In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death

An anonymous reader writes "In Iran, crimes such as apostasy (leaving a religion, in this case Islam) and armed robbery are already punishable by death, but a new bill in Iran aims to add to the list 'establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,' effectively giving the government a free hand in silencing bloggers. The internet is widely used in Iran, despite its previous attempts at censorship. Will this change as the censorship grows more rampant?"

Comments

mm

[Brian Gordon]

Separation of church and state anyone?

Re:mm

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Separation of church and state anyone?

Yeah, it's almost as if the First Amendment doesn't apply to Iran...

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess "no". Probably not.

Re:mm

[Devout_IPUite]

Glad you're not in Iran for your sake...

Re:mm

[belal1]

Seperation of Church and State is a Secular ideology. Iran is supposedly an "islamic" state ruled by "islam" and so cannot separate religion from state laws. There's a beautiful book for you non-muslims if you want to understand the issue of man-made laws vs shariah (divine laws) from an islamic perspective: http://islamicbookstore.com/b7932.html

Re:mm

[glitch23]

Separation of church and state anyone?

Non-separation of church and state is not necessarily bad but most (if not all) "states" which do not have the separation are also dictatorships therefore giving non-separation movements a bad connotation. Despite what many want and think, the U.S. was never intended to institute a true separation of church and state, at least that's not what the U.S. Constitution says we should be doing. If a state punishes its citizens for not conforming to state religion then, yes, it is bad and should be dealt with. That isn't freedom, especially freedom of religion, and it isn't separation either. Making laws to ban all public display of religion is also not freedom of religion which is what proponents of separation in the U.S. are fighting for. But there is nothing wrong with a state *having* a religion which is what our (U.S. that is) Constitution was trying to accomplish.

Those who chastise the U.S. for not keeping a separation of church and state do not know what true separation is. We now have yet another example with this story about Iran who wants to kill those who do not conform to the state religion. If those who chastise the U.S. would live in Iran for a year they would realize that what the U.S. has is not the same and was never intended to be a state-sponsored religion (the Founding Fathers knew they didn't want that because they were escaping that) but yet a country *with* a common religion (with some minority religions too, which is fine). That is true freedom of religion. People are always quick to chastise the U.S. government and hail other, foreign governments as better, but yet I don't see anyone such as celebrities, who are famous for criticizing the U.S), moving to Iran or Venezuela. I mention Venezuela because some celebrities in the last year or so were giving props to Hugo Chavez for his dictatorship.

Mod me flamebait or troll or whatever makes you feel better just because you may disagree.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

More proof we need to go in there and help them to be more like us. Then they will be happy and free, just like we did in Iraq when we helped them back in 2002.

Re:mm

[jeiler]

I'd have no objection to Iran applying Shariah law. My objection is that they go far over and above Shariah, subverting Shariah and instead practicing "Bid'ah law."

Re:mm

[mrsteveman1]

Our meddling is the reason for their current situation. I would encourage you to read up on the events that brought about the Iranian revolution for starters.

That country is something WE ALREADY FUCKED UP. Perhaps it's our responsibility to fix it.

Re:mm

[Original Replica]

So true. I wish we could get rid of this idea of "bringing Freedom" to countries that don't have the cultural prerequisites of freedom already growing within them. We might not have won the American Revolutionary War without the help of the French, but we started it on our own. Now if there is sufficient desire by the people of Iran (or any country) for democratic freedom, then they will fight for it. When that fighting starts it would behoove us to aid those fighting for freedom, but forcing freedom upon a nation is such an obvious oxymoron that I am appalled at the way such actions are paraded around like good deeds. If anything, the outside intervention cuts short any building cultural movement towards a democratic state. The Cold War is over, could we please not start another one.

Re:mm

[MightyMartian]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. "
Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Fathers very explicitely set up a secular state, a state with complete religious freedoms and a state free of any potential government religious coercion. That means that a Jew, atheist or Hindu has equal rights before the law and has a right not to have any particular religion pushed on him by the government. Attempting to redefine what the Founding Fathers meant is a pretty weak tactic, particularly when their views on religious freedom and on the noxious mix than religion and politics make is so well known.

Re:mm

[mrsteveman1]

That was at times contradictory and at others, incoherent i think.

Your challenge is to "move to iran" if we complain? Why? Because we should shut the fuck up and take what we can get and be happy? No.

I also question your various claims about the intent of the constitution with regards to separation of church and state. There are some choice quotes from the time period from various figures involved in the forming of the U.S government who hint and in fact come out and say that there was an intent to keep church and state separate, and that it is reflected if not outright stated in the first amendment.

Re:mm

[hpa]

Non-separation of church and state is not necessarily bad but most (if not all) "states" which do not have the separation are also dictatorships therefore giving non-separation movements a bad connotation.

The question is whether or not this is a casual relationship. Given that the elements in the USA which seem to be the ones advocating chipping down this barrier even just a little bit pretty much want to do that to other civil rights, I think there probably is. Religion, ultimately, wants to base its existence on "things are this way because we said so", which is ultimately incompatible with human-centric, rational governance.

No argument, of course, about USA versus Iran. We're talking level 2 versus level 100000. The Iranian theocracy are nothing but a bunch of murdering thugs.

Re:mm

[Hal_Porter]

More proof we need to go in there and help them to be more like us. Then they will be happy and free, just like we did in Iraq when we helped them back in 2002.

This was a triumph
I'm making a note here
HUGE SUCCESS
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction
Neoconservatism

we do what we must because we can
for the good of all of us except for the ones who are dead
but there's no sense crying over every mistake
you just keep on trying until you run out of oil
and the polics gets done and you make a neat Middle East
for the people who are still alive

I'm not even angry
I'm being so sincere right now
even though you broke my heart and voted me out of office

Re:mm

[eltaco]

Oh, I'm sure we'll be bringing Democracy to them soon.

Re:mm

[Original Replica]

Ideally I have no objections to a sovereign country being run by whatever system they like, with one important caveat; the freedom of anyone to leave if they so desire. A necessary component of that freedom would of course be the ability to gain accurate information about the rest of the world. The only governments that must force it's people to stay are governments that know they are inherently inferior to the governance in other countries. Iran knows that it's power structure is based on a shitty way to live, it knows that it is culturally inferior. That is why it makes such reactionary laws. Of course the Iranian people are beginning to notice how much better life is in the western world, which is why they are making such criminally dangers blogs.

Re:mm

[Macrat]

Separation of church and state anyone?

Yeah, it's almost as if the First Amendment doesn't apply to Iran...

Just like it applies less and less in the US.

Re:mm

[psychodelicacy]

You're kinda wrong about what the Founding Fathers intended. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if read in the context of the times and the meanings of philosophical/theological terminology then, were radically anti-Church and deliberately non-Christian. Jefferson called most of the New Testament dross, including describing the Book of Revelation as "the ravings of a maniac". Read Alan Dershowitz's "Blasphemy" for a very detailed and interesting account of this.

Re:mm

[hedrick]

Separation of Church and State is by definition secular, since the definition of secular State is one that is not entangled with religion. But if you are implying that it is contrary to or not based on religion, I disagree. The concept in the U.S. developed when the country was almost entirely Christian. James Madison credited Martin Luther's two kingdoms concept, but that was a development of the general two swords approach that was traditional in Western Christianity.

Certainly the modern U.S. version has much more separation than the original medieval one. But the justification is at least as much religious as secular. I'll be speaking from the Reformed perspective. Reformed Christianity is particularly concerned about the impact of sin on human lives, and finding ways to structure society to best protect against it.

Separating religion from governmental power protects both the Church and the State from corruption. In Christian understanding the need for governments is because of human sin. While real Christianity is based on love and proper intent, because of sin we can't rely on these motivations entirely in ordering our society. In order to safeguard human life, we need to set up structures to protect each other. In setting up governmental structures, we need to be aware that members of government are themselves sinful humans, and thus set up the structures in ways that minimize temptations and potential for abuse, and which provide for the maximum degree of accountability for power.

Separation is a key element of this. In areas that do not do have separation, you can see religious leaders who become more politicians than true religious leaders, and politicians who become hypocrites, and do things that are ill-considered in order to curry favor with powerful religious elements. Separation of Church and State is ultimately a protection for the Church. It is also essential for the Church to be able to call the State to account. Basic principles of auditing say that the auditor has to be independent; he can't be overly involved in the authority being audited. For the Church to play its proper prophetic role, holding the State accountable, it has to be reasonably independent of the State.

There are examples of the problems that occur from lack of independence in both Christian and Muslim-majority countries.

The other major concern is religious freedom. Both Christianity and Islam hold that there is no compulsion in religion. Both have also honored this more in the breach than the practice, some to the extent of finding creative interpretations to deny the principle entirely. But setting up structures to protect religious freedom is something that has justification in both of our religions. HIstory is pretty clear that when you give religious leaders too much power, they soon abandon their principles of freedom, finding it too tempting to use force to keep people from making what they see as religious mistakes. You can see this change happen in the lives of famous people such as Augustine and Luther. To avoid controversy I will not cite Muslim examples, but they are certainly there. The safest thing is not to let religious leaders get political power.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Regime change is almost impossible these days because of one very devestating weapon.

The Machine Gun

It would be nice to have these people rise up against the government, but unless you have another country step in to smuggle the rebellion arms than they will simply be slaughtered.

The Chinese have mastered this and the landmark case of Tianamen square makes their point made.

Re:mm

[dark whole]

clicked the wrong mod option. posting to nullify it(dont want to be matamodded bad)

Re:mm

[Nathrael]

Sure, one can argue a lot about the aftermath of the Iraq war, but at least you can' deny that the US got rid of Iraqi state terrorism and that human rights are much better there now.

Re:mm

[mrogers]

That country is something WE ALREADY FUCKED UP. Perhaps it's our responsibility to fix it.

Sometimes the most responsible thing to do is accept that something is broken and your attempts to fix it will just make it worse. America can't "fix" the dictatorship in Iran, just like it couldn't "fix" the dictatorship in Iraq. People hate living under a dictatorship, but they hate living under foreign occupation even more.

Re:mm

[Grant_Watson]

The founders, IIRC, were religiously all over the map. Jefferson was a deist, of course.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Iranian, I can only beg of you: Please don't! Don't even try. Don't even say that out loud!

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Yes I can deny that.

Re:mm

[JackassJedi]

OK i guess this will be modded as flamebait, but perhaps it's US's responsibility to just stop messing with other countries altogether, no breaking, no fixing, just leaving them alone.

Re:mm

[Nathrael]

Well, if you don't believe me, travel to Iraq and ask a few women if they now have better rights than before. Now, Iraq got female Judges, before the Iraq war, girls weren't even allowed to attend schools.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

OK i guess this will be modded as flamebait, but perhaps it's US's responsibility to just stop messing with other countries altogether, no breaking, no fixing, just leaving them alone.

That's right, we leave them alone. Then, the western Euro-trash and other self-righteous leftists like Amnesty International will be able to beat us up for not doing anything.

It's like Darfur. The same asses that want us out of Iraq, and don't want the US or Israel to touch Iran, want the US to do something there - like throw millions of dollars at them. Yeah, like that will do a lot of good.

Effin' leftists are truly brain-damaged and intellectually bankrupt. If they're so damn sure they're right, let them fix the problems of the world, without US taxpayer's dollars.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally agree with the sentiment of your post but I'm not convinced it's that clear cut. Also it's just a shame with the likes of Zimbabwe where the population voted overwhelmingly for freedom the international community still refuses to act.

I don't think it's as simple as you say though, it's arguable Afghanistan has gone a fair bit better than Iraq because there was more will amongst the population to be freed from the Taleban than for the Iraqi people to be freed from the Iraqi regime but I think that's only a small part the story. The issue in Iraq isn't that the people didn't want the Iraqi regime removed, it's that there are two factions with a strong hate for each other that the Iraqi regime kept supressed in more violent ways than are acceptable by Western forces, despite the methods applied by the Iraqi regime leading to greater overall stability and lesser overall deaths.

I think you'd be fine to go into somewhere like North Korea and overthrow the government with no real problems in the aftermath not just because the people want to be freed but because the people are all in the same boat and don't really have any qualms with each other - even the majority of the north korea armed forces are only in the armed forces because they want the food it brings and not because they have some allegiance to Kim Jong Il that puts them with opposing opinions to the general population. If however you went into Iran you'd struggle much more because you do have a lot of large factions with opposing views that they're willing to shed blood over. Whatever country you go into there's always going to be a few rebels who will attack the occupiers who have gone in to free the country as a whole but the difficulties in Iraq really are not because of a hatred for the Americans and freedom and a love of Saddams regime but because there were no plans to prevent the warring factions from well, warring.

I suppose it comes down to how you define the cultural prerequisites you mention. North Koreans are hardly creating a revolution to overthrow their government but it doesn't mean they don't want freedom, it just means they're too busy fighting for survival and avoiding starvation to take down their government. Similarly, Afghans for the most part have no problems with freedom, in fact, before the soviets went in they were a pretty free nation, the problems there stem from a minority still holding out against freedom, a minority that unfortunately were the ones who used to hold all the guns. Zimbabwe is another decent example, the people want freedom, they used their vote to show they wanted it, but unfortunately again the government and pro-government mobs are the ones with all the guns again. There's certainly more to deciding whether a nation has the cultural prerequisites for freedom than whether the citizens are fighting for it that's for sure, because sometimes, they're just too busy fighting for their lives instead. In these cases I think we should still intervene because I think there's evidence enough the people want the help.

For the record, I do not think Iran is oppressed enough to justify military action to free them. I do however think North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe where tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are dying due to neglect by their government do justify military action to free the people. I also think the people would welcome that freedom, unfortunately, those nations just don't have enough oil to earn the attention of international community. I think it's far more cruel, far more inhumane to let hundreds of thousands die through inaction than to cause tens of thousands to die through action. That's not to say Iraq was justified of course because similar to Iran I do not believe Iraq was unstable enough nor were the people oppressed enough to justify intervention.

Re:mm

[qbzzt]

We tried that. Seemed to work from 1918 until December 6th, 1941. But by that point the rest of the world was so broken it needed to be fixed with a crowbar.

Re:mm

[32771]

>People hate living under a dictatorship, but they hate living under foreign occupation even more.

What makes you think that an asshole with an accent is different from an asshole without an accent.

It is just easier to point fingers.

Also I had the opportunity to get a slight taste of both at the same time and I find the fact that you live in a dictatorship perpetrated by your own people and the occupiers sucks more as when your country is occupied by people who at least mean well.

I have the impression that the US was successful in spreading the idea of the free world because they so far supported nations who were industrially at a similar level as the US just not socially.

Iran and Iraq are at least at a level where they are able to support a reasonable level of education. So what is wrong about enabling them to become democratic.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_literacy_map_UNHD_2007_2008.png)

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont you start bringing freedom and democracy at States first
and then bother with the rest of the world ??? Do you think that
you allready got theese ???

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite what many want and think, the U.S. was never intended to institute a true separation of church and state, at least that's not what the U.S. Constitution says we should be doing.

Maybe you should read it again: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Seems pretty clear to me. Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't participate in religion, just that the government will not establish a state religion that has perks over other religions. There is a long history of various groups of people immigrating to the USA because they were facing religious persecution at home.

Making laws to ban all public display of religion is also not freedom of religion which is what proponents of separation in the U.S. are fighting for.

I've never seen that. But I have seen people fighting to prevent the US government from subsidizing the public displays of one religion (ie Christmas).

Re:mm

[Holi]

I won't mod you down or troll but I will respond with article 11 of the 1796 treaty with Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

and on a side note, Why am I hearing about loyalty oaths in the USA, loyalty oaths have no place in a free society.

Re:mm

[westlake]

Separation of church and state anyone?

In a traditional Islamic society that concept has no meaning whatsoever.

Re:mm

[dontmakemethink]

The only governments that must force it's people to stay are governments that know they are inherently inferior to the governance in other countries. Iran knows that it's power structure is based on a shitty way to live, it knows that it is culturally inferior.

But one is not the consequence of the other, and "cultural inferiority" is a rather inflammatory term to be throwing around in an international forum.

The reason countries like Iran have such brutal laws and maniacal dictators is because they're full of religious extremists hell-bent on killing each other over disputes going back centuries. Every time western society is introduced or imposed upon middle-eastern civilization all hell breaks loose, never moreso than this decade.

Apparently it takes a tyrant to keep the tyrants at bay. Writing about it doesn't solve anything anyway. Obviously I don't condone mortal censorship, but they've got bigger fish to fry.

Re:mm

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>the U.S. was never intended to institute a true separation of church and state, at least that's not what the U.S. Constitution says we should be doing.

Article VI, Section 3. Before there was a Bill of Rights, the Founders had made sure that government would be independent of religion.

>But there is nothing wrong with a state *having* a religion which is what our (U.S. that is) Constitution was trying to accomplish.

"..the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion", treaty ratified 1797.

It's kind of ironic that in the US the people who want the government to display their religious symbols and give money to their churches tend to be Christian. It's ironic because if they believed their own religion they'd believe in separation of church and state. Jesus said flat out "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). When Jesus was asked about paying taxes, he outlined a separation of church and state: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21). Caesar's things are separate from God's things. Before Jesus, the faithful were warned about trusting earthly authority: "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save" (Psalm 146:3).

The problem the US has is with people who have religious followers and want political power. Such people are only too happy to make their flocks believe that anything that interferes with their lust for power is somehow anti-religious.

Re:mm

[jonfr]

Actually, Iraq had fairly good womens right given that it was a Muslim country. Even if Saddam did rule there.

Today however it is a different story, the womens are being threatened by religion fanatics how kill them if they don't cover there face up or work. The list goes on in this matter.

What you are speaking about is Afghanistan, before 2001 it didn't have women rights at all. In many parts of it still doesn't. Even today women rights are almost close to zero, even in the main capital of Afghanistan.

Human rights in Iraq are no better then when Saddam did rule there, thanks to corruption and a broken government that is currently in place there.

U.S can do good, but it can also do bad. Like any other power on the planet. The problem with the U.S is the corporation greed that is currently in place there. Sad to say, this greed has also infested Europe and EU. It is taking it's time on destroying the EU from the inside, but I hope that it is stopped before it does a big damage.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like it applies less and less in the US.

One wonders if you are so concerned about the only fundamental right that can guarantee the others.

Because I'd bet you consider the Second Amendment a helluva lot less important than the First, when it's the Second that is the ultimate guarantor of all the rest.

Re:mm

[Original Replica]

Apparently it takes a tyrant to keep the tyrants at bay.

As a free man born in a moderately free country (USA) I have to disagree strongly with that statement. The attempt to use tyranny to keep tyranny at bay is precisely why our freedoms are eroding so quickly here in the USA. That idea is especially prominent if you look at violent crime as a form of small scale, short term tyranny. Of course hiding from tyranny by running under the thumb of a different tyrant is not going to make you a freeman. Taking responsibility for yourself instead of deferring to a central authority is the only road to freedom. Let's look at the events of 9/11 in that light, particularly those on board United Flight 93, and the consequences of their actions. Nothing good happened when the passengers sat passively thinking that government representatives would be negotiating for their freedom. But as soon as those same passengers took action to defend their own lives and those of their countrymen, that plane stopped being a weapon to be used against us and the terrorist plot was greatly diminished. Personal responsibility is the only way to be free of tyrants, anyone who tells you differently is looking to rule you or begging to be ruled.

Re:mm

[glitch23]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation

So I guess it is okay to prevent public displays of religion because separation trumps the freedom of religion? You are still confusing a government enforcing a religion and a government having a religion. Get those 2 straightened out in your head and then we can have a deeper discussion, until then this discussion will go no further than the thousands of discussions that have already occurred on the this topic.

between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. " Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Fathers very explicitely set up a secular state, a state with complete religious freedoms and a state free of any potential government religious coercion.

Exactly, no coercion such as what is happening in Iran. The U.S. is not coercing. The fact that the government has a religion does not prove and has not proven that the gov't is coercing the citizens of this country to share in the same religion. A citizen is not punished for not believing in the same God as what is mentioned on U.S currency. If that were true we would have had mass killings already or the prisons would be even more full than they already are. The U.S. shouldn't separate church and state because we aren't like Iran. We believe in the freedom of religion which includes no religion at all. If you lived in Iran then, yeah, separation of church and state would be a good thing because they actually use coercion (threats of death).

That means that a Jew, atheist or Hindu has equal rights before the law and has a right not to have any particular religion pushed on him by the government.

Just because a government has a religion does not require them to push it on the people. Iran is an example of a government pushing religion on the people. The U.S. is not an example of that and not because we have a supposed separation.

Attempting to redefine what the Founding Fathers meant is a pretty weak tactic, particularly when their views on religious freedom and on the noxious mix than religion and politics make is so well known.

It is also well known that secularists spin whatever tidbit of info they can to prove we have a separation and/or that we need a separation. We definitely don't need it because our gov't isn't like Iran; some people just want it maybe because they think we might turn into Iran. I don't know. Despite secularists believing in a 'free exercise thereof' it seems to only run as far as a Joe Public's front door. As soon as Joe Public steps outside, the 'free exercise' belief no longer exists with the excuse that if Joe has a religion we must be careful not to offend anyone who doesn't have religion.

Re:mm

[MrSteveSD]

Now if there is sufficient desire by the people of Iran (or any country) for democratic freedom, then they will fight for it.

They had a democracy prior to the US-backed coup in 1953 which installed the brutal Shah. The people eventually fought back against the Shah and his murderous CIA-trained SAVAK secret police. Unfortunately they didn't end up with a democracy, but they certainly don't want another Shah either. If there hadn't been a coup in 1953, Iran might still be a democracy now. As for a Iran being oppressive though, Saudi Arabia is worse.

Re:mm

[Repossessed]

[quote]Non-separation of church and state is not necessarily bad but most (if not all) "states" which do not have the separation are also dictatorships therefore giving non-separation movements a bad connotation. [/quote]
Afganistan, the new democratic one, not the Taliban, is a prime example of a democracy without church and state separation, they regularly execute people for saying, believing, and reading the wrong things.

Of course, Great Britain is a good counter example of this, since I believe CoE is still the official state religion, and its mostly decent (and the problems it does have do not appear to stem from religion).

[quote]Despite what many want and think, the U.S. was never intended to institute a true separation of church and state, at least that's not what the U.S. Constitution says we should be doing.[/quote]

Funnily enough, they said they wanted to do just that when they wrote the first amendment, however, I'm far more curios, as to what kind of joining of church and state could be made with a strict interpretation of the first amendment?

Re:mm

[geekoid]

Philosophically speaking, it applies to all people, not to just our government; which is why it's appalling when this administration seems to want to apply it only to Americans..and not even all of us.

Re:mm

[perlmonky]

i love how people quote the founding fathers and only quote Jefferson. Brilliant. I guess, Jefferson was the only father... forget those other pesky signers of the declaration of independance and framers of our constitution like George Washington:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." -Farewell Address

or John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

The first amendment was avoid what was going on in England at that time with the Church running the county. Let's not forget the basic laws that our country had early on about working on Sundays, mandatory church attendance... requirement of Christian profession to hold office etc... doesn't sound like the separation of church and state that I hear from your interpretation of Jefferson.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess it is okay to prevent public displays of religion because separation trumps the freedom of religion? You are still confusing a government enforcing a religion and a government having a religion.

It seems to me that the issue is not with any public display of religion, but with state-sponsored displays of religion. You see, a government having a religion is the same as a government enforcing a religion.

For example, in many U.S. states, atheists are barred from holding public office. This gives atheists less rights than theists. This is an example of government enforcing religion. It's nowhere near as extreme as Iran ("if you abandon Islam you'll die" is much worse than "if you're not religious you can't take part in governing"), but it's the same concept.

It is also well known that secularists spin whatever tidbit of info they can to prove we have a separation and/or that we need a separation.

And it is equally well known that the religious spin whatever tidbit of info they can to prove we don't have a separation and/or that we don't need it. Your point?

Re:mm

[glitch23]

It seems to me that the issue is not with any public display of religion, but with state-sponsored displays of religion. You see, a government having a religion is the same as a government enforcing a religion.

No, it isn't the same. A state can sponsor displays of religion without enforcing it, especially if the display is provided by non-government employees, aka regular citizens. Enforcement still denotes coercion. There is no coercion on the part of the U.S. government to institute any religion. Favoring a particular religion does not enforce a religion either which is good since the government (locally in places, not federally) is favoring Islam all too much lately.

For example, in many U.S. states, atheists are barred from holding public office. This gives atheists less rights than theists. This is an example of government enforcing religion. It's nowhere near as extreme as Iran ("if you abandon Islam you'll die" is much worse than "if you're not religious you can't take part in governing"), but it's the same concept.

I'm not sure why they are being barred or what law/regulation is being used to bar them. Care to provide references? I'm curious to read about it b/c I hadn't heard of that happening until you mentioned it. However, it isn't an example of a government enforcing a religion. They are not enforcing anything other than who can be in that public office which isn't out of the ordinary. Are you going to accuse the federal gov't of enforcing ethnic bias by requiring a U.S. President to be a native-born U.S. citizen? If you aren't a citizen you pick a different job.

You look at it as if the person has to change religions to be in public office while others may view it as the person just changes which position in public office he/she wants to be in or they choose a different position outside of gov't altogether. Yet some others view atheism itself as a religion and therefore those states are definitely not enforcing anything remotely close to what you are accusing them of. Would you care to specify which religion they are enforcing? Theism itself isn't a religion. Atheism is historically counter to Christianity however it really is counter to any religion that has a God figure so with that said, which religion are they enforcing? Since the person isn't being forced to be in public office it can't be said that religion is being enforced especially if no religion is ever specified such as by saying "Mr. Smith, you are barred from public office in Utah because you are an atheist, however if you convert to Mormonism we'll let you have any position you want, subject to the usual terms of hiring state employees." Mr. Smith has alternatives so nothing is being forced on him.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Bela1, Shove your book up your arse. Shove the Koran there too, while you're at it. We will never submit to Islam.

Re:mm

[MrNaz]

"without US taxpayer's dollars"

Not much of that left, even if leftists wanted US taxpayers' dollars (which they don't, you're just trolling or have no concept of geopolitics, I cant decide which it is) they won't be getting any as they are being spent to exhaustion in Iraq. So take comfort that your dollars are being wasted responsibly.

