Death sentences handed down following protests!

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q8847.gif

So, today in Iran—which I guess some of the online leftists, certain religious groups, anarchists, and those "peace and love" types seem determined to defend—three poor souls were sentenced to death. I suppose their only crime was standing up against the religious dictatorship enforced by the clergy throughout the country. Now, I wonder if anyone will try to claim this is a functional government, or a legitimate state, or a democracy, or true freedom. Of course, there will always be people who justify the Iranian clergy, but I think it’s mostly just because they want anything that stands in opposition to the West and the USA. It's quite sad, really😢. I find myself wondering how we can ever trust leaders who hold atomic weapons when those very same individuals are busy terrorizing and killing their own people.

Angela Lee said:http://i33.tinypic.com/25q8847.gif

So, today in Iran—which I guess some of the online leftists, certain religious groups, anarchists, and those "peace and love" types seem determined to defend—three poor souls were sentenced to death. I suppose their only crime was standing up against the religious dictatorship enforced by the clergy throughout the country. Now, I wonder if anyone will try to claim this is a functional government, or a legitimate state, or a democracy, or true freedom. Of course, there will always be people who justify the Iranian clergy, but I think it’s mostly just because they want anything that stands in opposition to the West and the USA. It's quite sad, really😢. I find myself wondering how we can ever trust leaders who hold atomic weapons when those very same individuals are busy terrorizing and killing their own people.

My friend, it wasn't just three protesters in Iran; God knows how many more there were. If they were sentenced simply for demonstrating, why only three?? You saw the footage on TV, just like I did—you saw how those protests actually played out.

The protesters were tearing everything down and setting it ablaze—gas stations, shops, private homes, you name it. Firefighters could barely pull families out of the houses being torched by the mob. Now, if we consider the possibility that these protesters were backed by the West, and that they were acting on orders from the West, then I think they got exactly what they deserved.

Jessica Brown35 said:My friend, it wasn't just three protesters in Iran; God knows how many more there were. If they were sentenced simply for demonstrating, why only three?? You saw the footage on TV, just like I did—you saw how those protests actually played out.

The protesters were tearing everything down and setting it ablaze—gas stations, shops, private homes, you name it. Firefighters could barely pull families out of the houses being torched by the mob. Now, if we consider the possibility that these protesters were backed by the West, and that they were acting on orders from the West, then I think they got exactly what they deserved.

It’s all well and good, I suppose, but nobody really has the right to take someone else's life... maybe. ☕

Jessica Brown35 said:My friend, it wasn't just three protesters in Iran; God knows how many more there were. If they were sentenced simply for demonstrating, why only three?? You saw the footage on TV, just like I did—you saw how those protests actually played out.

The protesters were tearing everything down and setting it ablaze—gas stations, shops, private homes, you name it. Firefighters could barely pull families out of the houses being torched by the mob. Now, if we consider the possibility that these protesters were backed by the West, and that they were acting on orders from the West, then I think they got exactly what they deserved.

Because killing thousands of people is hard work. Sentencing three people? That’s easy. It’s enough to send a message and keep everyone else terrified.🤮

Jessica Brown35 said:My friend, it wasn't just three protesters in Iran; God knows how many more there were. If they were sentenced simply for demonstrating, why only three?? You saw the footage on TV, just like I did—you saw how those protests actually played out.

The protesters were tearing everything down and setting it ablaze—gas stations, shops, private homes, you name it. Firefighters could barely pull families out of the houses being torched by the mob. Now, if we consider the possibility that these protesters were backed by the West, and that they were acting on orders from the West, then I think they got exactly what they deserved.

Sure, that one girl who was killed was particularly aggressive; she was dangerous, almost unhinged.
It honestly makes me sick reading such cheap excuses for religious fanaticism. People driven by religious zealotry to stone women, hang children, and slit the throats of "infidels"... in the 21st century? All in the name of faith. It's revolting.

Angela Lee said:http://i33.tinypic.com/25q8847.gif

So, today in Iran—which I guess some of the online leftists, certain religious groups, anarchists, and those "peace and love" types seem determined to defend—three poor souls were sentenced to death. I suppose their only crime was standing up against the religious dictatorship enforced by the clergy throughout the country. Now, I wonder if anyone will try to claim this is a functional government, or a legitimate state, or a democracy, or true freedom. Of course, there will always be people who justify the Iranian clergy, but I think it’s mostly just because they want anything that stands in opposition to the West and the USA. It's quite sad, really😢. I find myself wondering how we can ever trust leaders who hold atomic weapons when those very same individuals are busy terrorizing and killing their own people.

