@Iranian dude

[MarcusAurelius]

And it was still a shithole between the time of the crusades and the return of European influence, so it's hard to have faith in their self improvement.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

[Uncle Sherm]

I think this guy overestimates the US's desire to rule over the Iranian people the way we apparently do everywhere else. Our "influence" in the middle east is less than that of Europe, but you don't see the Germans running around demanding we abandon the military bases there and start hording their finely engineered manufactured goods.

Our last great adventure into Iran was over 30 years ago during the Cold War when they were bordering the Soviet Union and the country the Soviet Union had just invaded. Needless to say, we didn't want to deal with another Soviet state brushfire, so we intervened by propping up the guy that was already in power. To promote Iran as the great holdout against US hegemony is laughable, but it makes the Iranian government look heroic. Hence the propaganda they produce touting themselves as such anytime the US is involved in diplomacy with them.

[Talenos]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/su ... al/?hpt=T2

In Iran the higher courts would have gotten rid of the execution penalty and sentenced her to 20 hours of community service.

[Reagraham Lincool]

They've fucked with our political process as well, by taking aggrssive military stances and likely developing a nuclear weapons program, along with a threatening posture towards our allies.

Posted with TouchBB on my iPhone

I know right? Our "political process" of conquering the Middle East has been completely fucked with by those assholes! How dare they make it look like they intend to defend themselves against a regional nuclear power that we've propped up or possibly *gasp* even against us!

[Reagraham Lincool]

we intervened by propping up the guy that was already in power

What?

[MarcusAurelius]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_un_world_ ... NvdXRvbg--

UNITED NATIONS – The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and is deeply at odds with the United States and European allies over its nuclear program and suspicions that it is designed to produce an atomic bomb. Iran says it is only working on technology for electricity generation.

The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

_That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.

_"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

[Reagraham Lincool]

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

Yeah that's me. I am a super duper 9/11 truther. And you know it's true because treadmill said it!

[GPCR]

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

A million dead iraqis, were they still breathing, would also have some opinions about the violent fuckwits that constitute your ilk.

[MarcusAurelius]

oh so this wasn't a translation error like when he denied the holocaust? hard to keep up.

but really, those dead iraqis think the americans orchestrated 911 for economic gain? really? i didn't know al jazeera broadcasted truthers.

[GPCR]

No, I don't think it was mistranslated (haven't listened to the original audio). Either way, he's not sharing the opinions of the Iranian people. He's claiming to share the opinions of the American people, by mischaracterizing polling data. There is polling data (pdf) to show that only a small percentage of the American population believe the official story, while the vast majority of the American populace believed as recently as three years ago that the Bush administration was either "mostly lying" or "hiding something" about the events of 9/11. Ahmadinejad erroneously expands this to them believing the government might be complicit.

[MarcusAurelius]

did those polls say anything about a majority of americans thinking 9/11 was related to some desire to save israel? cause i seriously doubt any majority of americans could connect your durkas with the jews, let alone find both on a map.

[THW]

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

A million dead iraqis, were they still breathing, would also have some opinions about the violent fuckwits that constitute your ilk.

I know what these statements imply. But what I see is 'when the Americans removed the balance of power maintaining order, the Iraqis turned into barbaric savages and started murdering each other.'

There were plenty of casualties of war directly inflicted by the US. I won't dispute that point, nor will I defend the actions of the US. But the implications of these statements are dishonest.

[MarcusAurelius]

nah you've got it all wrong. when americans aren't messing with iraqis, iraqis are coming up with the fundamentals of trigonometry n shit.

[nippletwister]

ST: Disingenuous misrepresentation of each others' positions since 2001.

[GPCR]

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

A million dead iraqis, were they still breathing, would also have some opinions about the violent fuckwits that constitute your ilk.

I know what these statements imply. But what I see is 'when the Americans removed the balance of power maintaining order, the Iraqis turned into barbaric savages and started murdering each other.'

There were plenty of casualties of war directly inflicted by the US. I won't dispute that point, nor will I defend the actions of the US. But the implications of these statements are dishonest.