Re:mm

[invalid_user]

There's a beautiful book for you non-muslims if you want to understand the issue of man-made laws vs shariah (divine laws)

Your laws are divine? I would say that my feces are divine too. The problem with you fundamentalists is that you don't realize that your saying your laws are "DIVINE" is an act as subjective as my saying that my feces are divine.

The whole idea of secular laws is to remove this subjectivity. That is the ideology behind secular laws. (Is it too much to ask for?)

If you don't like it you can claim, subjectively, that Islam is the truth, and you can fight senseless over it with us infidels. We can kill each other, if you want. Or we can make do with secular laws.

Re:mm

[LordAlced]

We helped Iraq back in 2003, you insensitive clod.

Re:mm

[Keen Anthony]

Can't he be both?

Actually the AC had somewhat of a valid point hidden beneath his own self-righteous rightist opinion.

If you give the US permission to be the world's policeman, that permission is irrevocable. The US is the only superpower. Once the US has that badge, it will assert its authority often, and not always for noble reasons.

The situation in Sudan demands criminal prosecution and nation building. So far, I haven't seen the UN accomplish much in line with its mission. And I haven't seen any nation with a strong military step in to try to check the Sudanese government. Personally, I would like us to be there as I believe the mission to be just; but I know being there only furthers the argument that the US has some kind of authority to intervene with the internal matters of another sovereign nation.

Re:mm

[stmfreak]

Yeah, it's almost as if the First Amendment doesn't apply to Iran...

Obviously not, but the USA's Bill of Rights did not provide people with their rights, rather it tried to remind future governments that people have rights by virtue of their existence.

Of course, that constitutes a belief, which makes it a kind of religion, from which people have a right to be free of as easily as a right to take part in. If we in the USA truly want to practice what we preach, we would withdraw from all these countries we occupy and open our borders to any and all who wish to share our beliefs that humans are free to believe what they want.

Re:mm

[k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3]

If it makes you feel any better, I always tell those people that intervention in Sudan would be the dumbest idea ever.

Re:mm

[k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3]

Another thing. France supporting us in the revolution bankrupted their country. The end result of French support for the Americans was the French revolution. Unfortunately, we seem to be heading down he same path (The French revolution was the result of France going bankrupt and being unable to feed its people, or support its own bloated monarchy.)

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

State property belongs to ALL people. Religious display on any state property enforces that religion on EVERYONE.

Re:mm

[glitch23]

State property belongs to ALL people. Religious display on any state property enforces that religion on EVERYONE.

Feeling like you have to conform to the majority religion and actually being forced to do so are 2 diffrent things. You, my friend, are referring to the latter but in reality the former is what happens in the United States.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Majority is irrelevant, and in any case incorrect. What choice remains if your post office has a display of a religion you can't choose not to see it when going about the required tasks the post office is present to cater to. Same with court rooms, and city halls, etc. Do you understand?

Re:mm

[tsm_sf]

"I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby." So she aborted it instead. Make sense?

I'm going to go ahead and assume the quote in your sig is from your mom.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

or John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

And what exactly does that quote have to do with religion? It doesn't even mention religion.

Re:mm

[Troed]

Russia won WWII for Europe - not the US. You might need to rethink what sources you use in your life.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally I have no objections to a sovereign country being run by whatever system they like, with one important caveat; the freedom of anyone to leave if they so desire...

You will need one more thing: that other nations are willing to receive you. Doesn't matter if it's legal to leave, if you can't get across the neighboring border.

Re:mm

[qbzzt]

The Pacific Rim was also badly broken - the Japanese empire was not a good place to live. Of course, significant portions of it are still broken. But not all.

As for Europe, the American forces conquered everything west of the iron curtain. That's the reason is didn't end up as part of the Warsaw pact. If you have sources that prove the opposite, please cite them.

Re:mm

[ultranova]

Seperation of Church and State is a Secular ideology.

Actually, I'd argue that it is a good idea even from purely religious point of view. Power corrupts, and having the Catholic Church wield political power led to some pretty heinous corruption in Europe during the Middle Ages; so heinous, in fact, that it eventually led to Reformation and splintering of the church. Even the rise of anti-religious proselyting atheism (as opposed to simply not having religion yourself and not caring what others believe) can largely be traced to church's abuses, real or imagined.

Basically, having Church and State separate makes both work better, while having them joined will pervert both.

Re:mm

[shutdown -p now]

From the Constitution of Iran:

Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1. the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2. Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3. the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4. the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5. continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
...

Article 3

In order to attain the objectives specified in Article 2, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of directing all its resources to the following goals:
1. the creation of a favorable environment for the growth of moral virtues based on faith and piety and the struggle against all forms of vice and corruption;
...
11. all round strengthening of the foundations of national defence to the utmost degree by means of universal military training for the sake of safeguarding the independence, territorial integrity, and the Islamic order of the country;
...

Article 4

All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fuqaha' of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter.
...

Article 12

The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'fari school [in usual al-Din and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable.
...

Article 24

Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.
...

Article 177

The contents of the Articles of the Constitution related to the Islamic character of the political system; the basis of all the rules and regulations according to Islamic criteria; the religious footing; the objectives of the Islamic Republic of Iran; the democratic character of the government; the wilayat al-'mr the Imamate of Ummah; and the administration of the affairs of the country based on national referenda, official religion of Iran [Islam] and the school [Twelver Ja'fari] are unalterable.

Re:mm

[shutdown -p now]

What makes you think that an asshole with an accent is different from an asshole without an accent.

There might be no real difference, but the perceived difference is always there. When the USSR was invaded by Nazi Germany, most Soviet soldiers still fought for the communists, even though the Nazis did claim that their invasion was a "liberation from the bloody Bolshevik regime", and, indeed, oppression in the USSR was at its high point during this time period.

Re:mm

[shutdown -p now]

You do not have objection to stoning "adulterers" to death?

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

the freedom of anyone to leave if they so desire. A necessary component of that freedom would of course be the ability to gain accurate information about the rest of the world.

Actually, it would require something else as well: having a place to go to. Even if you have got the money to leave your country and move somewhere else, and even if you have the money, education and skills to build up a new existence there, and even if you're content with just leaving your friends, your family, your culture and your own place where your family's likely been living for hundreds if not thousands of years behind, you'd still have to find a place that actually *takes* you.

Imagine, if you will, that just 10 percent of the Iranian population would want to leave, and that the other 90% are happy with the way things are (and I think that's a pretty optimistic estimate really). That's 7 million people. Where are these supposed to go?

Re:mm

[Troed]

The sources are: Everything besides Hollywood. Seriously - is this the crap they teach you in schools?

No wonder you actually believe the US stands for freedom.

Anyway; "Mr Falin cites figures suggesting that German forces suffered 93% of their casualties on the Soviet front and argues that this shows the Soviet contribution was decisive."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

Re:mm

[bugeaterr]

Yeah, it's almost as if the First Amendment doesn't apply to Iran...

Yeah, but at least they don't have the Patriot Act!
(which from reading many a blog, I have learned is worse than death by firing squad)

Re:mm

[ShieldW0lf]

Their culture has been declared evil enemies of the US and Israel. They would be idiots if they didn't expect subversion and propaganda campaigns to be launched at them from within. Hell, the play book is available on Wikileaks. Seems like a reasonable measure for them to consider, under the circumstances.

Re:mm

[jeiler]

I consider stoning adulterers to be barbaric. But my name is not George Bush--it is not my role to change a government (or a system of law) solely because I do not like it.

My objection to "Bid'ah law" stems from the inherent ignorance and/or dishonesty that forms the foundation for such law. The word "Bid'ah" means "innovation," and religious innovation is considered a sin in Islam. Those who are religious or political leaders in Islam, yet who propagate "innovative" actions that are contrary to Islam, are guilty of Bid'ah.

Were Muslims to actually follow Sharia, there would never again be a "Muslim" suicide bomber. Such actions are a flagrant violation of Sharia.

Re:mm

[RockDoctor]

OK i guess this will be modded as flamebait, but perhaps it's US's responsibility to just stop messing with other countries altogether, no breaking, no fixing, just leaving them alone.

Remember to pay your bill before you check out. Remember those those hundreds of billions of dollars that you owe to the rest of the world? Particularly the Chinese. Oh, and we'd strongly prefer being paid in a stable currency, not dollars. Seems there's too much debt associated with the USD for it to maintain it's level against the rest of the world's currencies.
did you think that the Chinese accidentally let your country get so deeply in debt to them? If war is a "continuing of diplomacy by other means", then economics is obviously becoming a "continuation of war by other (and more profitable) means".

Re:mm

[darkpixel2k]

Philosophically speaking, it applies to all people

...all people, except the people trying to deny those rights to others.

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why they are being barred or what law/regulation is being used to bar them. Care to provide references?

Various states have it written into either their constitution or bill of rights. I know of Arkansas, both Carolinas, Texas, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, although there may be others. Google the state constitutions for reference.

You look at it as if the person has to change religions to be in public office while others may view it as the person just changes which position in public office he/she wants to be in or they choose a different position outside of gov't altogether.

The thing is, being able to hold public office is a fundamental right in a democratic society. It's not just a job like any other. All citizens should be able to partake in the country's democratic process. However, because certain states refuse to accept a separation of church and state, citizens who do not believe in the Christian God are denied the ability to participate in that part of the democratic process.

Are you going to accuse the federal gov't of enforcing ethnic bias by requiring a U.S. President to be a native-born U.S. citizen?

Actually, yes. That's a stupid requirement. It's only common sense that one needs to be a citizen of a country in order to lead that country, but why does one have to have been born in that country as well?

Would you care to specify which religion they are enforcing?

In this case they're not enforcing one specific religion, but rather any religion that accepts a Supreme Being (ex. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Wiccans are okay, but Atheists, Agnostics, and Buddhists are out).

Re:mm

[qbzzt]

Let me quote another part of the same article you cited:

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

        * Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
        * The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
        * The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

Two out of those three reasons require the US to be there, at least as a safe place industrial production.

But lets assume the US stayed out of WWII and the USSR won in Europe without it. Russian soldiers had conquered everything until the Atlantic. West Europe would have "enjoyed" the same communist regimes that East Europe had until the late 1980s.

Maybe you see things differently, but I'd say that still constitutes being broken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland

I'm going to take the high road and avoid ad-hominem attacks on your sources of information. In case you're wondering, I went to school in Israel, and WWII was taught as background to the Holocaust - including the Russian liberation of East Europe. But also including the American part you seem to ignore.

Re:mm

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

"I think you'd be fine to go into somewhere like North Korea and overthrow the government with no real problems in the aftermath" I very much doubt that: when a people have been held in check by either a dictator or a Colonial occupation, when that stronghold is broken you end up with a lot of very dubious characters jostling for positions of power, without a stable evolved form of government; look at the various Serbian & Warlords, Look at Boris "MakeMineaDouble" Yeltsin & look at the bunch of Clowns-In-Exile that the US backed to lead the new Iraq Government - until they went crazy with the first taste of power & the US discarded them. Society is something that evolves; you can't impose "democracy" on a nation that is not ready for it. "North Koreans are hardly creating a revolution to overthrow their government" Neither were Iraquis under Saddam... "justify military action to free the people" You need to explain this one... unless you are suggesting that being shot, napalmed, clusterbombed, raped, maimed & pillaged by occupying forces is some kind of freedom - Military action involves doing all this to the peole who you are supposedly freeing. If the aim was really to free the people from a dictator, it's not actually necessary to occupy a country in order to do this... unless, I suppose, that country has something you want... oil, perhaps?

Re:mm

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

Is this a joke? ...Iraqui State terrorism? Is Nathrael an alias for Rumsfeld?...

Re:mm

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

You're tripping. my friend - The Dictator Saddam ensured that Iraq was a secular state. It was probably the most Westernised & pro-Western state in the Middle East. To suggest that girls were not allowed to attend schools under Saddam is simply false; the religious intolerance & violence has only erupted since the occupation.

Re:mm

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

"man-made laws vs shariah (divine laws)" So, in other words, man-made laws vs man-made laws...

Re:mm

[Nathrael]

Eh, sorry, I admit that I confused Iraq with Afghanistan again. I apologize. Though this doesn't change my point of view that human rights got much better after the war.

Re:mm

[Nathrael]

Nah, sure, Saddam never gave the order to gas thousands of people. The police never used extreme amounts of torture, "Saddam's Cubs" are an urban legend, Kurds were always treated nicely. You see, all the evil things you hear about Saddam's Regime are a lie told by the, unlike him, really evil US government. Sorry, but as said - you can argue about a lot of things, and members or contractors of the United States may have done much wrong, but the human rights overall increased very much.

Re:mm

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

Oh, my mistake... I thought you meant Terrorism. ...Nah, sure, Bush never gave the order to make war on thousands of people. The soliers never used extreme amounts of torture, "Abu Graibh" is an urban legend, Iraquis were always treated nicely. You see, all the evil things you hear about Bush's Regime are a lie told by the, unlike him, really evil Islamic governments.. ..So murder rape & torture by Saddam is "Terrorism", the same by Western mercenaries & soldiers (who, thanks to the US, have total legal immunity from any & all atrocities they may commit, unlike Saddam)is an increase in human rights? Abu Graibh? Guantanamo?

Re:mm

[sumdumass]

You should look at the debt of some of the other western countries like France and Germany. France's debt is 67 percent of their GDP, Germany's is 63.2% of GDP, the UK is roughly 43%, The US's is about 60.8% of GDP, China carries around an 18.4% of GDP, Canada's is 68.5% of GDP and Japan's debt is around 195% of GDP.

In case your wondering, GDP is the gross domestic product. It is the amount of transactions that product taxable income and is used to calculate the purchasing power of the country. You can compare the debt to GDP in the same way as you compare debt to income rations on personal finances. With the exception of the UK and China, the US is doing a bit better then other countries in the rest of the world. Probably better then the country your sitting in unless your another America who thinks it is couth to mindlessly bash his own country.

Re:mm

[Nathrael]

It isn't true that US soldiers have legal immunity against the atrocieties they may have committed. Every soldier involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses was brought before a court martial. Also, Abu Ghraib abuse was, unlike Saddam's state terrorism, an incident, and by no ways deliberately used by the US government. And that's the most important difference here - all of Saddam Hussein's atrocities were planned and used as a tool to stay in power and keep opposition against his government down, the coalition soldier's atrocities however are the act of an individual, by no way supported by his government. Guantanamo; you act as if the US was the only nation in which prisoners are abused, and every nation takes innocents into jails occasionally, but you act as if the US was the only one. Besides, I'd rather be imprisoned in Guantanamo as in one of Saddam's jails.

Re:mm

[Troed]

Ah. Combining Israeli and US education I definitely understand that you have absolutely no clues whatsoever as to any real history.

I do not believe in "if X then Y because" when rewriting history. For all we know - the Soviet Union could've been a perfectly democratic place if Europe hadn't been divided after the war.

Re:mm

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

You are mistaken: the USA fought strongly against their troops being subject to a universal code of conduct, and as such, they refuse to allow their troops to be held accountable for anything - it is true, they will occassionally bust a couple of low level non-coms for the look of things; Up to 10 years for them (soldiers at Abu Graibh), but the camp commander was simply demoted - & she wasn't even allowed near the Interrogation section. The people who sanctioned the policy were untouched. I think the cause of your error is that you are talking of US soldiers being prosecuted by the US, I am referring to International Law, under which Saddam has paid the price, but the US military have total immunity. In fact, if not in law, this also applies to all the private "security" forces of the West in Iraq - i.e. Mercenaries. I don't act like the US is the only country in which abuse takes place, but it is the only one which has illegally invaded Iraq in order to perpetrate those abuses, and, frankly, what kind of defence is "Others do it as well.."? Other nations do not pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of Justice, other nations do not impose "democracy" (when they can't even get it right in their own country)... and with all the dictatorships around (such as the USA's great ally K.S.A) the US seemingly only has concerns for oil-rich states... You are mistaken in your contention that the treatment meted out at Abu Graibh differs from Saddam's regime in that is was an "incident" rather than policy. This kind of treatment, along with torture & so-callee "rendition" (abduction of foreign nationals & transporting them to other countries in order to torture them with impunity) is standard policy of the USA. One of the things that makes Guantanamo so heinous & barbaric, is that in a nation that bangs on about freedom, justice & liberty, this place is maintained specifically because they can operate outside US law, International Law, & any kind of moral or ethical code. Simply put, dictators don't pretend to be anything but he sole authority, whereas the US talks of Liberty whilst behaving as badly as the worst of tyrants.

Re:mm

[Joey Vegetables]

Some excellent points. But recently I have come to understand that the concept of a state which claims total sovereignty is really no different than a priest or mullah claiming total sovereignty. In either case the individual and his or her conscience is unfree. In either case we lack capacity to act with the dignity in which God created us. In either case we are unfree to obey what I understand to be the highest law of God, both according to Christianity, and to many other faiths (love God with all your being, and your neighbor as yourself - which implies not robbing, enslaving, imprisoning, or killing him, either directly, or indirectly via said State). So I tend to reject any authority, religious or secular, which claims sovereignty over me or my conscience, or that of any other, without my willing consent.

Re:mm

[MightyMartian]

SCOTUS has long held the Danbury Baptist letter as being a major component of informing them what the Founding Fathers intended. Jefferson in this letter was making clear precisely what the intent of the First Amendment was, and the phrase "wall of separation" entered Constitutional jurisprudence from here. It's very clear. The United States is a secular state. It has no official religion, and is forbidden by the Constitution from in any way favoring one.

Re:mm

[RockDoctor]

Thank you for so ably illustrating my point.

As for which country I'm in - of course it's not America.

unless your another America who thinks it is couth to mindlessly bash his own country.

It is always couth to bash a country, or any other entity, that's in the wrong, regardless of your relationship with it.
Someone is reputed to have said "my country, right or wrong" ; that's a deeply dangerous sentiment which is likely to have been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths throughout the world and throughout history.

Re:mm

[sumdumass]

It is always couth to bash a country, or any other entity, that's in the wrong, regardless of your relationship with it.
Someone is reputed to have said "my country, right or wrong" ; that's a deeply dangerous sentiment which is likely to have been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths throughout the world and throughout history.

I can see your point when it is proper because of a set of circumstances and facts. I probably should have been more specific but there seems to be a set of people that think bashing on America lends credibility to any argument at all even if it isn't warranted. Like the swiss cable car accident when some jets during a training exercise decided to do a flyby of a cable car and the tail section of the jet cut the cable sending a car or two down the side of the mountain. I actually seen people bringing up actions of the government so removed from current people involved like giving small pox infected blankets to Indians as some validation that their point about the accident being ordered from the then "President Clinton" was somehow elevated to some righteous stature. You see it every so often when people attempt to throw the fact that before we knew and understood how bad nuclear bombs were, because we used a couple to end a war, it somehow vilifies our attempts to stop the proliferations in rogue and hostile states.

Don't get me wrong, thrashing on a country because of it's actions isn't a bad thing. But thrashing to bash simply because you think it might offer prestige and somehow elevate your comment is wrong. The way you mentioned the debt rising implied that you were doing that and it would be true if you were an American. The truth of the matter is that our debt isn't near as bad as some other countries but we also generally have a higher growth rate on average then those countries (which I probably should have pointed out too) which shows that even though it might be a problem at this exact moment, it won't be in the future nor will it remain a problem for long. Most of out expenses in Iraq (which is a significant chunk of current debt) will be repaid by Iraq in part in the distant future. It isn't like we are bankrupt or going to be before that becomes a reality. Although I do fault our congress for not controlling spending knowing that while the war funding is off budget, they also know that it exists and could actually treat the budget like it does.

Re:mm

[RockDoctor]

You see it every so often when people attempt to throw the fact that before we knew and understood how bad nuclear bombs were, because we used a couple to end a war,

Some people would assert, on very defensible grounds, that while American scientists (and others) who worked on the Manhatten Project have a lot of numbers about the effects of a nuclear bomb, the only people with a comprehensive understanding of what a nuclear bomb is are the Japanese.

I recall, as a child, reading a book by one of the first journalists into Hiroshima. Really quite horrifying stuff, and the sort of thing that simply doesn't get published these days. (I see from Amazon's UK page on it that there has been a new edition with an additional chapter published some time in the 1980s ; I might have to get that out of the library. Here's another review.) Arguably the people of Chernobyl could add a few relevant observations to the Japanese experience.

it somehow vilifies our attempts to stop the proliferations in rogue and hostile states.

What sticks in the craw of many aspirant nuclear nations is the way the the old, colonialist, paternalistic, white overseers (I use the language of slavery deliberately) are trying to deny the new, formerly colonised, developing, various shades of brown, freed nations from achieving tools to ensure that they'll never be enslaved again. (I wouldn't bother wasting electrons on protesting that this is a false description of the West's motivations ; what matters is the perception that people have and the rhetoric that politicians use to justify their actions.) By the way, I note that you use the term "hostile", which implies that you're concerned about countries with plans inimical to your own. This does not, of course imply that their actions are wrong on any "absolute" or disinterested scale, only that their actions are not in the interest of your country. While it's a perfectly defensible, pragmatic, position to take, be very careful because politicians often play with words to imply that this pragmatic position is in some sense absolutely, morally correct.

Don't get me wrong, thrashing on a country because of it's actions isn't a bad thing. But thrashing to bash simply because you think it might offer prestige and somehow elevate your comment is wrong.

More importantly, it's poor rhetoric, which any competent debater would be easily able to take apart. Not that TV politicians generally bother with debate these days, not when there's soundbites, rabble-rousing and compliant media to use to control the thoughts of the sheeple.

The truth of the matter is that our debt isn't near as bad as some other countries but

An argument from economics. Find someone who's interested in economics - like my Boss. My degree is in Geology and Mineralogy ; his is in Geology and Economics, which is probably why I look down a microscope on oil rigs and he's the Boss in the office. By the way - he would disagree with you. I'd give you his personal email address if I had it - it might be interesting to see what arguments came out. Hang on - did I just use the words "Economics" and "interesting" in the same sentence? I'd better go see the doctor, or take some of my schizophrenic friend's medication - I can't be a well man.

we also generally have a higher growth rate on average then those countries (which I probably should have pointed out too)

One of the things that I've never understood about economics is their concentration on growing economies. Given that all economies are, to some extent, linked into some "global" economy ; given that the Earth is a finite syste

Re:mm

[sumdumass]

Some people would assert, on very defensible grounds, that while American scientists (and others) who worked on the Manhatten Project have a lot of numbers about the effects of a nuclear bomb, the only people with a comprehensive understanding of what a nuclear bomb is are the Japanese.

I recall, as a child, reading a book by one of the first journalists into Hiroshima. Really quite horrifying stuff, and the sort of thing that simply doesn't get published these days. (I see from Amazon's UK page on it that there has been a new edition with an additional chapter published some time in the 1980s ; I might have to get that out of the library. Here's another review.) Arguably the people of Chernobyl could add a few relevant observations to the Japanese experience.

You know, I totally agree with you. But I guess my points was that given what happened and all the horrific stuff associated with it, we havn't used them again. We even passed on the opportunity when our boys where losing big time in Korea and the generals were asking for them. Our usage before we really realized or saw how horrid they were, isn't the same as usage after we knew about it. But something more significant is that people bring it up like it happened yesterday in the context of what we found out after the face "sure no one else can have nukes while the only country to ever used them has them". It isn't like we have used the since, most of them were from Reagan's brilliant MAD program that basically took their usage completely out of the arena for any large country without a death wish.

What sticks in the craw of many aspirant nuclear nations is the way the the old, colonialist, paternalistic, white overseers (I use the language of slavery deliberately) are trying to deny the new, formerly colonised, developing, various shades of brown, freed nations from achieving tools to ensure that they'll never be enslaved again. (I wouldn't bother wasting electrons on protesting that this is a false description of the West's motivations ; what matters is the perception that people have and the rhetoric that politicians use to justify their actions.) By the way, I note that you use the term "hostile", which implies that you're concerned about countries with plans inimical to your own. This does not, of course imply that their actions are wrong on any "absolute" or disinterested scale, only that their actions are not in the interest of your country. While it's a perfectly defensible, pragmatic, position to take, be very careful because politicians often play with words to imply that this pragmatic position is in some sense absolutely, morally correct.

I use the term hostile with the intent to show a purpose other then defense towards any country. Israel is one but if Iraq would have nuked Kuwait or Iran, which I'm confident that Saddam would at least seriously consider, it brings a different light onto the situation. Iran has paid the families of martyrs, or suicide bombing terrorist and has supported Hammas. It really isn't a sane thing to sit back and watch them get the power that could be devastating in ways much worse then Hiroshima (nukes today are massively more powerful then the hydrogen bombs used in WW2). North Korea is a bit of a peculiar situation, it was the war that the generals were asking for the bomb but failed to get. The old leader was pretty sane but the new one, Kim Jong-il, is a little off the wall and we never ended the Korean war. He has launched missiles over Japan, claimed to have aimed them at Hawaii, but they failed to reach them. It really is something to be concerned with. However, I am happy that talks have produced some good results in that manor.

As for the occupiers and colonists, I don't think we need to get into that either. That is another situation that if they believe it the way you presented it, they are just ignorant about the situation and history of the area.

More impor

Re:mm

[Anonymous Coward]

So allowing people to die by the hands of barbarians is ok by you? You would have shrugged off the holocaust because it didn't effect you?

You're a waste. You'd let people die even when you know it's wrong. That makes you a mound of faggot shit. How does it feel to be a bitch to Islam? Getting fucked in the ass by Allah and his legion of faggots?

You're worse than George Bush. You're a useless human.

How is this regime possible?

[CRCulver]

When every single Iranian I meet traveling abroad, without exception, apologizes for the actions of their government and expresses their shame for the theocrats in change, I wonder how long things can stay the way they are there. Doesn't Iran have an unusually high proportion of young people, and doesn't that often bode revolution?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran = Let us do what we want and you do what we say or the US will come get you.

US = Let us do what we want and you do what we say or the terrorists will come get you.

Politics of fear: it works. Sadly.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the government has been good at the odd killing/arrest spree to calm the students down.

And of course at just the right time America does something (say invading Iraq) that the Iranian government spins to up the anti-US sentiment which helps them stay around.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[chaosite]

I remember the last time Iran had a revolution.

That went real well.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[RabidMoose]

The problem you may be having is with your sampling group. Unless you happen to be traveling to Iran itself, the people you are meeting are travelers themselves, and possibly of a different overall mindset than hardliners, who would be less likely to travel. (I base this on my father, an American, who stoutly refuses to travel anywhere requiring a passport, simply because it's "not America")

Re:How is this regime possible?

