have tonned down a bit.

To stand by and do nothing while a crime is committed in front of you is, to me, to be morally responsible for the crime.

Yes, well, a very pretty sentiment. But the U.S. did not stand by and do nothing, did it? Saddam Hussein was an American puppet, installed and supported by American dollars. The chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds were Made In America. Dick Cheney -- the U.S. Vice President? -- stood shoulder to shoulder with Hussein and smiled and shook his hand for the cameras. (A propos of nothing: The Bush family raised some 42 million dollars for the Nazi party of Germany, and did business directly with the man who owned the factories that produced the Zyklon B; Bush has closer business ties to Osama bin Laden than Hussein does; bin Laden is another American puppet who cut the strings your government had on him and walked away. So was that tyrant in the Phillipines.) In 1956 the U.S. government violated Iranian sovereignty, removed a popular, progressive, and legally elected president to install another puppet, the Shah. This tyrant implemented a police state that was later co-opted by an even bloodier-handed lunatic, and his system is what you have to deal with in Iran today.

I hardly think anyone in the U.S. is any position to talk about moral responsibility when the U.S. is personally and legally responsible for the whole mess to begin with.

If Canada is morally responsible, then it is because we have chosen to stand by international laws and not violate the sovereignty of foreign powers as casually as the U.S. does.

...Bush the baby-killer

As another who values the life of the innocent, I'm looking forward to viewing the following photos on your postcards collection.

I've been pretty consistent in saying we made some big mistakes pre-9/11.

And I've been pretty consistent in saying that you haven't done anything right since then.

Rules changed that day. Its a whole new game.

Nothing changed that day except the scope of successful terrorist actions against the U.S. Everything else remained the same.

I notice you still haven't come up with an excuse for Canada sitting on the sidelines [...]

Yeah, I can see why you're unable to understand how we could possibly continue to respect international laws such as the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. charter, and whatever else is involved, after all your pissing and moaning and playing the victim.

Gee, you think maybe military misadventurism and the mass murder of 11 to 15 thousand civilians -- and all that based on a tissue of lie -- somehow strikes us as not necessarily the best response? I mean, I've only been harping on that everytime you intimate that you have some kind of divine right to kill anybody who gets in your way.

Here's a real clue: Canada has never operated under the Arrogance of Power the U.S. always has.

Pages