First, the comment was just provided to help MA come to grips with the idea that shallow polemics can just as easily be lodged from the other side. I don't actually believe that Americans are "violent fuckwits". Far from it. Now that the topic is being seriously raised, I personally take the position of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which defined a war of aggression as a war crime set apart from all other crimes of war, by containing "within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". I think the position can be successfully argued in the case of Iraq. I think I've made it in the past here, though. The general idea is that in the relevant time period, all polling showed that the very, very vast majority of Iraqis would have liked to avoid a civil war of any stripe. A small minority of individuals- a strange marriage of secular Iraqi Baathists and migrant al-Qaeda sympathizers from the gulf Arab states- made use of the power vacuum (brought on by the war) to pursue their political and ideological agendas. They did this with violence, and Iraqi civilians suffered. Under these conditions, the typical Iraqi who otherwise sees no value in civil strife, is then effectively forced into accepting the lines of identity drawn in the country. Others might only accept a radicalized sense of identity after this civil strife is personalized is some way. Either way, the conditions themselves leave people very little choice but to accept the terms of security provided by those with weapons in an environment of insecurity- created by war and exploited by others that do not represent the aggregate will of the Iraqi people. These conditions were recognizable in the case of a nation with a tense and complicated social fabric.

[MarcusAurelius]

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

A million dead iraqis, were they still breathing, would also have some opinions about the violent fuckwits that constitute your ilk.

I know what these statements imply. But what I see is 'when the Americans removed the balance of power maintaining order, the Iraqis turned into barbaric savages and started murdering each other.'

There were plenty of casualties of war directly inflicted by the US. I won't dispute that point, nor will I defend the actions of the US. But the implications of these statements are dishonest.

First, the comment was just provided to help MA come to grips with the idea that shallow polemics can just as easily be lodged from the other side. I don't actually believe that Americans are "violent fuckwits". Far from it. Now that the topic is being seriously raised, I personally take the position of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which defined a war of aggression as a war crime set apart from all other crimes of war, by containing "within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". I think the position can be successfully argued in the case of Iraq. I think I've made it in the past here, though. The general idea is that in the relevant time period, all polling showed that the very, very vast majority of Iraqis would have liked to avoid a civil war of any stripe. A small minority of individuals- a strange marriage of secular Iraqi Baathists and migrant al-Qaeda sympathizers from the gulf Arab states- made use of the power vacuum (brought on by the war) to pursue their political and ideological agendas. They did this with violence, and Iraqi civilians suffered. Under these conditions, the typical Iraqi who otherwise sees no value in civil strife, is then effectively forced into accepting the lines of identity drawn in the country. Others might only accept a radicalized sense of identity after this civil strife is personalized is some way. Either way, the conditions themselves leave people very little choice but to accept the terms of security provided by those with weapons in an environment of insecurity- created by war and exploited by others that do not represent the aggregate will of the Iraqi people. These conditions were recognizable in the case of a nation with a tense and complicated social fabric.

^^^^^^^^^ i lol'd.

[GPCR]

You have a retarded sense of humor. How fitting.

[MarcusAurelius]

why is it fitting? because you think i'm retarded? is that why?

[GPCR]

No. I clearly meant it physically fits the contours of your well-worn rectum.

[Pesto]

That's the lamest comeback ever.

[GPCR]

So is your mom.

[Reagraham Lincool]

why is it fitting? because you think i'm retarded? is that why?

Well duh.

[John Ford]

As for his death sentence, he actually hasn't been sentenced, a military judge has only technically forwarded a recommendation that included the possibility of a death penalty, and again, you can be sure it will be reversed. If they actually had the balls to execute the public faces of the Iranian opposition, there are bigger personalities such as Karoubi, Mousavi, or Ebadi to start with. The fact is, the government hard-liners would be afraid of the fall-out, and his sentence will be commuted at a later stage in his court proceedings.

GPCR called it. But 19 years.....damn.

[MarcusAurelius]

sanity wins the day!