[edalytical]

Good idea Iranians in power have significantly different values than we have in the West. Let's send some CIA operatives to Iran armed with cash for paying off citizens who can cause instability and start the revolution process. Hopefully the new pro-Western dictatorship won't every be overthrown by yet another revolution and replaced with anti-Western democratic republic. This can't possibly fail...

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bleh .... come up with something new . This is not funny anymore.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Klaus_1250]

What about the last time Iran had a democracy? What happened to that?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Devout_IPUite]

Does he own a chevy pickup and hate Obama for not wearing a lapel pin with a flag?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[MightyYar]

It is entirely possible that Iranians who somehow managed to get out, or were forced out, are not a representative sample of the overall population.

In my case, I know a few Persians, and off the top of my head... one escaped with his parents who were associated with the Shah somehow. One was highly educated and decided to get the hell out. One is gay - staying in Iran obviously not a good idea.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[RabidMoose]

Actually, it's a Dodge, with a McCain bumper sticker. And he hates Obama for whatever reasons Fox News tells him to.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

It went well until their moderate, democratically elected government was overthrown by the CIA and had it replaced by The Shah. Apparently democracies aren't allowed to exist if they aren't pro-US.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[renoX]

A case of biased sample obviously.

Note that I would say also 'How is-it possible that Americans reelected Bush?'
It'll take *many* death sentence in Iran to equal the number of dead Irak people caused by Bush actions justified either by incompetency and/or by lies yet he was reelected..

(I'm neither from Irak, Iran or the USA).

Re:How is this regime possible?

[CRCulver]

I was speaking of Iranians I met who were still resident in Iran, but abroad on business or tourism.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

But, we (the US & GB) put the Shah's father in power through a coup in 1953 - toppling the elected Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Feel free to read how and why that little operation was accomplished here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Oil_nationalization_and_the_1953_coup and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

But for our intervention, where would Iran be today?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

That worked out so well in 1953....

Re:How is this regime possible?

[edalytical]

Are you Turkish? Or is you 'q' key broken?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly did labeling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" help?

I mocked it not because I think Iran is one of the best governments out there, but because it is typical of Bush's simple-mindedness and ability to draw clear lines around "evil" states he dislikes from other governments that are similarly terrible to their own citizens and of similar threat to the U.S. but whom Bush ignores or actively befriends. Bush's treatment of Iran has nothing to do with how its government treats its citizens and his labeling it part of an "axis of evil" and talk of "evildoers" is laughable not only for its simple-mindedness but also now - years later - for all of the things he's done since he came up with that imbecilic terminology to rape the U.S. constitution and its citizens of their freedoms. Iran has done how much harm to the U.S. in the same time period?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[tukang]

Re:How is this regime possible?

Had it not been for operation AJAX we would probably not have a theocracy in Iran today.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[nbert]

I base this on my father, an American, who stoutly refuses to travel anywhere requiring a passport, simply because it's "not America"

It always fascinated me that there are no US citizens in Europe who favor the republicans (at least in the last 8 years I haven't encountered a single one, but I only met around 30), which lead me to two theories: Either the republicans "don't make it" that far or some simply lie because they want to avoid endless discussions. Your comment supports my first theory, but in the end I guess both are valid to a certain extend.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Ilgaz]

Nothing is impossible with support from gigantic forces if you take advantage of the fight for power between them.

Just last Monday, one of the Turkey's most peaceful and democratic columnists who writes in the oldest newspaper, Cumhuriyet got arrested for attempting a coup. He was kept in custody for 6 days straight without having a single clue about what he may have done and refused to talk. Today, he gets released. There are massive clues about widespread wiretapping and servicing to the pro-govt newspapers. Can you think such thing is possible without someone clearly abusing a big power?

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/home/9361510.asp

For example, Europe and particularly France should have nothing to say about Iran regime of today. Khomeini was happily living and getting supported in France (yes, that secular France) and even went to Iran with a Air France jet.

Things will keep that way since Iran is a big chess player, they are playing with the World like a toy with billions of dollars. Iran regime can't exist without foreign support.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[sleigher]

I think your dad needs to meet my mom. I think they have a lot in common......

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Ilgaz]

Current regime and Government in Iran should be like a dream for a War monger. If Iran was a sane regime with some kind of democracy, how would you explain if you declare a war on them? Current idiots are great for giving reasons.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[DarkOx]

Yes, but in all likelyhood the Soviet Union's collaps would have been delyed. The delay might have had consequences for US in the lower 48 states, it may not have. Certainly large geographic areas would have been subject to tyrany years longer then they were.

As to the middle east well what would it have been like after the collaps had it become primarily a soviet controlled region. It probably would have fractured into a bunch of tiny warring groups like the Balkins did. It most likely would have been a bigger bloodier and even more complex(in terms of the number of players) mess then it is in today.

I am sure eventally for humanitarian reasons we would have needed to get envolved just like we needed to in the Balkins, where we are still keeping the peace even if things are mostly quiet! We would have been without our years of cheap reliable oil exports and thefore less able to help as well. Pushing the soviets out of there when we did was a good thing. There was no other way we could do it either. Had we sent our own troops it it could have turned our cold war into a hot one. That would have been bad for the entire world. Charlie Wilson IS AN AMERICAN HERO.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

I'm old enough to have been in college when the Shah was deposed. Just prior to the revolution we had Iranian Secret Police (the Savak) all over campus. One was a gentleman "named" Salah who was given fake credentials and joined our lab - he was supposed to be working towards his Ph.D. in Endocrine Physiology - but had not clue one - consequently he contaminated our lab, our lab's Prof, me and two other grad students with I-131.

I was the lucky guy to show "hot" first since health physics always ran a survey after we ran an Iodination process. The problem was that I did my work in a cold room and all of my materials were sequestered there - but my Thyroid and then our lab showed hot in a routine post-experiment radiation survey. It clearly wasn't my Iodine that had contaminated the lab when 100% of it remained in the cold room where I ran my assay.

Salah had faked an experiment and had not reported his use of the radioisotope - so, my hot Thyroid lead to the discovery of Salah's real reason for being "on campus" and he pulled a vanishing act. That was in the fall of 1977 or early winter 1978.

I knew quite a few Iranians at the time and this guy was bad news all around. After I showed up hot I heard about other "fakes" planted around campus - all pursuing advanced degrees and all backed by the Iranian government. They were there to intimidate Iranian nationals suspected of disloyalty and possibly to arrange for things to happen to their targets. This was a major state university with thousands of foreign students in undergrad, advanced and professional programs.

If we agree to quit f**king with people around the world we might just have peace and, even a little prosperity.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

When every single Iranian I meet traveling abroad, without exception, apologizes for the actions of their government and expresses their shame for the theocrats in change

That's funny, Americans in Europe tend to do the same thing (s/theocrats/lobbyists/)

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Haven't you read any of the records released by the Russians? Nothing would have stopped the collapse and the internal strife of that failed "union" had worn the nation so thin that what we did mattered little.

Reagan's unprecedented arms escalation was the final straw - but he was far from the guy who defeated the USSR - he just happened to be in office when they self destructed (sort of like what the US is doing right now).

In 1977 Jimmy Carter set us on the road to energy independence - and if we had followed his lead we wouldn't need to import oil. King Ronnie the First dumped that series of programs right after he broke up PATCO. So, today we have $4+/gal gasoline, no unions left with any power and the average family hasn't seen an increase in real purchasing power since 1980.

BTW, try a spell checker and using shorter sentences.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Macrat]

But for Charlie Wilson and his private aid program to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan when under Soviet control - we wouldn't have had 9/11.

And probably still on the US payroll even today.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[budgenator]

yes they do have a large amount of young people and like all young people they have a strong tendency toward revolutionary, and fascist thoughts and behaviors. The present government has become very adept at manipulating these young people into supporting their equally fascist theocracy.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Charlie is a lobbyist these days. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_(politician)

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some say the Cold War would not have happened in the first place if the US had not interfered in the World War II. That is: if they had allowed Germany and USSR to keep fighting until the end. Then, no matter who won, both sides would be so weakened that it would be easy for the USA to get in full-steam and liberate the fuck out of them. Could that be true? As they say, you see best in hindsight.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[budgenator]

Just prior to that (73-74) I was attending an Army Missile repair course and it was pretty common knowledge that Iranian students didn't fail the course because they were beheaded when they got home if they did. I'm sure this was the case in civilian education as well, so even if he wasn't a planted informant he was unlikely to be the due to merit; at the time get abroad for education meant you were connected to the Government somehow and there due to patronage.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran does have a large number of young people, but they don't care about blogging, because in Iran only old people blog.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[halivar]

Hell, yeah! Burma, Somalia, Yugoslavia, German Jews in 1938... let the nationals deal with their own internal problems, internally.

*boggle*

Re:How is this regime possible?

[halivar]

Or maybe you haven't met them?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

This guy was NOT a student. It was very clear to everybody that he was Savak. I should have sued that University for permitting them access to dangerous substances when they knew who was an enforcer and who was a real student. Some, small part, of my Thyroid died as a result of this cavalier attitude on the part of the money-hungry administration.

My youngest sister had/has a friend whose name I can't exactly spell - Feederzehy - a brilliant young woman. They completed their baccalaureates together at UC Boulder and both went on to become physicians - but Feederzehy had to work some deal to remain in the US. I believe that she practices medicine in Iowa these days.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are about to "democritize" them like you did to the irakis...

Re:How is this regime possible?

[chromozone]

I run across a fair amount of Iranians on my art site. The language barrier isn't that big a deal since people post photos and such and don't need to be very fluent in any one language. I see a lot of US and UK bands listed as favs on young people's sites. Their own work is conservative and I see nice landscape photos etc. Once or twice I have seen an Iranian with links to friends who have some nude art works and I often wondered if they could get in trouble for those things.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Hell, yeah! Burma, Somalia, Yugoslavia, German Jews in 1938... let the nationals deal with their own internal problems, internally.

*boggle*

If Europe had not had the interlocking defense pacts in place then the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would not have triggered the 1st WW. If the Weimar Republic were not so heavily taxed with post-war penalties Hitler wouldn't have been able to come to power.

Yugoslavia was the product or WWII and Tito - Balkanization has taken place again and today those nation-states are pretty much what they were before WWI.

Burma/Myanmar has been in or at war since 1824. Not my problem.

The Somali disaster is also, not my problem.

Now, when the Japanese bomb us and the Nazis sink shipping - then we have a war.

If we put some actual work into the UN - and allowed a rational power share - then perhaps an independent military solution could arise for Somalia - but not the others.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[MJMullinII]

NOW YOUR GETTING IT!

See, if an Anonymous Coward can understand our simple goals, why can't all of ya'll? :)

I mean, it's not like we're hurting anyone,...right?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[nbert]

Of course I haven't met them - otherwise I wouldn't wonder about it ;)

Seriously: Around 30 people might not be representative at all, but not a single republican in 30 not perfectly random people is still kind of odd if you consider election results in recent years. I also asked some other people in Europe and they all had a similar impression. I'm not saying that there are no republicans in Europe, that would be silly. But I'm sure that they are significantly under-represented compared to their significance at home.

And before someone starts nagging about how pro-democrat I am: It's really just an observation I made. I don't care so much about political parties in the US in general. Apart from foreign policy (which affects us) I don't have much opinion.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Just Another Poster]

Mossadegh was not popularly elected; he was appointed Prime Minister by the Majlis after his predecessor was murdered for not supporting his policies. After his appointment, Mossadegh refused to hold elections, and began ruling like a despot.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Alibaba10100]

I, too, have never met an Iranian who had anything positive to say about Ahmedenejad. Even Muslim Iranians, although most Iranians I've met in the US and Canada are Christian or Jewish, which kind of excludes them from the Ahmedenejad fan club.
The first thing to consider is that Iranians who leave the country are not wholly representative of the Iranian population.
But, beyond that, the current Iranian regime is very good at surviving. It has just enough semblance of democracy that it can appear to bend to the will of the people just enough to keep them from revolting. When Iranians want reform, the government has a few tricks up its sleeve -like symbolic measures against honor killings- that don't actually change anything, but have the appearance of reform. And the permanent, non-democratic, part of the government manages to run everything from behind the scenes while still placing all the blame for negative things on the elected leaders. I've heard very smart people claim that the Iranian regime will fall, but I think they underestimate its ability to insulate itself from instability.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Alibaba10100]

The one other thing I should mention, is that when I hear Iranians criticize their government, they almost never mention Khamenei. Its always Ahmedenejad. Ahmedenejad can be replaced in an election.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Alibaba10100]

Ahmedenejad was elected largely on anger over the axis of evil comment. It came at a rare opening for diplomatic concessions from Iran which abruptly closed after that comment was made. But I suppose the Iranian regime would have been so hurt by that speech they would have just collapsed if no one had criticized it.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[edalytical]

Maybe one of the Mods that modded me down could kindly post anonymously and explain how my post was offtopic or a troll. I replied to a guy that spelt Iraq as "Irak" and AFAIK that's the Turkish spelling for Iraq. He also said he was not from "Irak, Iran or the USA" which begs the question: where is he from? Hence my question.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

No but are you even talking about the same issue here?
Iran was not under USSR's control at the time, and it wasn't a communist state. UK's oil interest was the prime thing at stake. The Iranians weren't happy about taking only 16% of the profit when UK's digging oil out of their own backyard. They just had too much being a pussy and then UK/US realized it wasn't democracy they wanted in Iran.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[xtracto]

he problem you may be having is with your sampling group. Unless you happen to be traveling to Iran itself, the people you are meeting are travelers themselves, and possibly of a different overall mindset than hardliners

That is very true. I always have the same sense about Americans. The majority (if not all) of the Americans I have met (outside the USA of course) are very angry about their country. And it is not *only* about Bush, but about how all the system works, including foreign policy and what not.

I find it really funny, because I know for a fact that Americans are *very* very really proud of their country (defend it even blindly), however, looking at the sample I have been in contact with, it would seem completely backwards.

The truth is that, lots of the people you see, outside their country, are there because in one way or another they want to get out of their own country (I have lived outside Mexico partly for the same reason)... and they *always* have a more wide vision than the standard citizens.

Of course every data you try to obtain from such group will be skewed.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Exactly how does that vary from the disinformation campaign funded and controlled by the CIA and MI6? I posted my sources. Where are yours?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone told Mr. Chavez...

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another data point that makes for great fun and speculation.

Go check out some of the web-forums that are mostly dedicated to sex-tourism in places like Thailand and the Philippines. I don't mean the under-age Gary Glitter stuff, but the legit, if somewhat seedy, adult stuff. Those forums seem to be loaded with misogynistic conservatives (lots of military and/or blackwater types too, for what that's worth).

And yes, I admit to looking into hiring cheap women on a tropical vacation. I figure, they need the money and I wouldn't mind some freaky sex. But I'm posting AC anyway...

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I base this on my father, an American, who stoutly refuses to travel anywhere requiring a passport, simply because it's "not America"

It always fascinated me that there are no US citizens in Europe who favor the republicans (at least in the last 8 years I haven't encountered a single one, but I only met around 30), which lead me to two theories: Either the republicans "don't make it" that far or some simply lie because they want to avoid endless discussions. Your comment supports my first theory, but in the end I guess both are valid to a certain extend.

Well given that:

A) there are always Europeans here on Slashdot who constantly remind us when American politics come up that "What Americans consider to be far left politically really isn't far left at all in Europe and would be considered centrist."

and

B) that American conservatives are well aware of the total mindless gibberish that springs forth from American leftists who "would be considered centrist" in Europe...

I must conclude that American persons tending towards right of center viewpoints (by American standards) therefore don't really care to experience the deluge of total batshit insanity that would spew forth from the true leftists of Europe if they knew they had an American right wing person to disgorge their lunacy upon and thus would tend to keep their political views to themselves.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[techno-vampire]

How many dolts on these pages made fun of Bush...

All of them.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[MrSteveSD]

But for our intervention, where would Iran be today?

Probably still a democracy of sorts. Some of the most bloody US meddling has been in South America though. The US criticises Castro (and he is a dictator albeit pretty benign as they go) yet he is Mother Teresa compared to the dictators the US supported in the region.

As for Iran being oppressive, Saudi Arabia is worse, yet is a close US ally. I used to work for an Iranian who fled the regime there and even they said they would rather live in Iran that Saudi Arabia.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Without a doubt, you are correct. What we did in Guatemala, alone, is obscene - and, all for fruit companies.

The Viet Nam "police action" following on the heels of the Korean "police action" certainly show that this nation is far from the PR we feed our citizens.

It is well worth looking up the 1982 book, "The Kingdom: Arabia & The House of Sa'ud," by Robert Lacey, to get a grasp that Saudi Arabia was created after WWI by just one man - a nation-state nearly as large in land mass as the US!

In short - if you aren't part of the "royal family" you are screwed in Saudi Arabia. It is a true feudal state with vast sums of money and weapons - but all based upon a natural resource that will, one day, become exhausted.

If we had any brains we would have responded to 9/11 by dropping a large box into the city of Mecca on 9/13 and warned the Saudi's to police their own or the 500 megaton nuke would be detonated. (a/k/a bring me the head of bin Laden tout de suite or kiss the Kaaba shrine and the Grand mosque good bye!)

But, Bandar-Bush and the rest of the "royals" had already bought their superpower lunch and put the boy-king into power.

Damn, I hope that there will be war crimes trials.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[perlmonky]

Reagan's unprecedented arms escalation was the final straw - but he was far from the guy who defeated the USSR - he just happened to be in office when they self destructed (sort of like
what the US is doing right now).

Uhh... actually Bush Senior was in office when this happened, not Reagan. Secondly, Reagans escalation, drove the country into bankruptcy. Most sources agree that this strategy was key in the destruction of the USSR. But sure... I guess we can take your word for it.

In 1977 Jimmy Carter set us on the road to energy independence - and if we had followed his lead we wouldn't need to import oil.

Carter's policies would have crushed an already waning economy. His proposals called for more government regulation and taxation. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there anything that the government steps in to try to fix, that they don't screw up? (education, health care, welfare... nope).

So, today we have $4+/gal gasoline, no unions left with any power and the average family hasn't seen an increase in real purchasing power since 1980.

Oh cry me a river, $4 / gal while the rest of the world (with the exception of countries that actually exploit there oil) is pay $5-7 and have been for years.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[techno-vampire]

Secondly, Reagans escalation, drove the country into bankruptcy.

That it did! And, I might add, that was exactly what it was expected to do. Star Wars might not have worked (We'll never know for sure, will we?) but it was plausible, and it was something the US could afford to do. Thus, the USSR had to try to copy us and their creaky, over-managed, barely-adequate economy collapsed under the strain of trying to produce both guns and butter, something the US had no difficulty in doing. Reagan didn't come up with the idea of taking the battle to a front where we had all the advantages, but he did have the sense to recognize a good idea when he saw it.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[callmetheraven]

Keep in mind that any nonposting mouthbreathing knuckledragger with mod points can do whatever stupid thing they like with them.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

You want to tell me how long this nation will survive at $4+/gal gasoline?

Perhaps you haven't noticed the recession?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copypasta: it works. Badly.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[ccmay]

I hate Obama because he's a crypto-Marxist who never held a real job.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

$4 a gallon? Come to the UK where it's $11.50 a gallon just now for diesel!

Re:How is this regime possible?

[SuperKendall]

Perhaps you haven't noticed the recession?

You have to have two negative quarters in a row for recession, so no - and neither have you.

There is a downturn but $4 is hardly the end of the world for the U.S. economy, it simply shifts spending a bit. As with any change, there are winners and there are losers.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

The numbers are not being reported and you well know it. Cooking the books by excluding fuel and food from the CPI is one aspect of the fraud. Ignoring the actual unemployment rate of over 10% coupled with racking up deficits at a pace no other nation has experienced leads to the fact that we have been in a recession for 6 quarters and we are in real trouble. Rebut that!

While you are at it, economics whiz, tell me how the oil industry can have record high costs of acquisition, record high sales prices and record high profits? That fits only one market model: coercive monopoly.

The Sherman Act hasn't been enforced since 1981. Time to bring it back.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copypasta: it works. Badly.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Kagura]

The Viet Nam "police action" following on the heels of the Korean "police action" certainly show that this nation is far from the PR we feed our citizens.

You need to restudy your history, bud...

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were there to intimidate Iranian nationals suspected of disloyalty and possibly to arrange for things to happen to their targets. This was a major state university with thousands of foreign students in undergrad, advanced and professional programs.

Sounds very similar to what "professional rioters" do to rile up peaceful crowds into violent ones and to keep them from dispersing. This happens all over, sometimes after soccer games in the EU or in South Korea.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Caboosian]

What about being a Senator? How does that not qualify as a "real job"?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Troed]

Iraq is spelled "Irak" in lots of countries. Sweden being one.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to University (in the UK) with lots of Iranians. The Mujahedeen (Anti Islaamic Communists) were miserable (perhaps understandably) - spys that there were (and I knew of none) were more likely to be spotting Islamic activists than vice versa - many of them continuing their pre-revolution pro-Shah activities, which were rampant in the days leading up to the revolution. Ideologically the revolution was largely played out on the campuses of the UK and France.

Some of the supposedly fundamentalist pro-revolution islamic Iranians were some of the best people I've ever met. Witty friendly, and far from ultra religious. The hilarious shenannigans we witnessed when they persuaded the course tutors to arrange for our bus to stop to allow time to turn towards Macca and pray, en route to a tour round a nuclear power plant, had to seen to be believed. I can't imagine it was something they ever did on any other occasion, but it was a good wheeze !

Not all of them were Mulims - some Christian, some also Communist atheists (didn't mix with the others). Some of them were also Zoro-Astrians, the traditional ancient religion of Iran and were teased as Fire Worshippers by their Muslim friends.

At the end of the course I over heard some of them talking about the future. One of them said "What's the most revolutionary thing we could do ?" - "Go back to Iran !!" came the answer - I suspect none of them did though.

Funnily enough my course started just prior to the Iran-Iraq war . We also had lots of Iraqi's on the course (Engineering), and every single one of them just went straight back to Iraq to join the army. Whereas some of the Iranians contrived to fail an exam or two to ensure they didn't have to (because they stayed on to resit the year)Most of them were already brilliant engineers and hardly need the course anyway.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[shutdown -p now]

The Viet Nam "police action" following on the heels of the Korean "police action" certainly show that this nation is far from the PR we feed our citizens.

What was wrong with the Korean War? It was, and still remains, in my opinion, a prime example of use of military force to successfully achieve a right and noble goal. Not to mention that it was, technically, a UN-approved operation.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[shutdown -p now]

The fall of the USSR began when sharing political jokes became widespread among the general population. That happened before Reagan. After that, it was just a matter of time.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#U.S._intervention
http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/KoreanWarChronology.html
http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1950/06-25to08-03-50.html

The US participated in Korea through the UN - no Congressional declaration of war was ever passed.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

I don't have the time or the energy to list all that was wrong with the Korean War (*and, the fact that it is still technically, on*).

It wasn't "technically" a UN action -- the US Congress never passed a declaration of war.

If you think proxy wars fought by super powers in distant 2nd and 3rd world nations, leaving millions dead and nations ripped apart is "right and noble" then I suggest that you figure out the lasting benefits of our support of Afghanistan's mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and occupation.

It was in all of the papers. There is an excellent book by George Crile (far, far better than the movie) called Charlie Wilson's War - and our participation in that little Afghanistan operation brought blowback on us to a degree that only Gust and Charlie could have imagined.

Time to give peace a chance, if it's not too late.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Jaguwar]

How profound, Iran US morally equivalent The left wingâ(TM)s rhetorical arsenal 1. Ad hominem attack 2. Beg the question 3. Moral equivalency 4. Accusations of racism 5. Accusations of McCarthyism 6. Comparisons with Hitler and just added for the 2008 Elections 7. Accusations of "Swift Boating"

Re:How is this regime possible?

[SuperKendall]

Oh right, the numbers are cooked and everyone is out to get you.

Loosen the tinfoil hat, it's starting to reduce oxygen to your brain.

As for the oil industry - I have little concern for such a piddling business, the U.S. oil industry being something like 14th in the realm of international oil concerns. If you'd think about again (again I urge loosing the hat) you'd see how all of those things you list make sense, or at least the ones that are actually true (I think you confuse gross and net profits).

Re:How is this regime possible?

[shutdown -p now]

If the US (and other UN nations) did not intervene in Korea, the USSR would have acted unilaterally, and with its help, the entire country would be overrun by the northern communist government. In effect, this would mean twice as many people living under one of the most oppressive tyrannies remaining on Earth, today - as a former citizen of the USSR myself, I can assure you that preventing this was well worth the war.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[LilGuy]

Speaking of which, I would imagine the CIA has more to do with this bill than anything. We all know now that Bush authorized a presidential finding on Iran. We know that congress authorized up to $400 million to the CIA for subterfuge, espionage, and other covert activities.

Iran's leadership is just trying to have a fighting chance at staying in power against such great odds.

Unfortunately while we lose our rights here at home, we continue to cause others to lose theirs as well.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[toddhisattva]

Mossadegh was a thief. Cloaking him in "democracy" works about as well as it did for Lenin: it fools the simple-minded.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

People also don't think often enough about the economic & education factor in who they meet.
I am living as an American in France and I have realized that the people we meet from a given country are not typical of the 'masses'
In countries where people seem to be going along with repressive government policies, whether it's Iran or the USA, there is a huge portion of the population that you will probably never meet, which is the poor and/or poorly educated. These people, are almost never going to be the ones taking European vacations in the spring.
Take the millions of people that live between the two U.S. bookends (the East and West coast)
There are millions of Americans with (likely) no more than a high school diploma and living a blue-collar life, who probably support George Bush out of what is basically ignorance toward what's happening on the world stage and in the court of world opinion.
I used to be so confused because 'I' didn't know anybody in Los Angeles that supported Bush or his policies, and I was astounded when Bush was re-elected by a popular vote!
I used to think, "don't all those people who voted see what a horrible effect this is having on America, how it is helping make us look like morons, how we are more and more hated internationally, and how we are giving up our freedom in the name of deception and fear mongering "
The answer is that most of the people in the less educated & lower income brackets simply don't realize what's going on.
These are the people who you will never meet in a cafe in Paris, and the ones that are running around with pro Bush bumper stickers, thinking that he is a real hero for coming to America's aid.
I see this in every country with a "democratic" voting system, and also in Monarchies or Dictatorships. In the U.S. it's simply misinformation, media manipulation, spin and all the other wonderful things the government does to make sure you are scared into believing you need to give up your freedom to secure your safety through the parental hand of the government.
'False Flag' operations are a common practice of many governments including the big western ones we think aren't capable, in which they do things like commit acts of terrorism in their own population and then blame their desired enemy. This seems hard to believe, but when you need to galvanize the people of your country around an issues that is possibly unpopular or would (for example) require the lives of citizens, well, creating a little terror in your backyard and blaming whoever you want to "protect" your people from is a very effective policy.
Even in US government documents released recently, it was admitted that an attack on a destroyer was actually staged my the CIA/Military and helped propel us into a war that may have not been so popular in Vietnam.
This is an admitted tactic that we don't pay too much attention to, because now it seems irrelevant so many years later, but the fact is it goes on to this day.
So you have a recipe of misinformation, bad access to proper media coverage of the truth, and the fact that the general majority of society is at best, poorly educated and economically precarious.
This makes it very easy to have a huge base of people who are scared, feeling without recourse, not understanding the issues before them, and willing to sacrifice freedom and anything else that
a seemingly protective government will spin as the solution they bring to save you and your family.
This works in the US and it works in N. Korea and it works in Iran. It works anywhere.
The people you meet while you are traveling are never going to be the uninformed and scared masses that cling to the skirt tails of the government, whether it's Communist or Democratic or Totalitarian.
   

Re:How is this regime possible?

[ccmay]

Number one, I don't consider any government service a real job. There is no penalty for failure. The same goes for "community organizing" and other non-profit work; in fact, the more failure the better for the poverty pimps. Only private enterprise counts for anything in my book. Someone who has never held a private sector job is a shirking, un-American piece of shit who is not to be trusted with power. Number two, Obama is one of the shittiest, laziest, least-accomplished Senators on the Hill. Even as an Illinois state senator he got nothing meaningful accomplished, never mind as a US senator, and voted "Present" something like 150 times. If he were white, his candidacy would be a joke and he wouldn't have received 1% of the primary vote. I predict that there are not enough guilty white liberals to get Obama over the top, no matter what the polls say. People tell pollsters what they want to hear out of politeness and a fear of being perceived as a racist. I am blunt and will cheerfully admit to despising Obama's political views regardless of his race, but that is not true of the great majority of moderate and independent voters. They will smile and tell the exit pollster that "of course" they voted for the black man, when in fact they did no such thing. McCain is going to win by 10 percentage points.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone was trying to get the message to him, but he made it out of the coup attempt.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Tinfoil? Pull your head out of Bush's ass.

The Boskin Commission's estimate of bias in the CPI is 12 years old.

The costs of the Bush wars will exceed Three Trillion Dollars.

Both are well documented and the latter is presently a NYT best seller.

You don't have a free market where an industry has high profits together with high sales prices and high acquisition costs. Only government regulation permits the oil industry to operate like this. It is taught as a part of econ 101.

Reality bites.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

The USSR???!!!

Didja ever notice the country to the north? Sino-Soviet relations were never great and the very idea that the USSR would enter the fray is unique - 58 years after the fact.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

F**K the people "living under oppressive tyrannies" - the problem is theirs to deal with.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Devout_IPUite]

I'm not sure that the claim that Obama is an 'affirmative action' president if he wins really holds up, considering Clinton would have been one as well.

Very early primary I planned on voting for McCain over Clinton if they both got their nominations, but McCain changed my mind by switching stances on almost every major issue. But the truth is, 'moderates' are going to vote for whoever talks nicer and has more charisma. The people who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans decide who to pick on issues, the moderates pick who is taller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_United_States_Presidents_and_presidential_candidates

Re:How is this regime possible?

[shutdown -p now]

Sino-Soviet relations were never great

This is not so. Sino-Soviet relations were doing great for as long as Stalin was alive, still fine under Beria, and for some time under Khruschev as well. The USSR and China actually entered a military alliance in early 50s, and the USSR gave China very large low-interest loans for economic development. They only started to deteriorate after Khruschev's denouncing Stalin's "cult of personality" - that's 1956 - and even then not immediately. It wasn't until 1959 that the relationship began to be openly hostile, and only in 1962 that was formalized on the official level by leaders of Communist parties of both countries.

Meanwhile, the Korean War was fought in 1950-1953, most of it during Stalin's lifetime - he died 3 months before the armistice was signed. So it was, indeed, at the peak of Sino-Soviet relations.

and the very idea that the USSR would enter the fray is unique - 58 years after the fact.

It has never exactly been secret that there were not only Soviet military advisors in North Korea, but that most North Korean fighter planes were manned by Soviet pilots. Why did you think it was called the "MiG Alley"?

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

I posted links to my authority.

The Soviets actually had border clashes with the Chinese throughout the post WWII period. Remember that the Chinese Communists only took over in 1949. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China_(1949â"1976%29

The first border pact with the Soviets took place in 1951.

From CNN:
In 1951, two years after the communist victory in China's civil war, Beijing signed an agreement with Moscow -- accepting China's existing border with the U.S.S.R., as well as armed Soviet control over the Ussuri and Amur border rivers.

Things heated up with the Cultural Revolution in the early 1960's Id. But, things were never calm between the Soviets and China - and the US benefitted from the internal strife.

You are correct about Soviet pilots/crews in Mig Alley - Something I was unaware of. OTOH, the Soviets kept denying it in the popular press and nationally. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_Alley

Still and all, I don't see how the Soviets and Chinese would have cooperated to fight against the US in Korea - we did have nuclear weapons - and the USSR's first test came in 1949 with China lagging behind until 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

We had amassed a significant nuclear stockpile by 1951 and detonated the first Fusion bomb in 1952. Id.

Somehow, I don't think that the USSR and China wanted nuclear war and Truman used that threat - until undermined by the gross disobedience of Gen MacArthur in April 1951. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur

Re:How is this regime possible?

[ArsonSmith]

Damn the web 2.0, damn it to hell.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[SuperKendall]

The costs of the Bush wars will exceed Three Trillion Dollars.

And what a tens of millions of improved lives worth to you?

Not much I guess.

I'll go with greatly improved life for the women and children of Iraq and Afghanistan, going forward, for the win.

Or are you in agreement that if we see suffering like Darfur, not a penny should be spent in aid?

Seems like you're the one with the brown view all around.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Look, Super-Ken Doll,

Iraq had 25 million when we invaded - it is down to 20 million - and few, if any, of those remaining would characterize themselves and their neighbors as members of the "tens of millions of improved lives."

Iraq is an unqualified disaster and has gone from a 1st world nation to a 3rd world nation BY ANY MEASURE.

And, NO, I don't think that we should have invaded and feel free to look at my personal 2003 and 2005 Journal entries - I'm consistent.

Afghanistan goes beyond the pale - we have a hybrid nation - US dominance in small areas and Taliban Resurgence everywhere else. Why? Because we allocated resources to Iraq - not to capture of bin Laden.

Frankly, f**k the Iraqis who were happy with Saddam. F**k the oppressed minority under Saddam. Their Dictator - their problem. We wouldn't have given a warm bucket of spit if Iraq didn't have OIL.

The NGOs have been, by far, the best path towards humanitarian gain in all of these conflicts - and you cannot disagree.

In reality, the ONLY WAY anybody could support the Bush Doctrine is if they are Revelationists expecting the end times about 10 minutes from now.

Bush's job is just about over - Three Trillion Dollars would have made our nation damn near functional. Now, we will have to pay - in 20 years, with interest, the creditor nations.

What about the 300 million lives in this country (less the chosen 30k) that Bush has destroyed.

Damn coward never attended a military funeral - and constantly talks about how he and Laura are having the time of their lives. Kevin Phillips, a Bush former speech writer revealed that Bush has a 10 hour/day exercise regimen in,
Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism.

If he is occupied with his lats, who is running the country? Oh, yeah - Cheney, Rice and ilk.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[SuperKendall]

Look, Super-Ken Doll,

Since al you can do is Ad-Hominem, I win by default! Yay!

Since all you are going to do is spew more tripe I see no reason to read further - you may have the last response if you like, though you'll be the only one reading that as well. I sorry to have to spend your life in a cage of hate, and just hope there aren't so many like you that far more people end up suffering in places like Iraq that would otherwise.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder, and other crimes are local affairs. You have a world-police view that leads to everlasting conflict.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

qqqq

Iraq had 25 million when we invaded - it is down to 20 million - and few, if any, of those remaining would characterize themselves and their neighbors as members of the "tens of millions of improved lives."

Iraq is an unqualified disaster and has gone from a 1st world nation to a 3rd world nation BY ANY MEASURE.

And, NO, I don't think that we should have invaded and feel free to look at my personal 2003 and 2005 Journal entries - I'm consistent.

Afghanistan goes beyond the pale - we have a hybrid nation - US dominance in small areas and Taliban Resurgence everywhere else. Why? Because we allocated resources to Iraq - not to capture of bin Laden.

Frankly, f**k the Iraqis who were happy with Saddam. F**k the oppressed minority under Saddam. Their Dictator - their problem. We wouldn't have given a warm bucket of spit if Iraq didn't have OIL.

The NGOs have been, by far, the best path towards humanitarian gain in all of these conflicts - and you cannot disagree.

In reality, the ONLY WAY anybody could support the Bush Doctrine is if they are Revelationists expecting the end times about 10 minutes from now.

Bush's job is just about over - Three Trillion Dollars would have made our nation damn near functional. Now, we will have to pay - in 20 years, with interest, the creditor nations.

What about the 300 million lives in this country (less the chosen 30k) that Bush has destroyed.

Damn coward never attended a military funeral - and constantly talks about how he and Laura are having the time of their lives. Kevin Phillips, a Bush former speech writer revealed that Bush has a 10 hour/day exercise regimen in,
Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism.

If he is occupied with his lats, who is running the country? Oh, yeah - Cheney, Rice and ilk.

Re:How is this regime possible?

[grolaw]

Running from the facts, eh?

Super coward

But Ahmadinejad has his OWN blog...

[Anonymous Coward]

This can't end well... well, for HIM anyways. I imagine it will end very well for the people of Iran.

http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

Re:But Ahmadinejad has his OWN blog...

[Superpants]

I tried leaving a little comment, but it appears to be broken or non-supportive of firefox. Oddly enough his blog is supportive of IE. Oh the irony!

So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that'll work.

The mullahs want kill their own people for posting things to the internet (and for women dressing in Western clothes...) and some naive TWIT thinks we can TALK to them.

Dumbass.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's bomb them into a secular state instead. That always works out so well in the Middle East.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, the hardline stance against States like Iran worked wonders with North Korea. I'm not sure what multilateral negotiations are, but since Bush was saying it I can only assume it means bombing and machine gun fire. Obviously, talking to North Korea like barack HUSSEIN obama wants to do would never EVER work.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think the medieval mullahs who believe and promote this kind of crap can be REASONED with?

Yeah, you probably do. "Peace in our time", right?

You are one naive and hopeless waste of protoplasm.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

I notice you had to qualify your statement with "in the Middle East".

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Ethanol-fueled]

It would work out of we bombed them all at once and didn't put any troops in.

After that, we'd wait for the dust to settle. If none of them are left then we go in and take the sweet, sweet oil while we thumb our noses at OPEC and turn the rubble into the world's largest Hedonism resort. Or, the ruins of the middle east could consolidate into some kind of Islamic mega-state, of which we will again bomb into oblivion when WWIII begins. That'll solve the ol' existentialist crisis.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[glitch23]

Yeah, that'll work. The mullahs want kill their own people for posting things to the internet (and for women dressing in Western clothes...) and some naive TWIT thinks we can TALK to them. Dumbass.

It very well may not work, however, are you prepared to pay $15/gallon for gasoline (assuming you are in the U.S.) if Iran is attacked by the U.S. military? Iran has stated they will respond with military action and one of their actions is to block oil exports through the Straits of Hormuz. If that occurs you know damn well commodity traders and actual purchasers of crude oil will pay $200-$250/bbl which will cause obvious increases in gasoline prices. We must talk to them first and if that fails then do we go in militarily to solve any problems. The problem with that though is it will have a ripple effect, one of which is the price of oil. There is no winner in the battle with Iran. Everyone loses. Iran may be destroyed but they know we survive on oil and they are the 4th largest exporter so economically we could be destroyed too. If the U.S. goes down economically (moreso than we already are recently) then world markets follow suit because of the economic interdependencies of world gov'ts.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it is so nice here in the US where we don't have any radical religious groups trying to push their idea of morals onto people that think different.

I did meet a weirdo spouting something off about zombies, but I didn't pay much attention.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[d34thm0nk3y]

When the military agrees, the idea that we should not try diplomacy seems odd.

"This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable," said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He added pointedly, "we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,"

link

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like we can't talk to N. Korea. Except we did and they stopped their nuclear program. Funny that communication stuff and what it causes. I guess it's only ok if Bush and Co. do it. Otherwise it is some naive twit talking out his ass huh.... You are complete moron!

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[DarkOx]

Our administration has already stated Iran will NOT be allowed to blocade the Straits of Hormuz even if they are provoked by say an attack from the Israiles. I suspect it could get very bloody. Iran would have to be beaten back hard and fast. I suspect it would be a "total war" nothing like what we did in Iraq. We would bomb them back to the stonage, and as pump prices rise the people will support it.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[halivar]

Just like we can't talk to N. Korea. Except we did and they stopped their nuclear program.

Until they started it again. And then they stopped it again. And then they blew up a bomb underground. And then they stopped it again. AND THEN....

(blah blah blah ad infinitum)

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[budgenator]

From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us, Mullen told reporters.

Of course one could consider the US Military involvement on Iran's boarder with Iraq, and th US Military involvement on Iran's boarder with Afghanistan as setiing up a classic pincher offense to finally deliver a coup de grass onto a nation that took great delight in seizing our embassy and holding our diplomats hostage only a few short decades ago.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Wait a minute. What's the actual problem necessitating even talking to Iran in the first place? Why can't we just leave them the hell alone?

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[falconwolf]

Just like we can't talk to N. Korea. Except we did and they stopped their nuclear program.

Until they started it again. And then they stopped it again. And then they blew up a bomb underground. And then they stopped it again. AND THEN....

What many people miss about N Korea restarting their nuclear program after the 1992 agreement is that they were promised oil but did not have it all delivered. They were also promised light water reactor (LWR) power plants, however bids for them weren't held until 1998, 6 years later.

North Korea only broke their part of the 1992 agreement after the west failed to live up to it's parts.

Falcon

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[techno-vampire]

The mullahs want kill their own people for posting things to the internet

The mullahs want to kill people for using the Internet because they understand that Jerry Pournelle is right: the Internet, western style entertainment and fashions are all weapons of cultural mass destruction and they don't want their people westernized. They know that if that ever happens, the mullahs will be out on their ears.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[glitch23]

Wait a minute. What's the actual problem necessitating even talking to Iran in the first place? Why can't we just leave them the hell alone?

Well the problem is nothing related to what the article submitted is about if that's where your confusion lies. We *could* leave them alone but if they do something stupid then we *will* have to do something about it. Ahmadinejad continuously makes threats against the U.S. that are not shown in the mainstream media. He continuously makes threats against Israel too. Israel may do something unprovoked that could spark WWIII and we would be required to join the battle. It definitely wouldn't be pretty as someone else said. The Straits of Hormuz may not get blocked but when idiot traders and speculators get spooked about oil supply when a hurricane is way over near Africa you can imagine what they would do if shots were fired and Iran was involved. Crude has already gone up about $10 in the last week or so partly because of Iran being in the news again. When idiots determine the price of crude oil, nothing has to actually happen in the world for prices to go up. They just do and strangely enough when the "dust" settles the prices never seem to go back down. That, my friend, is pure speculation at consumers' expense.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[geekoid]

This would be a lot different the Iraq and afganestan.
It owuld be a 'stand up' war.
Then you would see the US unleash it's dogs of war.

They do noy have the Naval might to block anything from the US, if the US decides to use full force.

we could close their oil fields, flatten their cities, and squash every person there with tanks.
I'm glad we are fighting a more selective war with more specific targets, but don't think Iran will come out, at all.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

It worked quite well with Germany and Japan.

As far as I'm concerned, we are at war with all of Islam, under just about the same degree of threat to the existence of Western liberal democracy as we were in World War II. If it takes killing a few thousand or a few million or a few billion to quiet the rest of them down, then so be it.

On the other hand, I don't want to see any Marshall plan after we destroy Islam. Our efforts in Iraq have been totally wasted. The war should have taken three weeks to reduce Iraq to Stone Age savagery, after which we should have departed, leaving only a garrison in the oil fields. They want to live in the seventh century, and we should give it to them with both barrels. More rubble, less trouble.

I would like to see us attack Saudi Arabia next, rather than Iran. Their oil fields should be confiscated. Let's show the world what real imperialism looks like. Let's erase Mecca and Medina from this plane of existence, and make an example of the Wahhabis that will pass from history to myth to legend.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like we can't talk to N. Korea. Except we did and they stopped their nuclear program.

Until they started it again. And then they stopped it again. And then they blew up a bomb underground. And then they stopped it again. AND THEN....

(blah blah blah ad infinitum)

and don't forget the ongoing proliferation of N Korea's progressing nuclear technology and equipment to other nations seeking to begin even more nuke programs.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Goddamn it, this whole thing is retarded. We should be *friendly* with the Iranians. Persian civilization is highly developed and extremely honorable. Yet we had to depose the elected, democratic government.

Honestly, fuck it. If we want to back Israel, just let the Iranians know that a strike on Israel is a strike on the United States. That statement may not carry much respect or force any longer, but it's all we can do. We have no moral or pragmatic grounds for getting ourselves more deeply involved in Middle-Eastern countries that the average American government official can barely find on a map.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't take credit for the democratic social trends in other nations that had long been in motion decades and more before certain wars occurred. At least not just because you're country may have won them on some levels.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

I may not be a histomatorian, but seems to me that the "democratic social trend" in Germany and Japan started after surrender.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite incorrect there. You'll need to dig a little, but at least investigate the actual histories a little more and you'll see readily enough. For Germany look back at everything that happened in 1848 with the confederation. For Japan, look into the events around the creation of the meiji constitution-though its not as obvious since it was very much compromise of the democratic trends with the dominant systems between 1880 and 1890.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

And yet both countries also were becoming more authoritarian and more militaristic - despite these long-term "trends".

That is, until they bit off more than they could chew.

The thing about trends is that they can be reversed, starting another trend.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the history. The democratic was rebuffed by the authoritarian after its initial developments, and then later it rebuffed the authoritarian. Your claim was that the violence of war was solely and directly responsible for the very existence of democratic potential in those countries. That is absolutely incorrect. You countered with a further misinterpretation of history. Every element, every part, of everything that has power at any one time did not have it, and will eventually lose power. It constantly shifts, and no special national talent was in any way responsible.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

I am most certainly NOT claiming that West Germany/Japan would never have become democracies on their own. That would be a hypothetical.

I am claiming that they DID become democracies because the allies forced a surrender of the authoritarian regimes and then installed democracies. To claim otherwise is silly.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is attributing it to different causes all together. You've attempted to make a point, and then tried to move that point around when its shown as baseless. Those nations were progressing towards democracy because of the greater trend despite the temporary setbacks, and that did not somehow stop and become afterward numb to everything else that happened before. War doesn't cause democratic change by any stretch.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

War DID cause democratic change in both Germany and Japan. West Germany had an authoritarian government, which was forcibly removed and replaced with a democratic government. Ditto Japan. I can't believe that you are arguing such a simple and obvious fact.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying it again and again does not make your misinterpretations magically correct. Look again at what was happening. It was not the act of war itself or its resolution that caused the society to accept a democratic government. Conquerors can force any other form of government, but democratic forms require active support from the ruled society. That support did not come from defeat of those nations in war, but from the greater trends. How can I make this any clearer for you? You must dig deeper.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

You are speculating. You cannot know what would have happened in Germany or Japan without an allied victory.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

You acknowledged the progression earlier today and now you are trying to deny that?

In any case, my argument is that one can not force democracy on an unready populace and that calling the events in Germany and Japan an example of that causing benefit is misguided. The reason that war seemed to have any effect whatsoever is because of the circumstances of those countries. If those circumstances do not exist then nothing does it until they do. Look at how even France had to go through several republics and empires to reach its status. And for more recent examples, the continued prevalence of warlords in Afghanistan and Iraq - neither of those nations have experienced the necessary societal shifts to support a democratic government but have been subject to experimental attempts forcing democracy on them; with predictable results.

Think about what it takes to trust that a democratic government can do anything. Can control its police force, its army. Its civil servants. Without those trends then there is nothing there.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

I just think that you are over-simplifying the problem, and giving the platitude that "violence never solves any problems" too much credence.

Iraq probably shouldn't be a single country. The Kurds, Shiite, and Sunni don't particularly like each other, yet they were forced together artificially by the British... it's not exactly a surprise that they don't get along well. That said, Iraq is a very different country from Afghanistan - not least of all because it has an actual source of wealth besides heroin. I think that Iraq will actually become a stable democracy if the US does not back out prematurely and if it's neighbors can be persuaded to stop destabilizing the country... not exactly a sure thing.

Afghanistan is totally different. It never has been anything approaching a stable modern state. It has absolutely no resources at all - even the trees are pretty much gone. I think the irony in all of this is that ultimately we'll be in Afghanistan longer, and have less to show for it than in Iraq.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Platitude? So I am the one oversimplifying? You are repeating news sound bites. I am simplifying many things to speak with you here, but that is by your request since you are not a "histomatorian".

You are confusing unrelated matters in your last reply. Different groups can coexist inside of a democratic form of government, as long as the society is ready for it like Spain was with the 1978 constitution. Its fascists were overtaken by democratic forces through political processes because even though those authoritarians could force the government over the people for a while, the people had more trust in a democratic system.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

Yes, "war does not solve anything" is a platitude. It most certainly does solve things, though perhaps not always in the best or most desirable way.

What news bite am I repeating? That Iraq is made up of several disparate groups who don't really trust one another? It may be a sound bite, but it's also true. In isolation, any one of those groups would probably accept a democracy, albeit one without separation of church and state - but the Sunni and Kurds sure don't trust the Shiites to govern them.

We can shoot the shit and speculate all you want about what might work here and what might work there - and we can argue about the reasons democracy will or will not take hold in Iraq or Afghanistan. But to claim that war did not bring democracy to Germany or Japan is just plain wrong and flies in the face of reality. It may very well be true that democracy would have taken over in those places through peaceful means, but that doesn't change what actually happened.

Note that I'm not advocating war, simply pointing out that it has brought the desired outcome (to the victor) many times throughout history. I can't recall the last time I heard about an Indian (native American) attack occurring in the Americas - and that was a flat-out genocide. Arguing against war based on "it won't work because war never works" isn't a very strong position to take.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never said that war did nothing, I've said that it does not bring democratic forms of government forward. Why are you trying to invent a position that I've not taken? I am arguing that war can not bring democracy to a society that is unready and has no trusted mechanism on which it can operate-opposing your initial claim in case you've already forgotten. War is a useful tool for other purposes. I do not claim that it does not cause any results. That is purely your misinterpretation, again. Are you having trouble with this?

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

I've said that it does not bring democratic forms of government forward.

And I've said you are wrong, and I pointed out two examples. You dismissed them because you claim that they would have become democratic anyway.

Did I miss something? Is that an unfair characterization of your argument?

bring democracy to a society that is unready

This is the attitude that people had 100 years ago about the Philippines. Rather than give them their independence, the US decided that they needed to be "civilized" first and killed hundreds of thousands.

As if people love to be repressed, and need to be made "ready" to manage their own affairs.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have not explained why war was the crucial point rather than the background history. Germany and and Japan had the democratic foundations required to support that government; in Germany's case had already had it for a short time, and in Japan's case had begun the final march toward it before authoritarian influences overthrew it all. The end of the war was the end of the authoritarian forces that had circumvented the progress, but even the occupations would have failed if not for the democratic framework already present. The points on the divisive nature of Iraq and Afghanistan are not points against the requirement of that background as Spain was as divided but established a democratic government on its own-even though authoritarians won their war and had their time before it.

It is the background exposure, the incorporation of those ideas that is required and not bombs like you commented. The Phillipines is in fact another example supporting my argument. After removing its colonial overlords, it still had an authoritarian government until the basis for a democratic form was in place. Until the people overwhelmingly believed that it could work, and made it work.

Re:So, let's TALK to them!

[MightyYar]

You have not explained why war was the crucial point rather than the background history.

Because it was not "background history" which brought democracy. The most direct "cause" of democracy in Japan and Germany was war. You can speculate on what would have eventually happened without war, but it is just speculation. You can speculate about what might have happened if they "weren't ready" for democracy - but again, that is just speculation.

The points on the divisive nature of Iraq and Afghanistan are not points against the requirement of that background as Spain was as divided but established a democratic government on its own-even though authoritarians won their war and had their time before it.

Spain is and was surrounded by democracies. It's dictator decided to ally himself with the West during the cold war, which also added pressure toward democracy. Note that the constitution didn't get written until a few years after Franco's death. It's not like he was deposed by a sweeping democracy movement. I should also note that the Philippines has had more years of democracy in its history, despite being "forced" into it. Remember that the Philippines was a democracy pre-Marcos, and has been ever since Marcos. While Spain had some brief brushes with democracy, they collectively add up to only a few years until 1978 came along. This despite the Philippines being forced together as an "artificial" country, and then occupied by the Spanish... only to be "liberated" by the absolutely brutal US occupation - with a stint in Japanese occupation just for good measure.

There is some poetic justice in the fact that the Philippines has had a longer total period of representative government than their former colonial master.

(the math in case you care: 1949-1972 + 1986-2008 = 45 years vs. 1871-1872 + 1931-1936 + 1978-2008 = 36 years)

Freenet now

[synthespian]

It is time people start learning and using Freenet more.

Everywhere you look, politicos are pushing freedom-restricting legislation for the intertubes.

Re:Freenet now

[Turadg]

You think they don't block Freenet?