[Talenos]

A punishment that fits the crime!

[Pesto]

Truly, Iran is a modern egalitarian state!

[MarcusAurelius]

lol ritard

[Charlie Foxtrot]

i think i can speak for all americans that aren't dave that iranians and their democratically-elected ahmadinejad can go fuck themselves.

A million dead iraqis, were they still breathing, would also have some opinions about the violent fuckwits that constitute your ilk.

What about the million dead Iranians whose helmets were used to make a road in Baghdad?

[daoist]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... tml?hpt=T2

[Wargazm]

It's not a problem. A higher court would have just diffused those explosives, making them no more dangerous than a whoopie cushion.

Unfortunately, it's the lower courts that make explosives dangerous, and there's really very little that the rest of the government can do but judge each explosive on a case-by-case basis.

[MarcusAurelius]

it's only a matter of time now, iran.

[GPCR]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghanistan.iran.weapons/index.html?hpt=T2

And what exactly is your point? Given the United States not only accounts for the majority of arms transfers and weaponry throughout the entire fucking region, it currently occupies that very country, can even be mentioned in passing if it not accompanied by a complete condemnation of American foreign policy in the region.

[MarcusAurelius]

ah, so if americans do it, you can condemn them for their moral inferiority, but if the iranians do the same thing,

also, go back to iran already. the whole hate-america shtick is getting old.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

So because the US is worse this is ok?

These bombs were almost certainly going to be used to kill and maim Afghan civilians in an effort to further destabilize the country and bring more suffering to the average citizen. How this can be above reproach because the US is worse seems crazy to me.

And let it be known that I do not support my governments actions in the middle east but I don't think it gives everyone there free reign to kill innocents to further their own agenda.

@GPCR

[MarcusAurelius]

So because the US is worse this is ok?

These bombs were almost certainly going to be used to kill and maim Afghan civilians in an effort to further destabilize the country and bring more suffering to the average citizen. How this can be above reproach because the US is worse seems crazy to me.

And let it be known that I do not support my governments actions in the middle east but I don't think it gives everyone there free reign to kill innocents to further their own agenda.

@GPCR

the US isn't worse, we're just bigger. at least we target military targets, which is far more than can be said for the iranians and those they support.

[GPCR]

But, if we really want to talk about the Taliban and Iran, let's. It's clear that none of you have spent more than 10 seconds of your lives examining the issue. So, even as your country has occupied Afghanistan for close to a decade at this juncture, I think it's safe to assume that you don't consider the topic important enough. Or, only important in that some formulaic headline from CNN probably suffices as both your entire body of information on the issue, and the very context you place it in, all-at-once. It's a great trick. So, let's refresh our memories. When did the Taliban come to power? 1994. What was the nature of the US government's relationship with the Taliban after the new government took foothold? In line with our nearer relationship with Pakistan, and in consideration of the Taliban as a protectorate of Pakistan-US interests in Afghanistan, the US government reacted positively. It not only supported the Taliban, engaged it in trade and protected it from pariah status, it said nothing when a year later (in early 1995) the Taliban banned women from attending school. It took another 3 years for the United States to very, very slowly distance itself from the Taliban. In the meantime, it granted visas to Taliban representatives for negotiations on a proposed gas pipeline. Now, let's move to Iran-Taliban relations. When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, it's only agressive act on the diplomacy front was to immediately execute the staff of an Iranian consulate in Afghanistan (source). Why is it that the Taliban only considered Iran a major threat? Why is it that Iran was the only country in the world that raised concern about the Taliban, explicitly its suppression of ethnic and religious minorities, and women- in the first 4 years of its rule (when it was most agressive on these fronts)? Why is it that when Iran decided it might invade and topple the Taliban government with the help of the Northern Alliance, it was warned by the US government that the Taliban was the "legitimate, sovereign" government of the Afghan peoples? Fast-forward to the American invasion of Afghanistan. A very little known fact is that Iran played a fundamental role in helping the invasion along. Watch this from minute 5:00 onwards. It's a brilliant documentary (this is only a snip of it) that draws on interviews with all those involved in these decisions at the time.