Re:Freenet now

[Anonymous Coward]

What someone needs to do is to:

1. Make a OpenWRT image for the WRT54GL with both freenet and tor up in running with a single flash. Also turn off the essid to make a poor attempt of hiding it (at least it's something)
2. Get a local to pickup a new router (available anywhere)
3. Flash router and change password. Also name change if desired
4. Take to work and bury it in a false ceiling never touching it again. You might want to wipe any prints off of it
5. Enjoy a few days or more of free speech
6. Repeat as needed. =)

Re:Freenet now

[Ilgaz]

I don't think blocking Freenet is possible. It is designed for that purpose in mind. In fact I suspect oppressing governments are possibly abusing it to look some kind of pervert thing to regular people.

Re:Freenet now

[77Punker]

Freenet is really pretty good these days; I first used it 5 or 6 years ago and I 've kept a close eye on it.

The biggest problem it seems to have now is that there's no good reading material!

Re:Freenet now

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever actually used Freenet, you know apart from just noticing how it sounds cool, like a "free net"? I can assure you it is a piece of shit. Tor http://torproject.org/ is much better. Not only can you access all the same websites as you usually do, but you can host dynamic websites http://eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion/ using the same software as the regular web. Except your identity is unknown. There is nothing stopping these Iranians from using Tor and a mainstream blogging website, or even hosting their own anonymous Iranian blog site. I know Freenet is /.s lovechild, but it sucks, get over it and start promoting Tor. The more people who relay the better.

Re:Freenet now

[jez9999]

It is time people start learning and using Freenet more.

Yes, cockroaches. Scuttle into your little holes in the mud and hope they don't find you. Don't rise up and take out those assholes...

Re:Freenet now

[shutdown -p now]

I would assume that, should people start using Freenet (or Tor) in Iran on a wide scale, its usage and possession will similraly be declared a capital crime just as well.

Ok, that's it

[SpacePunk]

We need to bomb those fuckers back into the stone age. Shouldn't take that long to move them from the mideavel(sp) age.

Re:Ok, that's it

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Yeah, killing thousands of people and destroying their country will help establish a peaceful democracy!

Re:Ok, that's it

[leomekenkamp]

That totally unbalanced, agressive, uninformed, degrading, unrealistic, hate mongering and genocidal remark just made you the person with the lowest ID on my 'foe' list.

Re:Ok, that's it

[SpacePunk]

Well then, looks like my life is complete. I can die happy now.

Re:Ok, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were going for Funny....

Re:Ok, that's it

[UziBeatle]

LighershadeofBlack spurted with ignorance aplenty:

Yeah, killing thousands of people and destroying their country will help establish a peaceful democracy!

  My response.

Jane, you ignorant slut. It worked in WWII and we killed millions between the Soviets and the other Allies.

Japan was gutted, Germany was totally trashed.

The only way to win a war is to totally destroy the enemy. All out war works if your not a coward and afraid
to wield the dogs of war to full effect.

  Is that the answer here? I can't say but I suspect, in the end, it will be.

Iran will force us to nuke that entire region into non existance because THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT.

ALl you need for proof is to listen to the leadership of that country that BELIEVES in the 'end times' and
are doing all they can to bring about a global war.

Once they get the nuke, they will use it. Period.

Unlike the weak minded folk of the West these days, they will not hesitate to kill all that are not of their faith.

  It is a shame more of us can't wake up to that fact and grow the balls of our forefathers and
do what has to be done.

  No, what we will do is wait until they hit us again with a nuke or three and then act. by then, it may be
too late.

  I'll prefer to die than live under a Muslim lead world. I'll die killing as many of them as I can before
I bow to their idea of how I should live my life.

  I'd rather reason with them but there comes a point you have to fight for what you believe is right.

  Again, go back and read history. If your not willing to wipe out the opposition >>> YOUR SIDE LOOSES.

  Idiots

Re:Ok, that's it

[SpacePunk]

Originally, I was going for dark political satire.

Re:Ok, that's it

[tomhudson]

Poster - when talking about Iran:

The only way to win a war is to totally destroy the enemy. All out war works if your not a coward and afraid to wield the dogs of war to full effect.

...

ALl you need for proof is to listen to the leadership of that country that BELIEVES in the 'end times' and are doing all they can to bring about a global war.

... sounds like you're referring to the religious fruitcake sitting in the White House.

I for one am sick and tired of Xian twats going on and on about the "end times." Tell you what - we'll ship you ALL to one spot, and you can kill each other to the glory of your individual gods.

What we REALLY need is a cure for religion.

Re:Ok, that's it

[harlows_monkeys]

It worked with Germany and Japan, didn't it?

Re:Ok, that's it

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

If you think World War 2 is at all relevant to the current tensions between Iran and the United States you're a fucking idiot.

But if you really insist on shoehorning World War 2 into this scenario you'll also note that it ended with the Cold War - 45 years of teetering on the brink of global catastrophe from the mutual hatred of two differing ideologies. We got away with it once, I don't think we will a second time.

Re:Ok, that's it

[Von Helmet]

The "end times" is very different to the "millenium", which is the real problem. The "end times" are any times after Christ's first coming and before his second coming and the end of the world.

Revelation 20 speaks of a Millenium in which Christ will reign on the earth. However, it is not abundantly clear whether this millenium will be before (pre-Millenialism) or after (post-Millenialism) the final judgement, and the destruction and re-creation of the world. The jury is also out on whether the whole thing is just figurative, which wouldn't be too much of a leap in the book of Revelation.

Pre-Millenialism brings in all sorts of ideas about things that will happen before Christ returns for this thousand years. Notable examples would be the re-emergence of the Roman Empire and the creation of the State of Israel. There's quite a few Americans are big on pre-Millenialism, and they have this idea that if they can bring about some of these forerunning events, then they can hasten the return of Christ. So, they decry Europe as the new Roman Empire, and are all for crushing Islam to allow the establishment of Israel. The whole thing flies in the face of Jesus saying that "no-one knows the day or the hour" when the end of the world will come, but they seem happy to ignore that.

Anyway. The point is, the end times and the rush to the Millenium are two different things; the former is fairly innocuous to the non-Christian, the latter much more apparent and unpleasant.

Re:Ok, that's it

[Von Helmet]

Also, the idea that we need a "cure" for religion is ridiculously offensive and backwards. What we need is a cure for intolerance and hatred, and the crimes that stem from there, which would include both religious unpleasantness and your dislike of religion.

Re:Ok, that's it

[tomhudson]

god is dead. Netcraft confirms it

"Intolerance and hatred" ... religious fuckwads keep claiming that things like homosexuality, which is common among mammals, can be "cured". Talk about not just intolerance, but outright ignorance.

Fortunately, religion CAN be cured - there are plenty of atheists who can attest to it. If you're offended, tough shit -you guys started all this nonsense. Look throughout history - where there's war, there's religion, either profiting from it, or instigating it in the first place.

Re:Ok, that's it

[atupiras]

Man, thank you. Absolutely thank you man. Finally someone who actually finally agrees with me on some of my thoughts. Don't let any of the other idiots on this forum try to change your mind. The truth is that most of the posters are people who would try to dodge a draft, absolute cowards, weak bodied nerds who probably sit next to a computer all day, and only has book smarts and lives in the ivory tower of intellectualism where they think that their reason or logic will persuade the crazy religious folks to listen. These extremists are lead by faith, not reason so they are irrational. A lot of these posters will never understand until al queda topples their ivory tower, burns their books, smashes through the front door, and unplugs their computers.

Re:Ok, that's it

[Von Helmet]

Fuckwads claim all kinds of things, religious or otherwise.

And no, religion can't be cured, because it's not a disease.

Re:Ok, that's it

[tomhudson]

And no, religion can't be cured, because it's not a disease.

It's a mental disease. It contains all the manifestations of a psychosis, or "loss of contact with reality." It's sufferers indeed have delusional beliefs, and we've all known people who suddenly comes down with a case of religion and show significant personality changes, as well as impairment in their getting along with others ("self-righteous prigs with broomsticks up their arses" is just one way of describing it).

It *can* be cured, and there are plenty of examples of atheists who used to be "true believers". The usual cure involves a healthy dose of cynicism, mixed with reality and disillusionment.

Re:Ok, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran should start with unplugging the computers, that would probably mobilize the lefties immediately ;)

What concerns me is the moderator modding that Troll. In such a situation I'd much rather the mod respond than simply mod troll because he disagrees that Islam is a militant religion and ignores Ahmadinejad's words to the west.

I just hope Obama doesn't get elected so that Israel has the time to decide on Iran.

Re:Ok, that's it

[UziBeatle]

  Yes, Joseph Stalin and his happy crew of Communists knew that religion was a mental disease and did not fail to act.

  Is that the path you want to go down?

I'm no religious nut and consider myself agnostic but I sure as hell respect the right of others to practice
their faith until it abridges me in some significant manner. Your path sir, is the one leading to mass graves and pyres to
toss the 'non 'believer' on that refuses to bow to the god of Atheism.

  What amazes me is how you fervent and frankly rabid athiests refuse to admit is your 'belief' is nothing more than the same
thing in mirror image.

  I'll toss further flames into the fire. Why is it western homosexuals and atheist crusaders who so deride those of Christian
faith do not take up the banner of rabid indignation against a far larger threat to their 'lifestyles, Islam.

  Your fools if you do not see the larger threat to your comfey little lives.

  We are all going to need rationality to rise to the front on all sides but at present I'm not seeing a lot of rationality around.

Watch your back, you may end up in one of the pyres. That day can come again.

Peace.

 

Re:Ok, that's it

[tomhudson]

Sheeh - read what I've written. I've never said that people can't practice their own religion in private ... just that they do NOT have the right to impose their beliefs on others. Abortion is a good example of that - xians are always going around sticking their nose in other people's business, but sure as hell don't like it when others disagree with THEIR beliefs, and their right to impose them on society at large.

Nobody's saying xians have to get an abortion - but a lot of them are hypocritical assholes who get one, and rationalize it ("This was an exception - god will forgive me.") while still throwing rocks at everyone else. Same thing with the closet gays in the fundies.

And yes, delusions and superstition (which is what we're talking about when we talk about religion) are curable by knowledge.

Homosexuality and lesbianism, on the other hand, don't need a "cure" - they're part and parcel of the normal human experience, same as they are for many other animals.

Irony?

[RabidMoose]

I'd like to point out the irony of this post being submitted by Anonymous reader

Re:Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Irany?

Sorry.

Pfffft stupid story

[coren2000]

Since anything is punishable by death in Iran.

On that note

[jessica89]

Oh good, they should do that here too with people who put up SPLOGS. Just kidding of course, I know this is a serious matter. Next time people bitch about Western democracies one should just point to Iran's politics...

Re:On that note

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good, they should do that here too with people who put up SPLOGS. Just kidding of course, I know this is a serious matter. Next time people bitch about Western democracies one should just point to Iran's politics...

For the love of freedom NO. Just because it's worse elsewhere on the planet, it is no reason to accept less for ourselves. It is just MORE reason to bitch about MORE governments and power groups.

When pointing to worse places becomes a reason to not complain about the deterioration of your country, you'll soon find yourself living in the same kind of place.

What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Iran, crimes such as apostasy (leaving a religion, in this case Islam)...

Because you know, there are so many non-islamic states that murder their population for leaving the state religion.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Because you know, there are so many non-islamic states that murder their population for leaving the state religion.

Apostasy has nothing to do with state religions. That line is simply explaining what apostasy means and then pointing out that it's specific to Islam in Iran in case anyone thought the crime would also apply to anyone promoting leaving Christianity or another religion too. Might seem unlikely but certainly not impossible that it could.

As for another belief system where apostasy can still have negative consequences, I'd suggest Scientology for a start.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your point?

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[orasio]

They kill robbers, and talk about killing apostates. Other countries kill murderers, and want to kill rapists. There is a difference, but it's not a fundamental difference. It's only a matter of being more moderate or more radical. The values that determine what is a crime and what should be punished by death is slowly changing.

A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period. A civilized country doesn't impose religion on their people, in an way.

Some countries are getting more civilized, for some others it's harder. Anyhow, history has taught us that war doesn't accelerate this process, and some times it makes it go backwards.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Tim C]

"Apostasy" is an ordinary English word (definition); it's useful to point out which is the religion in question in this specific situation.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

"They kill robbers, and talk about killing apostates. Other countries kill murderers, and want to kill rapists. There is a difference, but it's not a fundamental difference."

What an asshole.
Of COURSE there's a fundamental difference, you retarded Marxist wanker.

Rape is real physical violence against somebody.

Apostasy is saying "Islam is a pile of shit, the 'prophet' of Islam was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, and a paedophile".

What do you have to say about that, 'comrade'?

www.prophetofdoom.net

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we humanely silence people with life imprisonment, or make an example of them with financial ruin. They silence and make example of people with death.
 
And we don't do it over silly things like worshiping the wrong invisible man, we do it in the case of important things like sharing music with friends; producing inexpensive medications that can't be patented, unfairly competing against our wonderful pharmaceutical companies that give us so many cures; parents that have the audacity to think they can educate their children better than the state; or going to a hospital without insurance.
 
These are the much more serious issues they could be focusing on, and compassionate sentencing really leaves the government looking much better.
 
William Lynch may have had some ideas about control that were effective for strong body, weak mind. But with so many great desk jobs out there these days, it is so much easier to get rid of both and tax them to death. Slavery fails because that puts the burden of food and housing onto the employer. Today, poor people only have themselves to blame. They could really learn from us. [Christian God] Bless America!

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some countries are getting more civilized, for some others it's harder. Anyhow, history has taught us that war doesn't accelerate this process, and some times it makes it go backwards.

Oh? Being defeated in World War II didn't improve the behavior of countries like Germany and Japan? And the Revolutionary War didn't accelerate the end of King George III's rule of the Colonies?

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Jurily]

In every society, there are people who shouldn't be let back into the public. Seriously, would you rather see this guy live?

With life imprisonment, there's the issue of escape, and that of feeding him from your taxes.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Nathrael]

Apostasy is saying "Islam is a pile of shit, the 'prophet' of Islam was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, and a paedophile".

Actually, for his time, Muhammad was very progressive, and far from being that what you claim him to be. And no, I'm not a Muslim, I'm Atheist.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Nathrael]

A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period. A civilized country doesn't impose religion on their people, in an way.

I disagree with you here. Do you really think that torture murderers deserve to life, after all they have done to their victims, just to call an example? Sure, it might be a worse punishment to lock somebody up for the rest of his life in a small cell, but it's much more expensive, and do you think your tax money should be spent to keep some mentally insane murderers alive? Shouldn't that money better be spent on something else? The only argument against the Death Penalty I've heard and really find that it has a point is that innocents might be killed.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[halivar]

So in other words, you never paid dues to Jim Jones, but he still lets you drink the Kool-Aid?

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[budgenator]

Apostasy has nothing to do with state religions. That line is simply explaining what apostasy means and then pointing out that it's specific to Islam in Iran in case anyone thought the crime would also apply to anyone promoting leaving Christianity or another religion too. Might seem unlikely but certainly not impossible that it could.

My understanding is in Indonesia a Muslim country you need the government's permission to change religions or you could be charged with Apostasy even if you changed from Christian to Islam.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[xtracto]

Hahaha... parent talked like a true red neck... GP really hurt you didn't he?

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[ChromeAeonium]

A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.

Riddle me this: Does a civilized country allow harm to come to their citizens through inaction? I wonder how many killers, people that we are 100% certain are murderers, leach tax payer dollars in prisons, while others can only afford the most basic of health care? It seems to me a civilized society would know who's care should come first. (Hint: It's not the homicidal danger to society.)

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're muddying the waters. First, you automatically commit apostasy when you leave Islam. Second, I made the OP in the context of state religion.

I'd say apostasy has everything to do with state religions, especially when the state punishment for apostasy is death.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[rossz]

Try reading a copy of the koran that hasn't been whitewashed for western consumption. By their own words, he was a murder, rapist, and pedophile. One of his wives (by force) was 8 years old when the marriage was consummated.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[khallow]

To the blind, all colors look alike.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Raenex]

A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.

What's the point of locking up somebody for life who enjoys torturing and killing people?

Your equation of killing somebody who changes their religion with murderers and rapists is laughable. "no fundamental difference" my ass. I don't think you're in any position to be giving people lectures over morality.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the twisted right-wing ultra-militant idiot's version you've got there.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[orasio]

Come on, just because you don't know how to deal with them it doesn't mean it's OK that you kill them. Really flawed logic. Incompetence doesn't make human rights disappear.

What I mean exactly is that we are talking about crimes that are understood to be dangerous to the societies where they happen. We are also talking about unusually harsh punishments. I was trying to point out that killing someone is always wrong, even if it's performed by the government, and that it is never OK.

What I mean adding rapists to the list is that some western people don't just talk about killing murderers, like an eye for an eye thing, they want to kill individuals perceived as big threats to society, trying to protect society from their harm.

About apostasy, for a non secular state, it could be perceived as a very dangerous crime, because it might go against the foundation of the nation itself. Lots of western countries encourage you to be a believer, even take oaths on bibles and stuff, religion is not neutral for most governments. Killing people for apostasy _is_ extreme, but I don't think it's fundamentally different from others, specially if we look at history, some of centuries back.
Robbery is unusual for that kind of punishment, but again, it's not the first time or place it's punished by death.

What I mean is that the real qualitative difference in principle starts when the government declares killing as bad with no exceptions, and stops killing people, period.
Everything else is light or (very) dark shades of accepting institutionalized murder.

About Iran, in _my_ particular opinion, all nations should be secular, and respect people's rights, but if we respect self-determination principles or at least history, we should understand that it's better not to mess with them, both better in principle, and in practice.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Kagura]

Why are you atheist and KNOW there is no God due to some incredible evidence only you have, instead of proclaim agnosticism and be ambivalent due simply to lack of evidence? Actual atheism appears almost paradoxically to involve just as hard of a belief as any major religion, such as Christianity or Islam. I simply don't understand how somebody would choose atheism over agnosticism.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Nathrael]

This is offtopic now, although of course I see your point. I just go a little step further from "strong" Agnosticism ("There is no evidence that god does exist, therefore it is foolish to pray to him") to Atheism ("God does not exist") - it's exactly that lack of evidence that I feel speaks against the existence of any god. I believe that there is no such thing as supernatural beings or forces because there is no evidence speaking for it's existence, but many aspects of spirituality/mysticism/etc have been proved to be wrong, and I see no difference between the concept of "God" and, say, astrology.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.

I say "that's ridiculous!" And so now both of our arguments now have equal evidential support.

But let me go one better, why would you argue it is "more civilized" to keep someone bound without freedom for the remainder of their lives? Trapped in a cage as long as they live, for example, versus the far more humane release from their burdens in this life?

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, for his time, Muhammad was very progressive, and far from being that what you claim him to be. And no, I'm not a Muslim, I'm Atheist."

This is just TOO funny.

I take it you didn't readprophetofdoom.net

and that you can't face reality. Go to
jihadwatch.org

or just try using Google a bit - you'll find out the truth about Islam. The truth is - it is a sick, evil cult, founded by a mass murderer, multiple rapist, sex crazed paedophile. And the WORST thing is that muslims haven't seen fit to hide this truth for 1400 years - because THEY think it's okay!

We all know what taqiyya is...

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Raenex]

Come on, just because you don't know how to deal with them it doesn't mean it's OK that you kill them. Really flawed logic. Incompetence doesn't make human rights disappear.

Justice, by it's very nature, requires a violation of human rights in response to violation of human rights. Whether you lock somebody up in prison for the rest of their life or kill them, you're violating their human rights. Going by your argument, there's "no fundamental difference". Just need to squint our eyes enough, eh?

I was trying to point out that killing someone is always wrong, even if it's performed by the government, and that it is never OK.

Which is the lecture on morality. I and many others vehemently disagree on this position.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Nathrael]

What I find that is too funny is that you rely on some obscure anti-islam-webpages for your informations. While there is certainly no love lost between me and any religion, calling Islam a "sick, evil cult" is exactly as wrong as calling Christianity or Evangelism such.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[shutdown -p now]

Some countries are getting more civilized, for some others it's harder. Anyhow, history has taught us that war doesn't accelerate this process, and some times it makes it go backwards.

What about Japan?

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[ultranova]

Riddle me this: Does a civilized country allow harm to come to their citizens through inaction? I wonder how many killers, people that we are 100% certain are murderers, leach tax payer dollars in prisons, while others can only afford the most basic of health care? It seems to me a civilized society would know who's care should come first. (Hint: It's not the homicidal danger to society.)

If people can't afford healthcare, the most likely reason is that the society in question has succumbed to free-market fundamentalism and consequently doesn't have socialized healthcare. I know of no society where feeding the prison population takes a large enough percentage of GNP to affect healthcare one way or another. In the hypothetical situation where it does, perhaps you should look into reducing prison population by being less eager to imprison people for non-violent offences - such as drug use - rather than killing them.

So no, a civilized country doesn't allow harm to come to its citizens through inaction (within reason), nor does it actively kill its citizens to save money. The latter is even worse than the first as far as barbarism goes.

Re:What a politcally correct headline...

[Reservoir Penguin]

Is this a trick question? Because in most of the civilized world the answer is YES. The answer is forgiveness and rehabilitation not anger and revenge.

NOT Irony

[mangu]

I'd like to point out the irony of this post being submitted by Anonymous reader

More appropriate terms for describing this would be "survival instinct" or "darwinism". It's certainly not "irony".

for gosh sakes, please, don't be so darn smug

[Anonymous Coward]

lol ... as if there's no sacred subjects in our so-called free, western world. Sure, go ahead, just blog about corporate crime, drug legalization or enviromental and social injustice and then you'd better run like hell.

Re:Iraq/Iran

[DrSkwid]

Freedom through death.

"Do unto others as you have them do unto you." - some beardy guy

Makes sense

[bobwrit]

This makes sense when you concider the iranian government. You're trying to force a single religion on everybody and in order to do that you have to make the citizens blind to the other religion.

Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[antifoidulus]

the tyrant Ahmadinejad stay in power. It seems that there are a lot of people in iran(esp. young people who make up a pretty significant portion of the population) who really dislike his domestic policies but support him because they see him as the only one strong enough to keep Bush and Co. in check. Yet another dictator that has been HELPED by Bush's war to avenge daddy.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[thermian]

Dictators usually use the technique of identifying a terrible enemy that only their regime can save country x from.

Not only dictatorships actually, but generally its what dictators do.

The fact is that if Iran stopped saying things like they want Israel to be wiped off the earth, and threatening the west, the problem almost certainly would go away. That's not going to help the regime stay in power though, so they won't want that.

Note that if they really wanted a way to end the tension, Ahmadinejad could have gone another way then declaring that the holocaust was a lie in a worldwide broadcast speech. They want this tension, it serves them well.

They almost certainly realise that the US is extremely wary of invading them, so they know that this technique may serve them for generations to come. The exact same method worked in North Korea. Sure the country's fucked, but the ruling faction are seriously rich, and quite powerful locally.

Unless of course some trigger happy nation or president decides its time to end the argument with a few large nukes. I *really* hope that doesn't happen, because the result may well be bad for the entire worlds population, but sooner or later some jerks going to think its the only way out. Then the question will be who is able to hold said jerk in check.

What worries me is that if the Islamic states continue down this fundamentalist route, they are going to cripple their countries economically as well as scientifically. Given that they were the originators of most of our mathematics and astronomy, that's a tragedy of epic proportions.

As it stands there hasn't been any meaningful scientific research from a middle east nation for decades. Thats bad news for them in so many ways.

Mankind will never advance to the stars if we have two civilisations on the planet. One technologically advanced, and the other technologically illiterate, with each hating the other. That is an untenable situation.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[zxnos]

"they are going to cripple their countries economically" yeah, cause that part of the world currently has strong economies with high employment. "As it stands there hasn't been any meaningful scientific research from a middle east nation for decades." i thought they cured aids... http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/02/iran_cures_aids.html ...come on man!

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that if Iran stopped saying things like they want Israel to be wiped off the earth

Ahmadinejad never said that. Turn off Fox News and go do some research.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown through and through.

Go learn the Islamic concepts of dar al-Harb and dar al-Islam, and then you'll realize Ahmadinejad said EXACTLY that, and he MEANT it, too.

Or maybe you can find a school textbook from an Islamic country that shows Israel on any map?

Go ahead - try. I dare you.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, that brown stuff should get out by your other hole ya know... Have your head examined.

Anyway, I wished Iran had the bomb now. That would prevent the crazies from starting another stupid and pointless war.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Anonymous Coward]

Dictators usually use the technique of identifying a terrible enemy that only their regime can save country x from.

Not only dictatorships actually, but generally its what dictators do.

It's certainly what Bush-Cheney has been doing.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that they were the originators of most of our mathematics and astronomy, that's a tragedy of epic proportions.

Were they? I'd heard some say they nicked it off those that came before them. A few groups claim to have originated mathematics and astronomy.

Even then, the group we see before us is not such a group. Even if past and quite different Muslims may have promoted science, they are not the people we see now.

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Anonymous Coward]

Mankind will never advance to the stars if we have two civilisations on the planet. One technologically advanced, and the other technologically illiterate, with each hating the other. That is an untenable situation.

Why? Let's call the one Eloy and the others Morlocks and see how it works out...

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[Troed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Defense_of_Ahmadinejad_by_Canadian_Professor_Shiraz_Dossa

Re:Too bad Bush's war against "tyranny" is helping

[mjwx]

Iran stopped saying things like they want Israel to be wiped off the earth,

I insist on being factually accurate, In that speach, Ahmadinejad did not use the Farsi word for Israel (Israel, oddly enough), map (or earth or other equivalent) or wipe (or subsitutes like destroy, annihilate, etc..) the direct translation from Farsi to English is "the Zionist Regime this too will pass" which sounds considerably less threatening than "wipe off the map" which is gross mistranslation perpetrated by western (mostly US) media.

If given the chance I would not replace Ahmadinejad for two reasons, first it's better to have the devil you know and secondly, he is an extreme liberal in the Iranian government (which is extremist right), and is quiet unpopular with the ruling council (I forget the name but its a council of religious leaders outside the democratic system in Iran). Pretty much the only reason they haven't tried to replace him (they cant remove the president but they do dictate who can run for president) is that he is popular with the youth (which is at a higher proportion to the rest of the population due to the Iran/Iraq war killing off the generation that would be in their 40's by now) and he does what he is told.

Re:Iraq/Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't belong there either, you must use something better than The Ten Commandments for historical information.

Bloggers

[oldhack]

Death is too good for them.

Different worlds, same bill, the "induce" act!

[plasmacutter]

The inducing and inciting apostacy act, or IIAA, will set a new precedent in Iranian law of contributory liability.

Blame ..

[slack_prad]

Blame US for the state Iran is in now...The nation was a rising democracy back in the 1950s.

The irony...

Re:Blame ..

[CRCulver]

It's worth blaming the mullahs just as much. The revolution against the Shah was very much a popular one that would have resulted in true democracy, had it not be taken over by Khomeini, just as the February Revolution in Russia was twisted by Lenin into the October Revolution.

Re:Blame ..

[Anonymous Coward]

From your link:

The idea of overthrowing Mosaddeq was conceived by the British who asked U.S. President Harry S. Truman for assistance but he refused.[14] The British raised the idea again to Dwight D. Eisenhower who became president in 1953. The new administration agreed to participate in overthrowing the elected government of Iran.[15]

Seems like the US isn't the only one to blame considering Britain wanted BP back in charge of Iranian oil. There's plenty enough blame for everyone.

Re:Blame ..

[Brett Buck]

Bullshit. Blame the people doing it.

          Brett

Re:Blame ..

[msuarezalvarez]

The CIA, you mean?

Re:Blame ..

[Brett Buck]

The CIA is murdering people for leaving Islam? Cites, please....

    Why is it that we are so willing to jump down the throats of Christians in power (or essentially any other religion), even though they are largely benign, but so willing to excuse any level of butchery, depravity, or despotism when it comes to fudamentalist Islam?

        Brett

Re:Blame ..

[slack_prad]

The acts of CIA(here) had nothing to do with religion. Your argument is void.

Re:Blame ..

[ultranova]

The CIA is murdering people for leaving Islam? Cites, please....

The CIA helped destroy democracy and put a tyrant into power. Who gets murdered by said tyrant or another tyrant who succeeded him and why is details and not very relevant..

Why is it that we are so willing to jump down the throats of Christians in power (or essentially any other religion), even though they are largely benign, but so willing to excuse any level of butchery, depravity, or despotism when it comes to fudamentalist Islam?

Christians are unlikely to kill you for criticizing their religion, while Muslims will likely put a price on your head. It is a religion of love, peace, and killing all infidels.

Considering they would execute me..

[BlueParrot]

..simply because I've had a boyfriend, I don't think this is particularily surprising. It is a supressive theocracy. Like other theocracies it has no qualms with torturing and even killing innocent people in order to silence criticism. This is common in dictatorships religious or not. The fundamental problem is the dictatorial rule and the regime's complete lack of limits in terms of what lengths it will go to in order to protect its own survival. Soviet was the same. Zimbabwe is the same. The only difference is what excuse these regimes use to justify their crimes. In soviet it was political ideology. In Iran it is religion. In Zimbabwe it is skin colour. What they have in common is that they kill and torture people in order to make the public afraid of organising opposition, their official reasons (religion,economics,race,culture) for doing so have little to do with their actual objectives. It's all about supressing dissidents, all other reasons is smoke and mirrors trying to obscure the true nature of the regime.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[mckorr]

In soviet it was political ideology. In Iran it is religion. In Zimbabwe it is skin colour.

And in the US it's "terrorism".

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[77Punker]

Don't forget about moral values.

"Can't have fags and pot smoking hippies ruining our country for all us real Americans, can we?"

"Join the military; it's the greatest service you can possibly do for you country."

Independence day and the focus on the military gets me a little riled up. I have a (college educated) friend who works full time for Americorps building houses for poor people. He gets paid $600 a month for hard full-time work when he could be making 10x that much at a "real" job. He makes a difference at home instead of projecting hard power abroad against the will of the people. How's that for serving your country?

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

The only difference is what excuse these regimes use to justify their crimes. In soviet it was political ideology. In Iran it is religion. In Zimbabwe it is skin colour.

What makes you think they're excuses? In the case of Islamic fundamentalists there are no excuses, they sincerely believe they're doing God's work. You may not agree with them but that doesn't change their beliefs.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[halivar]

Damn straight. We need to stop executing or imprisoning gay people, or we'll totally be hypocrites.

</sarcasm>

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[swb]

Independence day and the focus on the military gets me a little riled up.

Maybe you should pull your head from your ass and realize we wouldn't have Independence day if it wasn't for military force. Building houses for poor people wouldn't have chased Cornwallis back across the Atlantic, but raising an army and killing British soldiers sure did.

And if your dipshit friend really can make $6000 a month, he should apply his talents where they're needed and donate the difference to his favorite charity. He is economically underutilized, which actually generates less overall wealth than the work he does now, regardless of its perceived moral quality. In the long run he will be far more valuable economically and thus morally working for that $6k a month and giving it away.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[khallow]

It just means that they might believe their excuses.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's skin colour in Zimbabwe - most people are black, and most of them suffer in some way at the hands of Mugabe. I think the problem is very complex, but is fuelled by years of inequalities, extremes of poverty and wealth, and hugely undereducated population.

Imagine if you will a country which although independent of colonial rule, still has 90% plus of the land, owned by less than 5% of the population - and most of these being white and of european origin.

Of course the white minority land owners were also skilled businessman and farmers, and came by their property by what would in the US and Western Europe, be seen as legitimate means (ie. they bought it or Daddy left it to them).

Mugabe dispossed them, but put nothing in it's place - hence a country with some of the best farmland in Africa, being farmed by people who don't know a cow from a rabbit or an ear of corn form a dandelion. Net result is total chaos, hyperinflation and a life expectancy of around 35 years old. The Iraqis have it good in comparison.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

They're not excuses.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[khallow]

Oh? Islam was designed from the begining, like many other religions, to squash competiting belief systems. Why should a religion have rules on idolatry, treatment of unbelievers, etc, in fact, why have rules at all, unless your intent is to propagate and enforce a certain pattern of beliefs and behavior? It doesn't matter that these people believe or not. What matters is that you can be executed for an innocuous website based on a decision by a government official. These rules are the excuse, the justification for horrid crimes.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

These rules are the excuse, the justification for horrid crimes.

No, the rules are simply the rules and these people enforce them because they believe in them. Why project a secular Western mindset on people who don't have one and assume that their religiousness is just smoke and mirrors?

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[khallow]

Because they are human and behave like humans. That's why I "project" what you term a "secular Western mindset". Seems to me that there's greater error in assuming that somehow they are greatly different because of minor differences in beliefs, customs, and circumstances.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

Because they are human and behave like humans.

Ah, so now there's only one possible way for people to behave (as defined by you)?

Seems to me that there's greater error in assuming that somehow they are greatly different because of minor differences in beliefs, customs, and circumstances.

Minor? Try "polar opposite."

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[khallow]

When was the last time humans even in a small group behaved one "way"? And I don't consider Middle East culture very different from Western culture. They still have families, two sexes, communicate via speech and writing, need meaning in their lives and deaths, suffer illness, etc. I see no real difference in motivation or behavior. Going way back to the original poster's assertion, he was claiming that dictators were pretty much the same whether they were religious or not. I agree with that. The key problem for a dictator is how to stay in power. That warps everything else including beliefs. The rationalizations for why a dictator should stay in power (assuming there is one) can change, but the means and rewards for staying in power do not.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

And I don't consider Middle East culture very different from Western culture.

Hohohohohoohh. Hahahahahahahhahah. You have got to be shitting me.

They still have families, two sexes, communicate via speech and writing, need meaning in their lives and deaths, suffer illness, etc. I see no real difference in motivation or behavior.

Yep, because that's exactly all there is to human behavior and culture. Aztec civilization was exactly like ours, too!

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[khallow]

Hohohohohoohh. Hahahahahahahhahah. You have got to be shitting me.

Well, come up with something other than "they have beliefs".

Yep, because that's exactly all there is to human behavior and culture. Aztec civilization was exactly like ours, too!

I didn't say that. Technology and social infrastructure has advanced considerably since those days. But you can still understand how someone of those times would act and behave even if you are repulsed by the mass ritual sacrifice of that culture. In particular, the motivations of the leadership are quite transparent. A king of those times would understand quite well some of the more barbaric dictators of our times.

The Middle East and Western cultures are far more similar than you give credence. For example, the idea of a university comes out of the Greek academies. But it passed through the Islamic (and Byzantine) worlds before Europe again started making universities. The two oldest degree-granting universities (according to wikipedia) that are still active are both Islamic and created before 1000 AD. The oldest lore of the Western world, the Greek and Roman philosophers, scientists, poets, and playwrights, as I understand it, all survived due to Muslim libraries. There's a long history of trade and exchange of ideas between the Islamic and Christian worlds dating back to the foundation of Islam. At one time, Muslim scholars were at the forefront of science and mathematics to the extent that many scientific terms come from Arabic, such as algebra, zero, algorithm, star names like Fomalhaut. I guess my point here is that these two cultures actually share a lot and have a long common history.

And frankly the belief systems of Christianity and Islam are not that different. They both borrow heavily from Judaism to the point that they technically worship the same god. Islam tends to be more militant and rule-burdened. As I see it, the key difference between the two religions is that Islam had its centers of culture shattered by the invasion of the Mongolians in the 13th century. The only major nation to survive was Egypt. Ever since, that part of the world has heavily lagged Europe in its pace of development. It still was ahead in technology at first, but the heart had been cut out. My take is that if the roles had been reversed, the end result would have been much the same.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

I didn't say that. Technology and social infrastructure has advanced considerably since those days.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I was referring to.

The Middle East and Western cultures are far more similar than you give credence. For example, the idea of a university comes out of the Greek academies. But it passed through the Islamic (and Byzantine) worlds before Europe again started making universities. The two oldest degree-granting universities (according to wikipedia) that are still active are both Islamic and created before 1000 AD. The oldest lore of the Western world, the Greek and Roman philosophers, scientists, poets, and playwrights, as I understand it, all survived due to Muslim libraries.

This is Pro-Islam Historical Revisionism 101 that's been refuted to death. No wonder you're so clueless.

At one time, Muslim scholars were at the forefront of science and mathematics to the extent that many scientific terms come from Arabic, such as algebra, zero, algorithm, star names like Fomalhaut. I guess my point here is that these two cultures actually share a lot and have a long common history.

Ugh. Please stop.

And frankly the belief systems of Christianity and Islam are not that different. They both borrow heavily from Judaism to the point that they technically worship the same god.

Except... they don't. They have entirely different deities.

As I see it, the key difference between the two religions is that Islam had its centers of culture shattered by the invasion of the Mongolians in the 13th century.

No, they key difference is that our beliefs are polar opposites. Have you ever actually looked at what kind of places Islamic countries and societies are?

The only major nation to survive was Egypt. Ever since, that part of the world has heavily lagged Europe in its pace of development. It still was ahead in technology at first, but the heart had been cut out. My take is that if the roles had been reversed, the end result would have been much the same.

Yes, how convinient. It was someone else's fault. Nothing to do with the fact that Islam is inherently broken and backwards and will result in broken, backwards societies.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[khallow]

No, they key difference is that our beliefs are polar opposites. Have you ever actually looked at what kind of places Islamic countries and societies are?

Yes.

Re:Considering they would execute me..

[abstract daddy]

Great. This case is closed, then.

Time for another revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could certainly do better.

Apostasy?

[madenglishbloke]

So what would happen if, say, a Christian were to convert to Islam - would the death penalty apply there?

Re:Apostasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

of course not. what a stupid question.

Re:Apostasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what would happen if, say, a Christian were to convert to Islam - would the death penalty apply there?

You wouldn't be an Iranian Citizen and a Christian for very long

Re:Apostasy?

[menace3society]

No, Islamic law as practiced in Iran only forbids non-coerced apostasy from people (and, I think, only from men) who have asserted faith in Islam as adults. There may be lesser penalties for causing a child to convert, but given that execution is punishment demanded by the holy texts for Muslims, the law in Iran is rather lenient compared to those on adultery and lasciviousness.

Re:Apostasy?

[thermian]

Shariah is the only laws that hasn't changed since the time of Prophet Adam (peace and blessings be upon him and his family).

Unfortunately, the world those laws are applied in has changed. They are in desperate need of an update.

Re:Apostasy?

[coren2000]

Shariah is the only laws that hasn't changed since the time of Prophet Adam

Thats a bold claim, care to share some scientific proof?

Re:Apostasy?

[belal1]

There is no rocket science involved in understanding whether something has changed or not. You for example look at the the earliest text from which religious laws has come (the Taurat/Torah) and compared it to how similar it is to the next big text: The Injeel/Bible. Some things have changed but many central messages are about the same. Next compare them to the Qur'an and see how much of the laws have changed. You'll notice all three books have about the same laws, same stories, etc. Now, lets test the books on a individual level. You can pick up a bible now and compare it to the thousands other available, and each and every one is different in one way or another. If you were to take a bible from now, and compare that to a bible from say 1400 years ago, even that bible will be different altogether. Similarly, you can try that with a copy of the torah and have the same problem. It is only the Qur'an which hasn't changed at all. The same words that were uttered 1400 years ago are the same words being uttered today. Why? because God himself says in the quran:

'InnÄ NaÄ¥nu NazzalnÄ Adh-Dhikra Wa 'InnÄ Lahu LaÄ¥ÄfižÅna 015.009 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). Read the rest: http://transliteration.org/quran/WebSite_CD/MixYuwsuf/015.asp

As to the question of not changing since the time of Prophet Adam (peace and blessing be upon him and his family), it is from the hadiths that we know the quran's message has not changed since the time of prophet Adam.

Also, you can contemplate on the following:

Wa QÄla Al-LadhÄna 'AshrakÅ Law ShÄ'a AllÄhu MÄ `AbadnÄ Min DÅnihi Min Shay'in NaÄ¥nu Wa LÄ 'ÄbÄ'uunÄ Wa LÄ ÄarramnÄ Min DÅnihi Min Shay'in KadhÄlika Fa`ala Al-LadhÄna Min Qablihim Fahal `Alà Ar-Rusuli 'IllÄ Al-BalÄghu Al-MubÄnu

016.035 The worshippers of false gods say: "If God had so willed, we should not have worshipped aught but Him - neither we nor our fathers,- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other than His." So did those who went before them. But what is the mission of apostles but to preach the Clear Message?

Wa Laqad Ba`athnÄ FÄ Kulli 'Ummatin RasÅlÄan 'Ani Au`budÅ AllÄha Wa AjtanibÅ AÅ£-ÅÄghÅta Faminhum Man Hadà AllÄhu Wa Minhum Man Äaqqat `Alayhi AÄ'-ÄalÄlatu FasÄrÅ FÄ Al-'ArÄ'i FÄnžurÅ Kayfa KÄna `Äqibatu Al-MukadhdhibÄna

016.036 For We assuredly sent amongst every People an apostle, (with the Command), "Serve God, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom God guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth).

Regarding the Taurat:

Wa LÄaÄ¥kum 'Ahlu Al-'InjÄli BimÄ 'Anzala AllÄhu FÄhi Wa Man Lam YaÄ¥kum BimÄ 'Anzala AllÄhu Fa'ÅlÄ'ika Humu Al-FÄsiqÅna

005.047 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Wa 'AnzalnÄ 'Ilayka Al-KitÄba Bil-Äaqqi MuÅYaddiqÄan LimÄ Bayna Yadayhi Mina Al-KitÄbi Wa MuhayminÄan `Alayhi FÄÄ¥kum Baynahum BimÄ 'Anzala AllÄhu Wa LÄ Tattabi` 'AhwÄ'ahum `AmmÄ JÄ'aka Mina Al-Äaqqi Likullin Ja`alnÄ Minkum Shir`atan Wa MinhÄjÄan Wa Law ShÄ'a AllÄhu Laja`alakum 'Ummatan WÄÄ¥idatan Wa Lakin Liyabluwakum FÄ MÄ 'ÄtÄkum FÄstabiqÅ Al-KhayrÄti 'Ilà All

Re:Apostasy?

[invalid_user]

There are parts in Sharia laws which contradict each other and implies that changes in ideology changed through time. Even if we assume hypothetically that the laws have not changed, or changed very little, this can also be due to a lot of things. Off-hand I can think of a few:

(1) It has not been in use for a long time.
(2) It is upheld by a people living under the fear that changing the laws would bring undesirable circumstances, whether by the State or by a fictional divine being.

Of course, it could also be due to that
(3) It works so well that nobody tries to change it.
(4) It comes from God.

But considering the nature of the Mohammedian rule, it appears that (1) and (2) would be the more likely explanations. (Of course, a good historian can probably give you a few more human factors which might explain it.)

Re:Apostasy?

[coren2000]

I didn't ask you to describe why your *faith* thinks that it's laws haven't changed nor did I ask why you think your *faith* is better than mine.

I asked you for scientific proof to back up your statement that you have a bunch of statements (these laws) that haven't changed since Adam. It occurs to me that Adam (if he existed) is a lot older than 1400years.

If you want to make faith arguments, take it to a faith site... News for Nerds concerns itself with science.

Re:Apostasy?

[mebrahim]

Fortunately the laws who rule the world those laws (Shariah) are applied in has NOT changed. Hence there may exist some Shariah which doesn't need any update.

"Died in a blogging accident"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the Iranian wants you think happened.

Re:Iraq/Iran

[glitch23]

I hate Bush and I hate the Iraq war and as un-PC as this sounds (and it will surely enrage slashdot users here)- I hope Israel bombs them into the stone age.

It's okay to be un-PC. It's good for the soul. :) Enraging slashdot users just encourages improper modding but sometimes it is required. I'm not much of a supporter of Bush anymore and the war needs some direction but I do agree Iran needs bombed but I'm torn with that decision to actually do so because it will be a Bad Thing(tm). See my post here I just submitted for my take on the "bombing" idea.

Atheists on the chopping block too

[Anonymous Coward]

The current government of Iran is f*cking sad BUT should not be confused with the people of Iran. Good, decent people; very bad government. No irony that I'm posting from the USA.

Why is it that the people that don't hear the voices are called wrong? What's the difference between God and Zolabor? The guy preaching about God has a nice building and a nice paycheck and the other is on a street corner. Both are in need of "meds." I say they're both free to be wrong and no one should stop them. Just don't hunt me for sport. Either in Iran or Alabama.
 

I wonder if suicide is legal in that country?

[utahraptor]

In america we sometimes have suicide by cops, but I wonder how suicide by blog would work out?

Muslims

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything they *don't* hate?

Re:Muslims

[coren2000]

some of them are really into cartoons, some not so much.

It's getting tough out there

[a.ameri]

The new bill proposes death penalty for "disturbing the nation's psychological security", a broad, catch-all phrase that also specifically includes "establishing websites and blogs distributing un-islamic and indecent material" (i.e., porn, or anything that can be tagged 'un-islamic').

The bill already has 180 signatures on it (including that of the Speaker of the House), and with the current parliament's setup, is guaranteed to pass. Even the minority so-called 'reformists' are likely to vote for it considering the consequences of not doing so.

Fact: Already, Iran has the second highest rates of capital punishment after China, and by far the highest rate of capital punishment per capita in the world.

Fact: The Islamic regime still executes children (i.e., those under 18). At times, it waits until they are 18 before carrying out the execution, at times (like last month) it even doesn't follow that.

Fact: After years of pressure, the Islamic regime still carries out capital punishment by the mediaeval and inhumane way of stoning the condemned, for certain crimes such as adultery.

Fact: Ethnic minorities (Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs) are heavily discriminated against in Iran. They absolutely have zero representation in the government, even in the local governments of the provinces where they form the majority of the population.

Fact: Iran, despite artificial appearances, is NOT a representative democracy. All candidates for all elections are vetted by a 12-member Council of Guardians, which defeats the purpose of an election. That is how the regime has kept power in its grips for the past 3 decades.

The international community (including the ineffective and outdated Security Council) which claim to have adopted the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect in 2005, need to define the criteria that would trigger a response from the international community. Does this doctrine only apply to cases where hundreds of thousands of people die? (i.e, Darfur? even in that case the international community is only grudgingly and hesitantly acting). Isn't jailing, torturing and killing of hundreds of journalists, labour union leaders, students, ethnic minorities, EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, enough to trigger a response? (I am not in favour of bombing ANY country, as that will not solve any problem, but surely something has to be done, no?)

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic quasi-communist authoritarian rule of a select few with military and economic might and power, over the a population of 70 million which have been suffering with no respite. We need to put aside our 16th century nation states ideas and stop turning a blind eye to such cases of cruel injustice. It is the duty of each and every single one of us, as citizens of this world, to actively seek to terminate the ruling arrangements in countries such as Iran, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe. A a democratic and prosperous Iran is a key to a long-lasting Middle East solution. A well-governed Zimbabwe is an absolute ingredient of the global fight against HIV. We need to realise that we are citizens of the same world, that we all face the same problems, including climate change, proliferation of nuclear arms and fundamentalist terrorism, to name a few. We need to realise that it is our responsibility, as citizens of this world, to act in cases of humiliation (Iran) and starvation (N.Korea) of a nation by its corrupt government.

We need to remind the Republicans, that military operations are not the only solution, and we need to remind the Democrats, that isolationism is a self-defeating answer.

Re:It's getting tough out there

[arthurpaliden]

The problem is the 'West' does not want 'Democratic' govenments in these places it wants 'Sympathetic' and 'Manageable' govenments. For example Iran was a secular democracy but was not sympathetic to the west so it was overthrown.

Re:It's getting tough out there

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the duty of each and every single one of us, as citizens of this world, to actively seek to terminate the ruling arrangements in countries such as Iran, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe.

But not, for example, Saudi Arabia?

...we need to remind the Democrats, that isolationism is a self-defeating answer.

Huh? Since when have Democrats been in favor of isolationism? That might be Ron Paul or even G.W."no nation building" Bush back in the day. Even Barack Obama wants to get out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

There are certainly people who want international standards of behavior. The problem is that if you do apply impartial standards you end up with outcomes that people in the USA don't like or even understand. You end up busting on countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel that the USA considers to be good guys. Not only that but, given that US war crimes laws differs substantially from modern international war crimes law, if you do apply modern international law then the USA comes out guilty of war crimes for a bunch of the stuff it has done in the last eight years.

Re:It's getting tough out there

[Anonymous Coward]

The international community (including the ineffective and outdated Security Council) which claim to have adopted the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect in 2005, need to define the criteria that would trigger a response from the international community.

You are expecting something from the UN? This is an organization that puts Libya and Syria in the Security Council, China, Cuba and a whole bunch of Islamic countries in the UN Human Rights Council, and so on. You are asking too much.

Re:It's getting tough out there

[a.ameri]

Of course it should. We should also be engaged with Saudi Arabia. But there is no one-size-fits-all approach for solving these issues. Burma and Zimbabwe have internationally recognised democratic leaders who have had their election win stolen and are suppressed. Compared to its Persian Gulf neighbours, Iran has relatively robust civil institutions and outspoken youth (witness the blogsphere). N Korea and Saudi Arabia on the other hand seem to lack any element of a civil society. Certainly these issues need to be addressed, but in different ways. Maybe the best course of action in Saudi Arabia's case would be academic engagement, giving young Saudis a disproportionate number of bursaries in law and civil-related subjects.

Your example of looking at countries as allies or foes is still deeply rooted in the Westphalian outlook towards nation states. The problems we are facing today makes nation states irrelevant, climate change, illegal immigration, spread of diseases such as SARS, energy security... these are all global problems requiring global cooperation. The world population will rise to about 10 billion by 2075, which will only increase our competition for the scarce resources available if we continue to act in the same way. Until we stop forming our gentleman's clubs and look at this world as a single unified entity, we will not succeed.

Of course Israel and India need to sign the NPT. Of course American needs to once again become the bacon of democracy that it once was. But these are besides the point.

I did not accuse Obama of isolationism (though some of his populist mantra on trade is a bit alarmist) but there are certain elements within the Democratic party, specially a couple of his vice-presidential candidates (read: Jim Webb) who are genuinely isolationist. I hope these elements do not come to fore.

The last time America fought a war which was mostly thought as needless and useless (the Great War) and then went into protectionist mode in the '20s and '30s, we saw what happened afterwards.

Re:It's getting tough out there

[a.ameri]

Yes, the UN is extremely flawed. It is outdated, bureaucratic, non-representative, ineffective. FLAWED. Yet, it is the closest thing we have to a world governing council. It needs to be reformed; It needs to be shaken; It needs to be revitalised; but it should not be given up.

All our international organisations, from WTO, IMF, World Bank to OECD and NATO need to reform to reflect current times and ideology. But they are important. Hugely important. This is what this week'sThe Economist had to say on why they are important:

"...this is not the 19th century. Then governments had few means other than gunboats to settle their differences. There are plenty of guns about these days, but also many other ways to settle the world's disputes."

Re:It's getting tough out there

[joocemann]

We need to remind Iran that its their own F***in problem to fix.

Isn't that our stance on pretty much any similar country that doesn't have oil?

Good thing we have that separation of church/state here, else we'd be facing the same crap! Oh wait! We do! Gays aren't human enough to deserve equal rights!

F*** a church.

Re:It's getting tough out there

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, it is the closest thing we have to a world governing council. It needs to be reformed; It needs to be shaken; It needs to be revitalised; but it should not be given up.

Can it be reformed? Remember that the UNHRC actually is a reformation attempt at weeding out protectors of human rights violators in the Human Right Committee that also focused at demonizing Israel. Not only did it fail to weed them out, it brought so many Islamic countries in the new organization that practically the only purpose of its existence is to issue one-sided condemnation of Israel while excusing the genocide in Sudan and censoring any criticism leveled at Islam.

How can a body of nations reforms itself when the majority of the members want no such a thing, or worse, try to introduce changes in democratic nations in order to support their own ideas (like how Islamic countries try to force Denmark/the Netherlands to introduce blasphemy laws and punish the cartoonists/movie makers). The major flaw in the UN is how a vote from a dictatorship is equal to a vote by a democratically elected government and how a totalitarian state is on equal footing with a liberal-democratic country. Seeing that the former outnumber the later, how can a reform be introduced?

Re:It's getting tough out there

[IdeaMan]

A foreign government killing its own citizens is not our problem.
They chose to live there, they can either clean up their government or leave. Now if they're being prevented from leaving AND they're killing them then you would have a point.

Governments at times must punish and even kill its citizens. This is called rule of law. To decide that there is no punishment for any crime is anarchy. Deciding the balance between the two is a very difficult choice that is made by how each countries people build their government.

To step in and destroy a countries government and to institute something more favorable to your own interests is doing evil not to said government, but to the people who set it up.

That we decide not to accept immigrants into our country is to implicitly accept tyranny by foreign governments.