[MarcusAurelius]

aaaaaaaaaaaand the prototypical GPCR response defending iran's suckitude.

loved the bit about iran's concern for women's rights in afghanistan. that was particularly touching.

[GPCR]

So because the US is worse this is ok?

These bombs were almost certainly going to be used to kill and maim Afghan civilians in an effort to further destabilize the country and bring more suffering to the average citizen. How this can be above reproach because the US is worse seems crazy to me.

And let it be known that I do not support my governments actions in the middle east but I don't think it gives everyone there free reign to kill innocents to further their own agenda.

@GPCR

Actually, the article and most commentary on these matters is nothing but pure speculation. In the context of historical animosity between the Taliban and Iran, it makes even less sense. Some analysts have suggested that a wing of the IRGC supplies very basic arms to some very specific groups, as a means of pressuring the Americans to exit their neighboring state. It would also make sense for Iran to retain its good relations with the Karzai government. So if this is to be part of their regional strategy, it would only to push Americans out of Afghanistan. Which is in line with their stated policies.

[MarcusAurelius]

lol. it's speculation when it's on CNN, but al-jazeera is a trustworthy source.

[GPCR]

aaaaaaaaaaaand the prototypical GPCR response defending iran's suckitude.

loved the bit about iran's concern for women's rights in afghanistan. that was particularly touching.

Is all you do troll? I mean, honestly, why are you even posting in this thread? What do you know about Afghanistan or Iran? Absolutely nothing. You have nothing of value to provide. You don't even have a basic working understanding of the context of this discussion. So, you have an option. You can take the time to learn a thing or two, and internalize and deal with specific, exact claims. Or, you can do what you usually do, respond with unimaginative one-liners only to pronounce your pride in ignorance in bold.

[GPCR]

lol. it's speculation when it's on CNN, but al-jazeera is a trustworthy source.

Never mind that Al-Jazeera is actually a much, much more respectable news outlet than CNN on these matters, what does that have to do with anything? Where exactly did I post a link to Al-Jazeera?

[MarcusAurelius]

aaaaaaaaaaaand the prototypical GPCR response defending iran's suckitude.

loved the bit about iran's concern for women's rights in afghanistan. that was particularly touching.

Is all you do troll? I mean, honestly, why are you even posting in this thread? What do you know about Afghanistan or Iran? Absolutely nothing. You have nothing of value to provide. You don't even have a basic working understanding of the context of this discussion. So, you have an option. You can take the time to learn a thing or two, and internalize and deal with specific, exact claims. Or, you can do what you usually do, respond with unimaginative one-liners only to pronounce your pride in ignorance in bold.

not my fault you're so goddamned predictable. EVERY time someone posts something shitty about iran, you turn around and spin it into that original statement being wrong, or that america is worse in that regard, or rampant excuses about why we shouldn't belittle iran for whatever it is they're fucking up, or (more commonly) a combination of all 3.

never once have you ever just said "you know what, iran fucked up in this regard. they shouldn't have [stoned that woman/denied the holocaust/shipped explosives to afghanistan]." there isn't a single other poster here that is as bigoted as you are on any single issue. even in these threads, you have americans condemning american foreign policy actions in no uncertain terms. we're not making excuses on every fuckup in america and explaining why it's actually all okay. we accept our imperfection. but you? no matter what it is, you've shown yourself willing to step up and point out why everyone else is stupid and that iran is a paradise of logic and peace and harmony. it's amazing to see someone so belligerently defending their 1-dimensional mindset while belittling others for not appreciating the multidimensional complexity of the situation.

it's really quite something.

[MarcusAurelius]

that you can honestly make excuses for a woman being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery without simply saying "iran has some serious problems, and it's embarrassing that anything like this can happen at any level of the courts" is testament to how truly stubborn you are.

also, if you don't like it, you can get out

[GPCR]

never once have you ever just said "you know what, iran fucked up in this regard. they shouldn't have [stoned that woman/denied the holocaust/shipped explosives to afghanistan]."

Nonsense. I have a long list of things I see wrong with Iran, and there is a popular domestic opposition, whose motives and ideology i ascribe to, that is continually working towards fixing these wrongs. However, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that contextless hick-mold propaganda suffices as a discussion. The superficial reduction of the snippets of snippets of snippets of processed information that seem to constitute almost all of your revealed understanding of these issues, are not supposed to be taken on as questions of simple support or opposition. That is not how a discussion works. The discussion merely begins where you seem to think it ends. Take the matter of stoning. Last I checked, no one in that thread argued the point as to whether or not stoning should be part of any penal code. The reason it wasn't discussed is because it was assumed that it would represent an uncontroversial matter of agreement. That, however, is where the actual discussion would begin. I provided accurate information as to the specific case, the Iranian penal system, and a projection of where such cases head given my understanding of previous such cases that I had followed. So, we can glean your superficial goals clearly from this little exercise. If your main concern was the fate of the woman in question- as a forum humanitarian who glibly refers to Iraqi children as cockroaches- those are the sorts of things you should have wanted to know. That is, in fact, the precise set of questions you should have had a burning desire to have resolved. But again, that would be to incorrectly assume your interests. I provided you information, in context, given the time I've spent reading about these issues. It then should have been no surprise that what I provided you turned out to be correct. When the goal is mere demonization, and you've admitted that you have no real interest in learning anything of value on topics you are unfamiliar with, I'll still take the time to provide it. I'm not posting in the hopes that you'll educate yourself. Take the case of "holocaust denial"- beyond the semantics of whether or not the president of Iran has actually denied the holocaust in any of his speeches. You can take that assumption on as fact. Now, from there? We can leave the discussion at that, or we could place that assumption in a working framework. For example, the status of Jews in Iran, or the general view of Iranians about the holocaust, or whether or not there are historical analogs to European anti-semitism in recent Iranian history. Those are the sorts of questions that should uncontrollably spring to the mind of someone who has a genuine interest in a topic, as opposed to someone who is content with a sensational headline meant to demonize (but only in the selective sense) something or another.

So no, I'm not going to stop providing answers to these sorts of relevant questions. Whether or not you read them or internalize them in any meaningful way, is not my primary concern.

[MarcusAurelius]

tl dr, assuming it's an apology for defending the disgusting shitpile that is modern day iran.

[Reagraham Lincool]

So because the US is worse this is ok?

These bombs were almost certainly going to be used to kill and maim Afghan civilians in an effort to further destabilize the country and bring more suffering to the average citizen. How this can be above reproach because the US is worse seems crazy to me.

And let it be known that I do not support my governments actions in the middle east but I don't think it gives everyone there free reign to kill innocents to further their own agenda.

@GPCR

Oh come on that's total bullshit. You don't know that the bombs were coming from the Iranian government and even if they were, your characterization of their intended use is just absurd. I can say that those bombs were "almost certainly" going to be used to to try to repel a foreign aggressor from the land of those Afghan civilians and to take down the puppet government it has installed. In fact, I could make the claim that it has nothing to do with the US being "worse." It would suffice to argue that those bombs serve no purpose without American aggression in Afghanistan. Anyone can play that game.

If their goals (whoever they are) for these bombs are to "kill innocents" (presumably when they're not too busy strapping damsels to train tracks or twirling their mustaches) then every time we drop a bomb on an Afghan wedding, our goals are to kill innocents as well and if it's not (because we [rightfully or wrongfully] excuse collateral damage in a fight we consider to be justified) for us, then it's not for them.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

I never said that the Iranian government would intend these bombs to kill civilians but they can't be ignorant enough of the situation to assume that they won't be used to kill civilians. Regardless of whether that was the intent they most certainly know that when these bombs will be used to repel an invading force (why should they be dabbling in this anyway?) innocent civilians will be killed.