Death would be generous to most bloggers

[belloc]

Maybe it's just because I'm getting old and cranky, but I'd say for about 90% of the blogs I happen upon these days, I wish the death penalty were the punishment for blogging in the rest of the world, too.

Re:Death would be generous to most bloggers

[mattMad]

Maybe it is because you do not know where fun ends and sickness starts. I think there are better topics for making bad jokes than the death penalty...

Re:Death would be generous to most bloggers

[geekoid]

It's not because you are old and cranky, It's because change scares you, and you think people writing blogs gives a damn about what you want.
Most blogs aren't for the consumer, they're for the blogger.

Most blogs suck to me, but so what?

I suggest you go to blogger and post everyday for 60 days.

Produce.

It's just an online diary.

Keep up the hate and dichotomies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer:

1. I've got no ties with Iran whatsoever
2. I'm not saying that I agree with the Iranian leaders either

That being said: what about the everyday Iranians?!?

Inside the real Iran

Despite the welcome for their President's nuclear bragging and anti-Israel rhetoric, many Iranians have private worries about the economy - and the threat of war. By Angus McDowall in Tehran and Raymond Whitaker

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/inside-the-real-iran-474365.html

The REAL Iran:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread368018/pg1

And look at those desert dwelling people!

TEHERAN - Mega Capital of IRAN
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/98910/
(huge page! broadband only)

But, yes.. the 'everything in Iran is horrible and they need to be freed' machine is running and running. I admit that it isn't a perfect country, but what about North-Korea (oh wait: they've already got a deterrent)? Zimbabwe? Darfur/Sudan?
(who cares about poor people that are suppressed in areas without natural resources? they don't need democracy!)

I give a war against Iran an 80% chance, before the elections.

http://youtube.com/results?q=war+iran&search_type=

We need more oil and more beachheads to contain upcoming super powers like India and China... ... and the whole world will be dragged down into darkness when that happens..

Because Bush doesn't like it?

[Shivetya]

OK, I know that the subject line is trolling but look at it this way, it almost seems at times if some actions of the world and even own our politics are just the opposite of whatever Bush declares just to be "opposite of Bush".

Regimes like this exist for the same reason that Iraq existed for so long. Western nations don't necessarily have the stomach to put an end to them. We have lapsed back into the thirties where people were more concerned with their well being and as long as the rest of the world left them alone they couldn't care what happened to these "other" people. See it costs nothing to ignore other people "over there". Works the same for Europe as well as the United States.

Life is grand with our cellphones, computers, lattes, and satellite TV. Why should they care? Oh, because festering wounds like this breed organizations who see nothing wrong with targeting civilians. Countries like this focus the ire of their people outward so they continue the oppression internally. All the while declaring it is to crack down on people looking to harm them.

No uprising? Gee, go figure. We can't even get enough people to peacefully kick out the Democrats and Republicans from office here and yet if you read blogs, message boards, and sites like this you would think the world is ending. The difference there in Iran and similar countries is that the government has already shown its willingness to kill its own people.

Here is a better question that needs to be asked of world leaders, why in the hell is China hosting the Olympics? Constant threats to Taiwan, which they will probably overrun in a few years, trampling rights in Tibet, and needless to say that little incident a lifetime ago in a certain square.

Simple answer. Its far easier to turn away. Its far easier to look inside our own borders and pretend the world of bad people really doesn't exist. Yes, there be monsters and covering your head under the sheets only works for so long. Then again occasionally that pesky world gets enough gumption to do something drastic like flying planes into buildings. It will happen again because while we don't have the stomach for wars these people do.

Re:Because Bush doesn't like it?

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

Seriously, comments should be comments, not full length novels.

Re:Because Bush doesn't like it?

[Raenex]

Regimes like this exist for the same reason that Iraq existed for so long. Western nations don't necessarily have the stomach to put an end to them.

It's not the West's job to invade other countries and impose governments on them. It isn't working too well in Iraq, now is it? Oddly enough, most people don't like to be invaded, and the Iraqis resent the United States occupying their country. How would you feel if Canada and Europe banded together to invade the United States, because of our oppressive government?

Life is grand with our cellphones, computers, lattes, and satellite TV. Why should they care?

Then can I assume you're in Afghanistan or Iraq risking your life and facing discomfort? Somehow I think not.

Countries like this focus the ire of their people outward so they continue the oppression internally. All the while declaring it is to crack down on people looking to harm them.

Patriot Act. Torture. Massive illegal spying. National Security Letters. The country is moving towards 1984, and even Obama didn't have the backbone to stand up to telecom immunity.

Then again occasionally that pesky world gets enough gumption to do something drastic like flying planes into buildings.

This was a reaction to troops and combat actions in the Middle East, not because of that baby food "they hate our freedoms" crap that Bush feeds to the American public.

Re:Because Bush doesn't like it?

[TrekkieGod]

Western nations don't necessarily have the stomach to put an end to them. We have lapsed back into the thirties where people were more concerned with their well being and as long as the rest of the world left them alone they couldn't care what happened to these "other" people.

Dude, that's not lack of courage. That's wisdom. If it doesn't involve you, don't get involved. This doesn't just apply to foreign affairs, it should apply to everything in life. If you're straight, you shouldn't give a damn about what gay people do. If your friend is having a disagreement with her husband, stay the fuck out of it, don't take sides. Unless it's directly affecting you the best thing to do is to mind your own business.

no uprising? Gee, go figure. We can't even get enough people to peacefully kick out the Democrats and Republicans from office here

So what you're saying is that you'd be really happy if some foreign nation "had the stomach" to help out with that little problem, huh? Since we're unwilling to do anything about the problems with our government, people shouldn't just be out there concerned with their well being, they should come here and liberate us!

I'm not saying the US is anywhere near as bad a place to live in. In fact, to the contrary, I'm saying I'm pretty satisfied with our form of government, even with all its failings, and I'm betting you are too. What I am saying is that maybe, if they haven't rebelled, the Iranians are happy with their form of government too. Maybe they think that it is the government's job to enforce what their religion considers proper morality. And who the hell are we to tell them that's not the right way of doing things?

Then again occasionally that pesky world gets enough gumption to do something drastic like flying planes into buildings. It will happen again because while we don't have the stomach for wars these people do.

Yeah! And occasionally they will take cars full of explosives to buildings too! Like in the Oklahoma City bombing. Oh, you mean that Timothy McVeigh an American? Hell, if we were a bit more proactive, and had a police state, we could have stopped that!

9/11 was a horrible terrorist act, but it wasn't an act of war. Like the Oklahoma City bombing, it was the act of some crazy people, and you just can't help the fact that crazy people will try to do crazy things, because of whatevery crazy thing they believe in. It's a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

Re:Iraq/Iran

[tomhudson]

I hate Bush and I hate the Iraq war and as un-PC as this sounds (and it will surely enrage slashdot users here)- I hope Israel bombs them into the stone age.

Israel doesn't have to bomb Bush supporters back into the stone age - they never left it ...

The funny thing about Iran is that...

[belal1]

it's the most moderate of all muslim majority countries in the middle east...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Religion of Peace

[Anonymous Coward]

"establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy"

What did you expect from the country run by the religion of love and peace? Now IDIOTS, come on and say this has nothing to do with ISLAM.

Re:Religion of Peace

[Ardeaem]

Now IDIOTS, come on and say this has nothing to do with ISLAM.

Yeah, tell the Christians in the past that got killed for heresy that only Muslims kill people for their religion. What's the difference the Islam and modern Christianity? The forces secularization from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, that's what. So, yes, this has not so much to do with Islam as it does secularization.

Re:Religion of Peace

[coren2000]

this has nothing to do with SALAMI -

(yeah yeah I added an a... f$%k you)

Re:Religion of Peace

[Anonymous Coward]

Now IDIOTS, come on and say this has nothing to do with ISLAM.

Yeah, tell the Christians in the past that got killed for heresy that only Muslims kill people for their religion. What's the difference the Islam and modern Christianity? The forces secularization from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, that's what. So, yes, this has not so much to do with Islam as it does secularization.

And why did those forces arise in Christianity and not Islam, eh, bright boy? Because about 1,000 years ago, Islam was way ahead of Christianity culturally and scientifically.

One incredibly important fundamental difference: in Christianity, it's pretty much everyone is equal before God.

But in Islam, there are Muslim males first, Muslim women and children second, then subhuman targets (kaffirs - infidels) who the killing of advances the Muslim to heaven.

Kinda hard to come up with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" when you're taught from day one of your life that anyone different from you is subhuman and deserves to have his throat slit - literally. There's a reason why all those hostages in Iraq were beheaded - it's in the Koran.

And there's no way you make the leap from "all men are created equal (but not women, and not those slaves)" to "all men (and women) are created equal" when the foundation for equality not only doesn't exist in Islam, it's directly contradicted in theory and in practice.

Re:Religion of Peace

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Someone mod this one as "USEFUL IDIOT"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Re:Oblig. Soviet Russia

[Timosch]

C'mon man, I wanted to say that too...

Gotta agree with the Iranians...

[Anonymous Coward]

on the "death sentence for armed robbery" thing.

I'd strap 'em to Old Sparky and pull the switch myself.

Re:Gotta agree with the Iranians...

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Yes I too wanted to add my vote for that, but what about robin hood?

Headline is wrong and misleading

[Peter Cooper]

In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death

Wrong. Bloggers who set up blogs to promote apostasy, promiscuity or "corruption" may be opened up to the joys of the death penalty in future, not anyone who's "blogging."

The headline as factual as saying, "In the USA, Touching Another Person May Be Punishable By Death." There are lots of other situations in which you can touch people than in the act of killing them.

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death

Wrong. Bloggers who set up blogs to promote apostasy, promiscuity or "corruption" may be opened up to the joys of the death penalty in future, not anyone who's "blogging."

The headline as factual as saying, "In the USA, Touching Another Person May Be Punishable By Death." There are lots of other situations in which you can touch people than in the act of killing them.

In Iran, Blogging *MAY* Be Punishable By Death

Right.

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[Peter Cooper]

Of course, that anything is "punishable by death" demonstrates a country with a cruel and warped sense of justice.

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[xtracto]

The headline as factual as saying, "In the USA, Touching Another Person May Be Punishable By Death." There are lots of other situations in which you can touch people than in the act of killing them.

Shit, and by the standards of my country (Mexico), in the USA, touching another person is punishable as "sexual harassment".

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[geekoid]

Sweet. All you have to do to get your neighbor killed is blog in their name. Or post comments on their blog the government doesn't want.

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, should be
In Iran, Apostasy(by any means) May Be Punishable By Death

now it sounds better and has more truth in it.

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

It would mean that, say, the web site of an evangelical church or maybe even a church could deserve the death sentence. Even less evangelical, things like the Wikipedia entries on other religious teachings or practices, could be seen as wrong because someone may just be tempted to think "Actually, I like what I read there" or to otherwise question their own religion's teachings.

I'm not a fan of evangelical churches - the idea that who you worship is more important than how you are is completely wrong as far as I'm concerned - but a system that suppresses such expression seems worse.

Maybe you could argue that if we are all the same religion and that is maintained then things would be better. Muslims and Christians argue this. I'm not convinced they will because there will always be disagreement and enforced conformity will cause tension.

As well as the extreme unlikeliness of ever achieving a single world religion, that much power in the hands of a theocracy is not worth contemplating. I don't think any religious rulers, no matter how supposedly imbued with holy spirit or other properties, have shown themselves as incorruptible as their religion's ideal leader.

Re:Headline is wrong and misleading

[nguy]

You're really missing a bit of the subtlety of English. The statement is correct, just like the statement

"In the US, Blogging May Be Punishable By Prison"

is correct (for example, if you commit criminal copyright violations or fail to disclose your sources in a sensitive matter).

Shhhhh...

[digitig]

Don't give the RIAA ideas...

Remember, Iran 'was' a Secular Democracy

[arthurpaliden]

The United States and Great Britain have only themselves to blame for the current troubles with Iran. If they had left the democraticly elected govenment inplace instead of overthrowing it in the 1950s and puting a 'tin pot dictator' in charge we would not have this problem today.

Re:Remember, Iran 'was' a Secular Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah coz that's not what they wanted at all *yawn*

When will you people realise that governments get what they want regardless of what they *say*. Just think microsoft except they run the country.

Re:Remember, Iran 'was' a Secular Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to have provided a few nice distractions for their people, most of whom will know nothing about these devilish bits of history, so that while they steal away the last of your freedom they can point to Iran, Iraq, or any other country they destroyed as a way of saying, "Well, look at them! They're _much_ worse than us!"

Re:Remember, Iran 'was' a Secular Democracy

[khallow]

I disagree. We can blame Iran too. It too is responsible for its current government, even more so than these other countries.

Why are we getting upset *NOW*?

[harlows_monkeys]

Many or all of these things are already punishable by death in Iran if you do them without the internet. Go over there and start distributing literature trying to convert people from Islam to another religion, and you've got a potential date with the executioner.

Hence, it is not blogging that they are making punishable by death. They are simply closing a loophole that may have let yo escape punishment by using blogs instead of, say, print or radio.

If we are going to be upset, we should be upset at apostasy being a capital crime at all, not that they have noticed that blogs can be used for apostasy and are closing that loophole.

Separation isn't strictly necessary

[Quila]

What is necessary is that religion have no power over the state. Denmark has an official church, many European countries do, but the church has no power to enforce its doctrine through the state so the countries are relatively free at least as far as religion is concerned.

Re:Separation isn't strictly necessary

[Eli Gottlieb]

Except that in those countries people pay taxes that go to fund religious institutions and schools for government-approved religions, while non-approved religions (which could just be a church or sect of well-known faith that haven't done their paperwork) have to get by on donations from people who've already seen their incomes reduced by religion taxes.

Re:Separation isn't strictly necessary

[Cyberax]

In Denmark, Sweden and other European countries the official religion is more or less just a tradition.

Church used to be a powerful force there. But not anymore. Now it's just a shadow of former self.

So it's just easier to let it die peacefully.

Re:Separation isn't strictly necessary

[expatriot]

In Denmark, you can choose whether you want a contribution from your taxes to go to the church. I believe it is the same for many, if not most, European countries. In the UK, there is an official church but it gets very little money from the goverment.

In Iran...

[cryptodan]

The blogging software blogs you.

Iran on that note

[falconwolf]

Next time people bitch about Western democracies one should just point to Iran's politics...

Perhaps you didn't know it but those "Wester democracies" are the ones who created the problems in Iran now. The CIA aided and supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. This installed the Shah as the ruler of Iran. Without such a ruler there would not have been the Iranian revolution in 1979 against a corrupt tyrant.

Falcon

Re:Iraq/Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

waahhhnnn waaahhnnn I got modded down waaahhhnnn

grow up.

Wait..

[brainnolo]

...blogging punishable by death? What's next? Twitter? Mhhh...and this is a bad thing because?

No, not quite

[Crazy Taco]

No, they are the reason they are in their current situation. They have a ridiculous, violent religion they serve, and they chose to radically overthrow their own government to put that ridiculous religion into power. And, suprise suprise, it turned out not to be a good idea and their government enslaved them the same way all the other middle eastern Islamic states were already doing. Because of their actions, they remain enslaved by their government to this day.

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The US didn't like being ruled by a king, so we overthrew the king and took the risk of instituting democracy. It turned out well, in this case. Other countries are ruled by dictators and people do not choose to rise up and remain enslaved. Or if they do rise up, they don't always install a democracy when they throw out the government (in Iran's case, they picked a theocracy instead). That's their choice, the consequences are theirs, and the blame rests on their shoulders. The US is not responsible for what people in other countries choose to do with their governments.

Re:No, not quite

[mrsteveman1]

Iran had a legitimate democratically elected government at one point and we interfered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

So yea, they are partially to blame but so are we.

Re:No, not quite

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So yea, they are partially to blame but so are we.

What's more is that the only reason the Iranian revolution succeeded is that two philosophically opposed groups joined forces under the belief that "mine enemy's enemy is my friend." Namely the religious right (mullahs, et al) and the radical left (student reformers). Together they were able to kick out the american-appointed dictator (the shaw).

But the students and reformers made a fatal mistake. They thought that once the shaw was out, they would be able to deal with the mullahs. They were wrong, The mullahs quickly kicked their former partner's asses - imprisoning many, killing others. So that by the time the dust had settled, the mullahs (whom live in vast palaces now, and enjoy great wealth against the tenants of Islam, for what that's worth) were solidly in control.

So to say that "they chose to radically overthrow their own government to put that ridiculous religion into power" is categorically false. The only reason the mullahs were able to come to power is because the democratic reformers felt they had no other choice. It wasn't the overthrow of the shaw that put the mullahs into power, it was the power-struggle that followed the overthrow that did it.

Re:No, not quite

[Zanzibar Q. Tarquin]

"They have a ridiculous, violent religion" Sorry, are we still talking about Christianity here or... "...the same way all the other middle eastern Islamic states were..." So that doesn't include Iraq then - A secular, pro-Western Middle Eastern State; until that is... well, we all know the rest... "At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions" And nations have to take responsibility for their actions - those whose actions have greater influence ought to show even more responsibility. "The US didn't like being ruled by a king, so we overthrew the king" The Iranians didn't like being ruled by a king, so they overthrew the king (Shah) "The US is not responsible for what people in other countries choose to do with their governments." That only works if the US aren't actively interfering in the internal affairs of those countries. Like that's ever gonna happen...

Re:No, not quite

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Islam isn't any more violent that Christianity is. If you look into the old testament, you'll find the same "kill all unbelievers" and divine mass murder that people like to quote from the Quran so much.

The only question is how those words from holy books are interpreted. One thousand years ago, us christians where the ones being violent and commiting crimes in the name of our religion. Think the crusades, the inquisition and the damage commited to researchers and progress during the dark ages.
During that time, the arabic culture was the one profiting from a liberal society and reaping all it's benefits. Today, it is mostly the other way around, but there are good reasons for this.

Most arabic nations are led by a small elite of quasi-dictatorships that are/where being supported by the West, like Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, formally Iraq, etc. This elite is obscenely rich and powerful, whereas most of the population is very poor. What happens when people are very poor and oppressed by a wealthy elite? They are easily swayed by anything that promises them change and a better future. In the arab world, this usually means turning towards are religion that is fiercely opposed to the wealthy oppressors and their Western backers.

Contrary to what many believe, people don't blow themselves up just for fun and profit. There is genuine despair and helplessness there.

Re:No, not quite

[sumdumass]

Islam isn't any more violent that Christianity is. If you look into the old testament, you'll find the same "kill all unbelievers" and divine mass murder that people like to quote from the Quran so much.

No you won't. You will find some because the Quran has the old testament in it just like the Tora. They are after all, the same religions , Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with additions in that order. But the Quran also continued to have been modified and added to throughout the years. And in the old testament, you don't find places that say kill anyone leaving the religion, you don't find places where GOD ordered people to kill others, you find places where GOD helped someone seek revenge or GOD destroyed something or sided with some people who where vastly out numbered because of their faith. It really is a different context.

The only question is how those words from holy books are interpreted. One thousand years ago, us christians where the ones being violent and commiting crimes in the name of our religion. Think the crusades, the inquisition and the damage commited to researchers and progress during the dark ages.
During that time, the arabic culture was the one profiting from a liberal society and reaping all it's benefits. Today, it is mostly the other way around, but there are good reasons for this.

Don't confuse the corruption of man with the message of the book. Don't confuse the lack of intelligence of man with the intelligence of the message. The oppression caused by the religious in power was a corruption of the message to server their own needs. The crusades actually have a deeper story that I'm not sure I could adequately explain in the context of this post. I'll give a short cliff notes version but I doubt I can make the point clear. The early church, the catholics (later referred to as the roman catholics), misread the book of revelations and thought they were preparing the kingdom for GODs return in the second coming. Early attempts to date the bible had the world ending by the 5th century. A thousand years passes and Jesus didn't return. They were pretty much confused over this when the English or British took over and decided it was them, not the romans, who was supposed to prepare for the second coming. They also confused the second coming when Jesus didn't return as meaning the church was to lead in peace for all those who were faithful. They were supposed to be setting up the kingdom as well.

British, the isle of man, can be broken down into root words containing berit and ish. Berit means a covenant, and ish means man. Together, it is the "covenant man" which was coined by the roman occupiers. Anyways, the crusades dealt with this misconception of creating the kingdom on earth and preparing for Jesus' second coming. The bible says the Jesus was preparing the kingdom and will return for us. Now, I'm not going to get into whether that is truthful or not, a belief in GOD or a GOD isn't important here. What is important is the misinterpretations leading man to what you describe. In the name of doesn't necessarily mean because of. It was actually ignorance that has led to this. You can verify what I said if you care to look into the concept of the rapture and the historical context of why it wasn't until 1840 or so before it became common teachings.

Most arabic nations are led by a small elite of quasi-dictatorships that are/where being supported by the West, like Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, formally Iraq, etc. This elite is obscenely rich and powerful, whereas most of the population is very poor. What happens when people are very poor and oppressed by a wealthy elite? They are easily swayed by anything that promises them change and a better future. In the arab world, this usually means turning towards are religion that is fiercely opposed to the wealthy oppressors and their Western backers.

There is a lot more to it then that. In the later wri

Re:No, not quite

[kalirion]

Ah Ajax, is there anything you can't do?

Re:No, not quite

[Skjellifetti]

The mullahs had been one of the wealthiest groups in Iran prior to the Shah's White Revolution. The mullahs usually came from the rural wealthy land owners. In 1962, the Shah began a land reform program as part of the White Revolution which redistributed much of this land. The land reform (along with imposed cultural changes similar to those of Ataturk next door), were among the reasons the mullahs were so adamantly anti-Shah.

But why are you americans judging other people law

[noddyxoi]

Have you seen the laws you have in the US regarding sex ? http://media.www.ecollegetimes.com/media/storage/paper991/news/2008/07/03/Top10s/Top-Ten.Wtf.Us.Sex.Laws-3388114.shtml Stop judging and get mirrors instead.

capital punishment

[falconwolf]

Sure, it might be a worse punishment to lock somebody up for the rest of his life in a small cell, but it's much more expensive

I don't have the data but I read somewhere where it's actually cheaper to keep someone in gaol for life than it to execute them. When someone is sentenced to death they automatically get an appeal and by the tyme the appeal process is done the costs can add up a lot more than imprisoning them for life would cost.

do you think your tax money should be spent to keep some mentally insane murderers alive?

Those insane should get the therapy they need to effectively function in society. Executing them only punishes them for an act they are not responsible for.

Falcon

Re:capital punishment

[Nathrael]

I'm completely pro-rehabilitation of criminals including murderers, but still, some criminals are not only too dangerous to be left free, but also took away the life of someone who has never done anything to them. You only have one life - and if somebody took it just because of personal greed, I think that taking that person's life is justified. Murder is nearly always bad, but sometimes, it can be justified, and in that case, the murderers should be placed in therapy and not be killed, but there are people who deserve nothing better than death. Murder committed by the mentally insane is rarely justified though - and also, most of those who killed someone out of insanity have a very, very low chance of being cured.

Re:capital punishment

[falconwolf]

some criminals are not only too dangerous to be left free, but also took away the life of someone who has never done anything to them.

Give them therapy while they are locked up, and keep them there as long as they aren't rehabilitated. The only tyme a person should be execute is when they request it, for instance when they believe they can't live in society without being a danger.

I think that taking that person's life is justified.

So do I, when someone's life is in immediate danger. If I came across someone who posed an immediate threat to someone else, or myself, I would have no problem shooting them. After I took reasonable non aggressive steps to stop the threat first, then I'd escalate my response.

Falcon

Re:capital punishment

[Raenex]

Those insane should get the therapy they need to effectively function in society. Executing them only punishes them for an act they are not responsible for.

So, do you know what "therapy" to give somebody who gets kicks from killing people? Why do you define somebody logical but evil as "insane"? Is anybody responsible for anything?

Re:capital punishment

[falconwolf]

So, do you know what "therapy" to give somebody who gets kicks from killing people?

I'm no expert and have no idea what type of therapy crazies or the insane should get. About all I know about therapy is the more than year I spent in therapy after an accident.

Why do you define somebody logical but evil as "insane"?

Can you show where I did this, or is it smoke?

Bye.

Falcon

Re:capital punishment

[Raenex]

I was going by the post you responded to, but it's not clear if he was talking about two different classes (apparently your interpretation), or just one class (they way I interpreted it). That is, I think he calls people who are "torture murderers" mentally insane. By society's definition, clearly something isn't right with them if they are a serial killer and torture for fun.

I think it's clear these people can't be rehabilitated. Without the death penalty, assholes like Dennis Rader will rot in jail forever. I'd rather see him put to death.

Re:Oblig. Soviet Russia

[coren2000]

In Soviet Russia, Death blogs YOU!

same in UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

...except instead of "apostasy", it's called "glorification of terror". You know, contentious stuff like saying good words about Nelson Mandela, who promoted some less-than-peacenik methods.

I won't be executed, but I'll have my equipment confiscated, receive a trial by Daily Mail, be held for a month without charge, be required to reveal my encryption keys with further punishment if I either refuse or tell anyone of the request, etc.

Before you say "oh but they won't arrest you for that!" you're entirely missing the point of these laws. They're not there to stop you saying a dissenting word - they're there so pretty much everyone with anything interesting to say is already breaking the law. They then have an excuse to shut anyone up arbitrarily when they feel they're becoming inconvenient.

which shows that most people in Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

weren't all that upset over living under Saddam. Granted, a lot were, but most were not, and ownership of full auto AKs, and even RPGs, was a normal as owning an ipod are here. Walk into any gunstore there, throw down the cash, and walk out, yet no large scale mass revolts. As your general dictators go, he was well down the list, nothing like that cretin in north korea or the so called zimbabwe leader, he was modernizing his nation, the infrastructure was a lot more intact then than now and public works were common, women had more rights than in most moslem nations today (he just wouldn't put up with radical jihadists at all, that's why a lot of the other moslen leaders didn't like him, he was more secular than most of them), and so on. He just committed the ultimate crime of threatening the petrodollar by insisting on taking only euros for oil, and also was blatantly in support of native Palestinian rights over imported European rights in the occupied zionfascist nation-zone. Those two are the primary reasons the invasion started, plus the oil idiots thought it would be a cakewalk and back to normal stealing the oil in a few days. They didn't count on actual nationalistic resistance there. All the other excuses are pure neocon horsecrap. They used 9-11 and illusory "nigerian yellow cake" and "dangerous aluminum tubes" and "omg he has a radio controlled plane and will be spraying the entire nation with biowarfare agents" and all those other fairy tales as a poor excuse to fake out the mouth breathing drooling beer guzzling football addicted public and their boo ya! mercenary forces. Ya, he had chemical weapons, the vast bulk of which were gotten originally from the US illegally. We weren't supposed to ship them anyplace, we were supposed to be destroying them all, but we did while he was on "our side" during the iran/iraq war, they were official old US army stocks for the most part. They were blown in place in bunkers during desert storm and made a ton of army guys and iraqis sick as can be, although they still deny it to this day even though back then you could find pictures of it and you heard a lot of firsthand accounts of it from returning vets who were there and participated in it. And that is a lot-not all, but a lot- of the "gulf war syndrome", they were just forced to breath chemical weapons residue and then told it was all in their heads.