IF these were supplied with the knowledge of the Iranian government they are just as guilty in interfering with foreign nations affiairs as the US is.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I never said that the Iranian government would intend these bombs to kill civilians but they can't be ignorant enough of the situation to assume that they won't be used to kill civilians. Regardless of whether that was the intent they most certainly know that when these bombs will be used to repel an invading force (why should they be dabbling in this anyway?) innocent civilians will be killed.

That is literally the exact argument presented against American acceptance of collateral damage in our actions. Seriously, if you swap the subjects around, you are now Howard Zinn.

IF these were supplied with the knowledge of the Iranian government they are just as guilty in interfering with foreign nations affiairs as the US is.

The US is guilty of way WAY more than "interference."

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

Are you assuming that I'm in support of US/NATO actions in Afghanistan?

It's like you're not arguing with me but who you want me to be.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Are you assuming that I'm in support of US/NATO actions in Afghanistan?

It's like you're not arguing with me but who you want me to be.

On the contrary, I'm arguing with whom I'd like you not to be.

Honestly though, you don't strike me as a pacifist. Is there no cause you'd say is sufficiently worthwhile to risk collateral damage?

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

Of course not. There are plenty of situations where collateral damage is reasonable but very few of those situations don't involve defense. This is clearly an offensive tactic. If I thought that Iran would involve themselves in this conflict for the good of a reasonable and just government of Afghanistan I might see it another way but I see no evidence for that.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Of course not. There are plenty of situations where collateral damage is reasonable but very few of those situations don't involve defense. This is clearly an offensive tactic. If I thought that Iran would involve themselves in this conflict for the good of a reasonable and just government of Afghanistan I might see it another way but I see no evidence for that.

Where's the evidence for the opposite premise (given how "clear" the tactic is)?

[GPCR]

This is clearly an offensive tactic. If I thought that Iran would involve themselves in this conflict for the good of a reasonable and just government of Afghanistan I might see it another way but I see no evidence for that.

Actually, it is in Iran's natural interest that Afghanistan (a neighboring country) retain a stable government, and it should be noted that the Karzai government was essentially established in a deal largely brokered by Iran (the State Department acknowledges as much). Overall instability in Afghanistan only increases the likelihood of the Taliban returning to power (which is a historical enemy of the Iranian state), and will only increase the flow of both Afghan refugees and Afghan narcotics into Iran (which have both taken an economic toll). If you watch the relevant part of the documentary I linked, it gives a very basic overview of how instrumental Iranian intelligence was in the original US invasion of Afghanistan, and how critical Iranian agents and their contacts in the Northern Alliance were in brokering a power-sharing agreement in the aftermath (something the US was struggling to provide). So, the only reasonable conclusion to draw- assuming this information is even correct- is that Iran feels confident that the support it is providing will only add pressure for an American withdrawal, and any other effects of this strategy are negligible in view of that basic goal. Now, I actually agree with you that Iran should not be meddling in Afghan affairs. I agree that Iran should not have helped the US invasion of Afghanistan along. However, in light of the fact that the US has since invaded two of Iran's neighboring states, and the fact that it continues to threaten Iran with military aggression, Iranian behavior can be argued as a defensive posture, as opposed to an unprovoked case of agression or expansionism. But again, the context of Afghanistan is the fact that has been occupied for a near decade by a foreign power, and this reduces the strategic maneuverings by neighboring states mere footnotes in this balance.

[GPCR]

Click ahead to minute 4.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

Now, I actually agree with you that Iran should not be meddling in Afghan affairs. I agree that Iran should not have helped the US invasion of Afghanistan along. However, in light of the fact that the US has since invaded two of Iran's neighboring states, and the fact that it continues to threaten Iran with military aggression, Iranian behavior can be argued as a defensive posture, as opposed to an unprovoked case of agression or expansionism. But again, the context of Afghanistan is the fact that has been occupied for a near decade by a foreign power, and this reduces the strategic maneuverings by neighboring states mere footnotes in this balance.

I think this is where you and I differ slightly. I simply don't think that meddling in Afghanistan is going to help their position. I understand why they might do such a thing but it's seems like a very dangerous gamble. Considering the condition of the US military on either side of Iran and at home they could probably sit back and watch the US fall to the same fate in Afghanistan as the British Empire and the USSR before them.

[daoist]

Take the matter of stoning. Last I checked, no one in that thread argued the point as to whether or not stoning should be part of any penal code. The reason it wasn't discussed is because it was assumed that it would represent an uncontroversial matter of agreement. That, however, is where the actual discussion would begin.

Whoa wait a sec. Do you disagree, then?

[GPCR]

Disagree with what? I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying.

[MarcusAurelius]

hahahahaha <3 this guy

[Epaminondas]

I think any civilized person or society would agree that stoning should not be part of a penal code, that would define a "cruel and unusual punishment" since it's basically torture.

Is there some reason for it? According to wikipedia it's not in the Koran, and it hasn't been a traditional part of Iran's penal code, being added in 1983.

[GPCR]

Also from Wikipedia,

Following vociferous domestic and international controversy and outcry over stoning in the early years of the Islamic republic, the government placed a moratorium on stoning ... the Iranian judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad was quoted as saying "Stoning has been dropped from the penal code for a long time, and in [Iran], we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were over-ruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."

This was all discussed in the other thread.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Yeah but see what you're failing to consider is AHERPDERPDERP!

[MarcusAurelius]

Also from Wikipedia,

Following vociferous domestic and international controversy and outcry over stoning in the early years of the Islamic republic, the government placed a moratorium on stoning ... the Iranian judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad was quoted as saying "Stoning has been dropped from the penal code for a long time, and in [Iran], we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were over-ruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."

This was all discussed in the other thread.

yet you still are not willing to denounce the lower courts, and instead hold up the higher courts as being some bastion of civility for overturning these stoning sentences. you're comparing one abhorrent system to one very slightly less abhorrent system.

[GPCR]

What's it like being as dense as a fucking black hole? When I say I'm opposed to the death penalty, that means I'm opposed to the death penalty in any form, regardless of who proposes to carry it out and whatever the provided justification. The only relevant point of that discussion wasn't this obvious fact, it's the other simple fact- that the idea that stoning takes place in Iran is disingenuous reporting. So, yes, purposefully contextless and outright misleading reporting is nothing more than propaganda. The sort you buy into, and the sort that constitutes almost all of your political bandwidth. A mentally handicapped woman was just executed in Virginia a few weeks ago. Now, you live in the US, so I assume you're at least familiar with things that happen here, such that you can place that event in some context. You are the ignoramus on the other side, who otherwise has zilch in the way of the relevant information, but thinks a sensational (and ultimately incorrect, in this case) headline in isolation qualifies as news. You have made it clear you have no interest in information. You have made it clear that you have no humanitarian principle or operating motive- again, given how in the same breath of feigned "concern" you can glibly refer to Iraqi children as cockroaches. So, you can spare us the little routine.

[MarcusAurelius]

I don't think the mentally challenged should get any additional leniency.

You're exaggerating our positions. Were disgusted that stoning is considered, and it's biased toward women. You act like overturning the sentence somehow completely absolved the Iranian courts, and by extension Iranian society.

[GPCR]

Iranian society doesn't need to be absolved of anything as it relates to your clearly feigned and duplicitous "disgust". The Iranian courts as a structure, Iranian law, and Iranian society are also diametrically opposed to stoning. Which is why it's illegal. Now, I've already written at length about how such cases (3 in 5 years) arose, where they arose, the isolated demographic in which they arose, and how the illegal verdicts were immediately cancelled by the required higher court review process. So, if that is your concern, you can refer back to that thread and process that information. But again, you have no such interest in information. I'm more concerned about the incredible delusion you must suffer from, where you seem to think your humanitarian "concerns" need to be allayed. It's difficult to entertain that notion when in the same discussion you refer to Iraqi children as cockroaches, and now reveal you see nothing wrong with the execution of the mentally handicapped. A riot, you are.