Re:which shows that most people in Iraq

[Xest]

No, you've misinterpreted the situation and some of what you say is outright false. People didn't like living under Saddam, he was still extremely oppresive. The reaction from people immediately after he was overthrown was evidence that they were glad to see him go. The issue is that what he did do well was keep a lid on the different groups that are now killing each other, when he was removed these groups were free to carry out the attacks they'd wanted to carry out all along but couldn't with Saddam keeping a close eye on them.

It's not therefore that people were happy to live under Saddam, just that Saddam had a stranglehold on his citizens. The situation you suggest where people owned AKs and RPGs left right and centre under his regime is fictitious, this was simply not the case. The weapons the insurgents are running round with now are the weapons Saddams army abandoned and left lying around after they were obliterated by the allied forces as well as weapons smuggled in from Iran and Syria. The places where people were armed such as Kurdistan often fought against him but often came off a hell of a lot worse as they simply didn't have the firepower to match (which is exactly why the US right to bear arms so they can overthrow their government if it pisses them off enough excuse is a bit silly, an M1 Abrams trumps your rifle 50 times over). At the end of the day you can have all the AKs and RPGs you want in the world but when a Mig comes flying over the hill and drops 500lb of explosives on you then it really isn't going to help you. Saddam had spies left right and centre so even if people were all armed it was never going to be much use because anyone who dare show any sign of revolt would quickly dissapear.

The fighting in Iraq is largely Shia vs. Sunni. The US troops get caught in it primarily because they're stood between the two factions trying to stop them. There is some specific targetting of US troops by Al Qaeda affiliated groups and similar but for the most part Iraqi's aren't rising up against and attacking the US troops, they're attacking each other. It is for this reason you regularly see reports of "30 iraqi civilians killed at wedding" or similar - attacks like this are quite clearly not attacks against the occupying forces and attacks like this are the most common types. Even with the Mahdi army the only reason they don't like US troops is because they know they're capable of disarming them leaving them unable to hit Sunnis and not because of some hatred of them removing Saddam, in fact, the likes of Muqtada Al-Sadr will only be happy with Saddam being overthrown because it leaves an opening for him to rise to levels of power he could never have achieved under Saddam. The only thing stopping him are US forces and the new Iraqi government, both of which aren't allowed to hit his forces anywhere near as hard and indiscriminately as Saddam might have should he have tried to rise up against them in the same way for fear of condemnation from the international community and further loss of international reputation for the US.

The key to fixing the situation in Iraq is to prevent the militias fighting each other and this is what is happening with the US surge, it is unexpectadly working rather well right now. It's probably also worth pointing out that things are not all that different to Ireland for us Brits. When the factions stopped fighting each other, the factions also stopped attacking British troops.

Re:which shows that most people in Iraq

[MrNaz]

"The reaction from people immediately after he was overthrown"

As reported by embedded journalists paid for by the US DoD. Nope, no special interest reporting here, no siree.

Re:which shows that most people in Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as pro-invasion posts go, of course he doesn't have any anti-invasion arguments because that's not the side he's arguing from, but I found his post to be at least 80% accurate, and definitely a fresh viewpoint on the issue.

Re:which shows that most people in Iraq

[sumdumass]

That must have been a lot of embedded reporters dressed like Iraqi civilians on all those videos of the civilians dancing in the streets, tearing down statues of Saddam, and slapping their feet all over his pictures and stuff.

I'll concede that the reporting might have been biased but tell me, how did the logistic of that play out without being noticed and reported by other news agencies who didn't have the special interests? And how did they orchestrate it once again when Saddam was "executed" and there was dancing in the streets when the video made it's rounds, that is, without all the other news media sources picking up on it and reporting about the ruse? I mean, if the filmed it in Hollywood, surely some other country would have reported that it didn't happen.

Haliburton

[Anonymous Coward]

Haliburton Propaganda hits /. Story at 11.

A must for all those interested

[MK_CSGuy]

A must for all those interested in Iran is Persepolis (look mom! no ref tag!), an autobiography of an Iranian woman who fled from Iran in her teens.
In the book the author describes her life as a preteen and teen during the cultural revolution.
It really succeeds at illustrating how life under a totalitarian regime look like.
After reading it you really start to appreciate the fact that you were born into a democratic country.

Re:A must for all those interested

[MK_CSGuy]

A must for all those interested in Iran is Persepolis (look mom! no ref tag!),
Mmmm and no link either :) there you go, Persepolis

In Zimbabwe it is skin colour.

[falconwolf]

In Zimbabwe it's cronyism with tribalism thrown in not skin colour, Mugabe's opponents are Black as well as he is, though maybe from different tribes or ethnic groups.

Falcon

Re:But why are you americans judging other people

[halivar]

Umm... because they're stoning people? For saying the same things about Islam that Slashdotters have been saying about Christianity for years?

Or are human rights only for the privileged few (i.e. you)?

Still don't get me?

Before I start delving into the actual details

[goldcd]

I just intend to seize upon 'punishable by death' thing that seems to be central to this post. Let me just quickly shove up a list of which countries still think it's 'OK' to kill people Afghanistan Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belize Botswana Burundi Cameroon Chad China (People's Republic) Comoros Congo (Democratic Republic) Cuba Dominica Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Guatemala Guinea Guyana India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jamaica Japan Jordan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Laos Lebanon Lesotho Libya Malawi Malaysia Mongolia Nigeria Oman Pakistan Palestinian Authority Qatar St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Somalia Sudan Swaziland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Arab Emirates UNITED STATES Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Did your mother ever tell you not to hang around with 'bad company'? Personally if your country is on that list, you shouldn't really be allowed to criticize the others. Bit of Devil's Advocacy to finish off - if the pen really is mightier than the sword, if you believe peaceful protest is to be more powerful than military might - well then blogging is potentially quite dangerous to a state. State's have a right to protect themselves - and if there're executions on the cards - what's one more?

Re:Before I start delving into the actual details

[Anonymous Coward]

man, talk about being a moron. probably a faggot and a muslim too. you feel the need to make fag islam nations seem acceptable? fucking shithead. their blood is on your faggot hands.

Re:Before I start delving into the actual details

[geekoid]

Yes, there is no difference between murder, and reading a blog.

I think you missed the central point in your retarded attempt to criticize America.

Re:Before I start delving into the actual details

[Anonymous Coward]

What an incredibly astute observation. You must be a genius to have figured that all out just be reading his post. Never let me doubt your ability to judge the nature of another ever again. All hail Anonymous Coward!

Now free to silence decent?

[wolf12886]

effectively giving the government a free hand in silencing bloggers

Because we've all seen how heavily the current regime has been burdened by civil rights laws in the past

Iran the new Iraq

[Is0m0rph]

Don't worry Iran, we'll invade soon and overthrow your government. You'll see how much better life is after that! Just look at Iraq! They can blog all they want now.

Re:Iran the new Iraq

[joocemann]

Don't worry Iran, we'll invade soon and overthrow your government. You'll see how much better life is after that! Just look at Iraq! They can blog all they want now.

/sarcasm on

This gives those long forgotten nerds a reason to hate Iran! Now with more riboflavin, too! /sarcasm off

Twitter?

[denzacar]

They are in IRAN you insensitive clod!

You try tweeting through the UK number for "anywhere else" for a while and let us know how that goes.

I'd suggest this one instead...

[denzacar]

It contains both volumes.
http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Boxed-Set-Marjane-Satrapi/dp/0375423966/

Or this one. Newer edition and slightly cheaper:
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Persepolis-Major-Motion-Picture/dp/0375714839/

And for the lazy ones, or those who can't read, there is a movie:
http://www.amazon.com/Persepolis-Chiara-Mastroianni/dp/B000YAA68W/

The movie ain't bad, but it is simplified at some points to make it more understandable to the "western viewers" I guess.
Books are far deeper.
BTW... movie got shafted at this years Oscars.
A talking rat took the little golden statue. A work of great cultural importance I am sure, as cartoons with talking animals usually are.

I love you but I'm not IN love with you

[Anonymous Coward]

Follower: You know Islam, this just isn't working out. I think I want to experience the world without having a religion to tie me down.

Islam: What! . Heresy! Apostasy! it is Allah's will! If Islam cannot have you the no religion will!!!

Sounds like an abusive relationship to me....

Re:I love you but I'm not IN love with you

[belal1]

Perhaps you could tell us what is the punishment for leaving the other religions?

Re:I love you but I'm not IN love with you

[Anonymous Coward]

there isn't any. only faggot muslims can't handle people leaving their liars religion. their bitches and mounds of shit. islam must be dismantled before it is the death of us all. it has no use in the civilized world.

It's coming to all of us soon...

[RecycledElectrons]

Just wait for DMCA 2.0.

It's time to shoot the bastards...now.

Andy Out!

Re:But why are you americans judging other people

[Holi]

How many of them are enforced and if they were how many would hold up if prosecuted. Just because we have some silly laws on the books does not mean they can be used, several have been or would be struck down as unconstitutional (well except for sex with a porcupine). Remember we have checks and balances for a reason. Many laws we have on the books have yet to be tested, until they are they really hold no weight.

In Iran,

[smoker2]

Blogging May Be Punishable By Death,
Oh if it were but the same in the west.

Brightside

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least there will be less Iranians in the world.

Re: In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death

[Skrimm]

Will this change as the censorship grows more rampant?

Only in as much as the death penalty deters real crimes.

"Death"???

[core_dump_0]

When the Iranians talk of "death" it's not the same "death" here in America. I had family members there before the hostage crisis. Here's one punishment: for adulterers, they nail your b***s to a plank. So if I were there, I wouldn't blog at all!

culturally inferior?

[Anonymous Coward]

"culturally inferior"? like, to hollywood culture?

most of the "superior culture" you're probably referring to appeals to basic instincts and thus is way more attractive to teenagers (and most of the grown-ups) than the "inferior" culture of Omar Khayyam, Rudaki, Ferdowsi, etc.

Re:culturally inferior?

[khallow]

Well, you got to admit, if your culture can't stand up to Hollywood culture, then it definitely is inferior to western culture.

Re:culturally inferior?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd say, western culture itself (as we knew it) can't stand up to hollywood.

Re:culturally inferior?

[Original Replica]

Hey the Amish actively encourage there young adults to go experience western "Hollywood" culture, and plenty of Amish come back into the fold. The AMish culture has real strengths that make it worthwhile for many people. I don't think Iran would be completely depopulated, but I think given the knowledge and choice many many Iranians would opt for the western culture and lifestyle. But by the same token you would be perfectly free to leave this "Hollywood Culture" you so despise, I wonder what culture you would find superior enough to leave us for? I wonder why you haven't left already.

Re:culturally inferior?

[Anonymous Coward]

amish young adults are fortified enough by the time they are encouraged to experience.

leaving one's homeland is a loser's option. not watching tv - is a better one. educating your people - is the best one.

Re:culturally inferior?

[Anonymous Coward]

leaving one's homeland is a loser's option.

Yeah sure. I guess Albert Einstein took the loser's option. So did Madeleine Albright, Ieoh Ming Pei, Sergey Brin, Andrew Grove, and of course every single colonist who helped found this country. Yeah losers every one of 'em.

I have plenty of complaints about current American culture, but it still one of the best. Looking out at the options the world provides, I see a few places with about equal cultural desirability (EU,Australia,Japan) and many places that are far far less desirable a place to call home.

Netcraft confirmed it - God is dead.

[tomhudson]

Link

Re:Netcraft confirmed it - God is dead.

[Von Helmet]

Good work there, citing yourself as a source. Brilliant.

Revolution

[Detritus]

I don't think the situation in Iran will improve until the people follow the example of other countries that took measures to destroy the political and economic power of the dominant organized religion.

MS, Google, Cisco, Yahoo;blood on their hands

[geekoid]

As long as companies are free to provide te tools that allow censorship, and the murder of people to sell in those countries, then it will be partial successful. Meaning a lot more people will die trying to express their opinion before people in power realize it is not possible to have a modern society, and have complete censorship.

It's much worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much worse there than not being able to speak out against the government.

If you are a Baha'i (which is also the largest religious minority in that country), you cannot go to university, get a job or pension, and face daily threats to your livelihood and person. Topping it off, the government recently ordered its military and police to secretly MONITOR ALL BAHA'IS IN THE COUNTRY--all this while Baha'is are bound to obey all but the most unjust of laws of their government and to not interfere in politics:

http://www.bahai.org/persecution/iran

So many Iranians are indeed genuinely warm and hospitable people--such as Peter Jennings was bemused by during his visit there--but the so-called theocracy there feels quite threatened by a movement which proclaims universal equality (including specifically for women), asserts the need for an independent investigation of truth (i.e., no-clergy-required) and captures the interest of so many Iranians (at least who have had a chance to hear objectively about it).

You wouldn't know about this religious persecution there by paying attention to most of our media though, which only seems to draw attention to certain kinds of violations--a fact which Iran relies on, as a document leaked to the U.N. demonstrates that the highest authorities have a plan to quietly suffocate the community there.

While the U.S. State Dept. and Congress have often criticized Iran's actions vis-a-vis Baha'is, it doesn't go far enough if the media doesn't also catch on to hold the public's attention.

India?

[anilg]

India on that list? WTF?

We do have capital punishment for extreme crimes, but no way that we think "it's OK to kill people"

Get your facts straight.

Idiot.

Re:India?

[Superpants]

Ummm, you do realize that the existence and acceptance of capital punishment in your country is the same as saying it is OK.
I'd say the facts are as straight as they get.

The only solution!

[Brandybuck]

Iran executes bloggers? There's only one solution! Send over our army to kill a bunch of people!

Hey Captain Ego, we are not Zimbabwe

[SuperKendall]

How egotistical do you have to be to claim that ANYTHING we go through in the U.S. is close to comparable to the citizens of those three states? You cheapen their plight and make light of the grueling lives of millions.

I have actually been to Zimbabwe just a few years ago and things were already catastrophic then. I saw firsthand things you simply do not see in the U.S., even in the poorest parts of the land here (which I have also been to).

People like you are the apologists that enable things to suck so hard for people elsewhere. The read your words and think, well then things cannot be so bad there if they are like the U.S.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran's Internet is proof of concept that the Internet is actually quite easy to silence. They didn't need such rules to deal with blogging, the filters already killed what was one the largest bloging communities.
Even proxies or freeNet are not a solution to what was a fire that has been put out. Also the government minions ( Basij ) is already having some presence on the net to deal with the left overs who are "controversial" ( Have common sense ).

Sorry, but internet has already lost here, go home now.

Wrong again

[tinkerton]

Wrong. Bloggers who set up blogs to promote apostasy, promiscuity or "corruption" may be opened up to the joys of the death penalty in future, not anyone who's "blogging."

It's not forbidden yet to do that either. They're debating a draft bill. Looks like we're going to continue to be flooded with shit about Evil Iran for quite a while yet. Are there any wars being planned, incidentally?

Nothing to do with "democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is just an empty word. It exists nowhere in the world of today. Representative parliamentarism is not democracy - you vote for the person who represents you but after that have absolutely no say how they will rule and what laws they pass.

Why Iran ended up with a CIA-sponsored coup with the Shah implanted into power was simply this: the Iranian government was planning to nationalize oil companies. Simple as that. They wanted their own resources to benefit theirselves, not a foreign multinational company. The multinationals with their interests and connections high up to governments and intelligence services did not like it. The result is the mess we now see.

Nationalization has traditionally not been good for countries from a foreign policy perspective. The only one getting away with it at the moment is Hugo Chavez, mostly because he is quite aggressive, has an army and knows the game the IMF and corrupt elements of UK-USA governments play.

Just look at what happened in Chile or Iraq. Only recently, few weeks ago, the nationalization of oil companies done by Saddam Hussein in 1972 was dismantled. Now the Iraq oil is free to be sucked out of the country while leaving Iraqis a maximum of a quarter of the value, if even that.

In Chile another CIA-sponsored coup took place, read up on the background yourself. That was an unfortunate scare of a social democratic government.

Well dammit

[tinkerton]

i misread that myself! sorry, nothing to see here, please move on...

just pull out

[nguy]

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20061020.html

Our intention was good: to penetrate Iraq and bring it to a glorious, euphoric climax. But it's clear now that's just not going to happen. And yet we're still pounding away.

Causing the whole area to become painfully inflamed. And in that situation, the kindest thing you can do is...just pull out.

Re:just pull out

[sumdumass]

I don't know if I would quote Bill Maher in this respect. Not only is he being proven wrong right now, he has been shown to be wrong almost every time he trots that we can't win at anything sentiment out.

Really, If you guys aren't paying attention to what's going on in Iraq right now and still harping on shit over a year old, I think maybe you shouldn't comment. At one time we had slaves in America, times have changed. You would be just as foolish to continue to claim America has slaves legally. Give it a rest why don't you or pay attention and look around for something else to harp about. This constant drumming of failure despite the news coming out of Iraq is getting old and it makes you look silly. This are looking better in Iraq, things are working, and Iraq is coming closer and closer to a democratic government supported by the people of Iraq that is both effectual as well as capable.

Re:just pull out

[nguy]

Really, If you guys aren't paying attention to what's going on in Iraq right now and still harping on shit over a year old, I think maybe you shouldn't comment.

I'm sorry, but I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that because the Iraqis are finally calming down a bit, it was all justified?

This are looking better in Iraq, things are working, and Iraq is coming closer and closer to a democratic government supported by the people of Iraq that is both effectual as well as capable.

The war cost us more than a trillion dollars, and it cost at least tens of thousands of lives. It's given political ammunition to US enemies and it has increased the terrorist threat against the US enormously.

You're an idiot if you try to sweep this under the rug and pretend that just because there's a lull, it was all worth it. Bush made an exceptionally bad decision, and we are all going to pay for it for decades to come.

Re:just pull out

[sumdumass]

I'm sorry, but I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that because the Iraqis are finally calming down a bit, it was all justified?

Lol.. I figured you wouldn't get it. That's why I suggested that you payed attention. And don't worry, it isn't like your too poor to do it, all you have to do is watch what is going on around us.

I was saying that the linked statement which consisted of the entire post I replied to which said But it's clear now that's just not going to happen. And yet we're still pounding away Is a false statement and that something that was said 2 years ago is no longer relevant. Do you get it know or do I need to draw a picture?

The war cost us more than a trillion dollars, and it cost at least tens of thousands of lives. It's given political ammunition to US enemies and it has increased the terrorist threat against the US enormously.

And your ignoring the point. Perhaps it is on purpose or maybe you just are capable of comprehending something so simple. Going off on tired old rants about "it costs us money" or "our enemies who already hated us, hate us now", acknowledge the situation or shut up. I mean it is that simple. I know people like you want to avoid any possibility of us winning and succeeding because it could destroy your entire world view. But what you going to find out is that your getting increasingly alone more and more when people around you look up and realize that your the fool manipulating things, not the evil goberment.

You're an idiot if you try to sweep this under the rug and pretend that just because there's a lull, it was all worth it. Bush made an exceptionally bad decision, and we are all going to pay for it for decades to come.

And you an idiot for letting your political world view obscure the entire point I was making so you can make you little rant. I mean seriously, a little critical thinking and less knee jerk reaction would be nice but it doesn't take much effort to understand exactly what I was saying. Here, I will repost it and lets see if you can get it this time.

I don't know if I would quote Bill Maher in this respect. Not only is he being proven wrong right now, he has been shown to be wrong almost every time he trots that we can't win at anything sentiment out.

Really, If you guys aren't paying attention to what's going on in Iraq right now and still harping on shit over a year old, I think maybe you shouldn't comment. At one time we had slaves in America, times have changed. You would be just as foolish to continue to claim America has slaves legally. Give it a rest why don't you or pay attention and look around for something else to harp about. This constant drumming of failure despite the news coming out of Iraq is getting old and it makes you look silly. This are looking better in Iraq, things are working, and Iraq is coming closer and closer to a democratic government supported by the people of Iraq that is both effectual as well as capable.

You see, I specify what my objection is, you totally missed that. I then go on to say that if you can't look around at the present and must live in the past, you are becoming less and less relevant and shouldn't comment. I then showed how stupid it was to constantly bring up the past as if it was happening right now with the slavery comment, then I proceeded to talk about how Iraq is becoming a success.

I'm sorry that it went completely over your head. However, I don't see that as a fault of mine, rather as a fault of yours. I hope you can come back and play when you grow up a little and learn a few things. Until then, good day.

Military threat hinders progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this makes perfect sense. As Marx famously noted, religion is the opiate of the masses, but religion have known this all along. A unified religion is an extremely powerful tool to control and subdue the population, which is why God's special list of things he doesn't want you to do, specifically tells you to worship him but no one else.

As I am in Iran at the moment, and regularly travel here, I often reflect on this. Much of the shit that the government here is able to pull would be absolutely impossible if the people weren't so widely religious. And as my taxi driver at the airport said, the reason that a lot of people trusted Khomeini and his gang in the first place was that they were dedicated Muslims, so people just assumed that they would be decent people.

The Iranian population, at least in the big cities, seem to hate Ahmadinejad and often compares him with George W Bush. Ahmadinejad's support come from rural areas which are traditionally more religious. (As Iran is a self-styled Islamic democracy, the option in the election was Rafsanjani, who has always been extremely unpopular among people I've talked to - but now some seem to feel that he would at least have had the sense not to screw things up in the way Ahmadinejd did.)

But I do not see a revolution coming. I've made a point of interviewing people I meet about their opinions for the last few years. The people are divided and inconsistent over time on their views on the 1979 revolution. Obviously they feel betrayed by the revolution that they were all part of, and I can't see any idea or person that could instill collective trust and support. They are exhausted by the war. They feel isolated and trapped in a country that does it best to control them culturally and spiritually all the time, and in a world that is hostile towards them.

Iran needs a revolution, but it's not going to happen while countries like Israel and US keep their fingers too near the trigger. I think it would raise the spirits of Iranians to feel embrace from the rest of the world, rather than resentment. Do not punish the Iranian people for what the theocracy does.

Only when outside military threats are less obvious will people have time to think up solutions for the internal state of the country.

(By the way, someone here wrote that there hasn't been any technological advancements in the Middle East lately. That is not because it isn't a scientific region, it's because it's a poor region. Lots of people with scientific training in Iran go abroad every year. Many top scientists in America in fields like neurology and astrophysics are Iranians, for instace.)

To clarify

[goldcd]

The Indian state believes that it is acceptable (actually it's more 'required' I guess) to kill some people deemed guilty of commiting an 'extreme crime'
Happy?

No I didn't

[goldcd]

Each country has a selection of crimes, a selection of punishments available and in a fuzzy way associates the two together in sentencing guidelines.
Yes being executed for reading a blog is quite ridiculous, as I assume everybody in this thread has agreed with - but what seemed to be being missed is that a large number of citizens of this world find execution for anything ridiculous.

Stop posting news about Iran, it supports War!

[MrJones]

This kind of posts is just what leeds us to an Iraq War.

There are many places in the world were people die just in worst condition or without any kind of freedom.

So, why we focus on Iran? Why Iran is so important? Why Iran need democracy more than other countries?
Timoty, please think about that and stop promoting Wars with this kind of posts.

Peace!

"The Founding Fathers" - a religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Founding Fathers very explicitely set up a secular state...Attempting to redefine what the Founding Fathers meant is a pretty weak tactic"

You make it sound like these "Founding Fathers" are holy men that must be worshipped and all who do not believe shall be punished, cast down, etc.

I think it's great you respect the founders of your country but they were just men you know. They had faults like the rest of us.

Funny thing is the way people capitalise the expression "Founding Fathers" and get angry when anybody disputes their wisdom makes me wonder if this is how a religion starts. There are other examples of real people who are now worshipped...

Re:"The Founding Fathers" - a religion?

[MightyMartian]

They are the guys that wrote the Constitution, and it's been this sort of funny tradition to inform Constitutional arguments based on what their intentions are, rather than ignoring inconvenient elements.

Allah Youse guys know Iran to my puter two blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Let em do what they want... I think the US gets treated so crappy after trying to help, fuck em all.. blow it all up and let Allah sort it out. What kind of a fucked up religion lets you have virgins if your a good boy? Gawd I love this...

Phew...

[Anonymous Coward]

'establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,'

I got really scared for a minute there, but luckily my blog only promotes two of those.

Like all the kids say...

[Slur]

I slam, you slam, we all slam for Islam!

This is a Bush Co Propaganda

[AP31R0N]

to make Iran's gov't look evil, with the endgame being of course another invasion for oil. Don't believe their lies! This is just like when they told us Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians. Just like when they told us that Saddam was spending Oil for Food money on palaces instead of medicine. Remember that picture from the first gulf war of the "baby milk factory"? The gov't put that in the picture to make us think the Iraqis were trying to hide something. Or the so called "SCUD attacks" in Israel... all that footage was shot on a set in Burbank. And don't get me started on the obvious photoshopping of a guy standing in front of tanks in Tienanmen Square!

Old Joke Updated

[tehcyder]

What do you call a hundred executed bloggers?

A start.

capital punishment and rehabilitation

[falconwolf]

I think it's clear these people can't be rehabilitated.

Yea, some might not be rehabilitatable, but then lock them up and throw away the key.

Without the death penalty, assholes like Dennis Rader will rot in jail forever. I'd rather see him put to death.

When I'm thinking sadistically I may say the families of the BTK's, Dennis Rader, victims should be allowed to do to him what he did to his victims. Now if punishment is the goal then life in prison may be worse than capital punishment, some are more concerned about their freedom than about death, they'd rather be dead than locked up. I believe if I were locked up for life and saw no hope I'd do what I could to kill myself.

Falcon