There aren't any leftists, anarchists, or flower children here🙄. As for the religious extremists, they care more about establishing their version of an Islamic order than anything else—don't expect them to feel any sympathy for the rest of the world

Melissa Watson4 said:It’s all well and good, I suppose, but nobody really has the right to take someone else's life... maybe. ☕

Well, good luck explaining that moral high ground to the people who are perfectly willing to torch an entire apartment complex full of families just to check a box on some political agenda.

Or maybe just blow up a subway system—it's a trivial example, obviously detached from reality.😬 Or perhaps it's actually possible.

Chloe Palmer2 said:Or maybe just blow up a subway system—it's a trivial example, obviously detached from reality.😬 Or perhaps it's actually possible.

Bravo, Ken—truly an impeccable illustration.
And now, I suppose, someone is expected to issue the most stringent condemnation of those who commit such acts within a peaceful nation—one that hasn't launched an unprovoked attack on anyone in several centuries.👎

Jessica Brown35 said:Bravo, Ken—truly an impeccable illustration.
And now, I suppose, someone is expected to issue the most stringent condemnation of those who commit such acts within a peaceful nation—one that hasn't launched an unprovoked attack on anyone in several centuries.👎

Bullshit. She attacked Israel—not directly, obviously, but through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

nimblehound94 said:Bullshit. She attacked Israel—not directly, obviously, but through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Heh, come on now... get real, my friend. 🙂))

Angela Lee said:http://i33.tinypic.com/25q8847.gif

So, today in Iran—which I guess some of the online leftists, certain religious groups, anarchists, and those "peace and love" types seem determined to defend—three poor souls were sentenced to death. I suppose their only crime was standing up against the religious dictatorship enforced by the clergy throughout the country. Now, I wonder if anyone will try to claim this is a functional government, or a legitimate state, or a democracy, or true freedom. Of course, there will always be people who justify the Iranian clergy, but I think it’s mostly just because they want anything that stands in opposition to the West and the USA. It's quite sad, really😢. I find myself wondering how we can ever trust leaders who hold atomic weapons when those very same individuals are busy terrorizing and killing their own people.

First off: Iran isn't some dictatorship—it's actually a democratic country with representative bodies that everyone living there gets to vote for, regardless of their religion, gender, race, or social status. They've got a parliament based on direct elections (none of that party-machine nonsense), and they hold direct elections for the president and other major political and legislative offices too. It's a pretty solid, exemplary state if you ask me

Second: If protests broke out here in the US where certain people committed murders or indirectly caused deaths through their actions, they'd definitely face the death penalty. I mean, the US is basically the gold standard of democracy, right?

Third: Why don't you start a thread about a place where human rights are *actually* being trampled—like China? Look, they just finished a trial in Urumqi for inciting unrest, and six people were sentenced to death. And get this—they're all Uyghurs, and there isn't a single member of the majority population in sight—Hana!!! Basically, they've colonized and taken control of Uyghur land! Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/wo...a.html?_r=1&hp

The hypocrisy here is unreal—what a pathetic topic. Honestly, when people don't know what they're talking about, they just resort to demagoguery, hate, and pure prejudice!

Nancy Wood6 said:First off: Iran isn't some dictatorship—it's actually a democratic country with representative bodies that everyone living there gets to vote for, regardless of their religion, gender, race, or social status. They've got a parliament based on direct elections (none of that party-machine nonsense), and they hold direct elections for the president and other major political and legislative offices too. It's a pretty solid, exemplary state if you ask me

Second: If protests broke out here in the US where certain people committed murders or indirectly caused deaths through their actions, they'd definitely face the death penalty. I mean, the US is basically the gold standard of democracy, right?

Third: Why don't you start a thread about a place where human rights are *actually* being trampled—like China? Look, they just finished a trial in Urumqi for inciting unrest, and six people were sentenced to death. And get this—they're all Uyghurs, and there isn't a single member of the majority population in sight—Hana!!! Basically, they've colonized and taken control of Uyghur land! Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/wo...a.html?_r=1&hp

The hypocrisy here is unreal—what a pathetic topic. Honestly, when people don't know what they're talking about, they just resort to demagoguery, hate, and pure prejudice!

Or, God forbid, let's talk about Israel!

I was reading the papers today—it’s all the same story—about how various human rights organizations are condemning Israel for holding Palestinian detainees in prisons without a single legal proceeding or any kind of judicial process ever being initiated against them.

There are people sitting there, rotting in cells for seven years straight, without ever stepping foot in a courtroom or even being formally charged with a crime. It's a grim cycle.

Link HERE, and please, use Google to translate it from Norwegian.

From what I can gather, these three are facing charges for attempting to topple the Islamic regime, along with criminal activity and ties to terrorist organizations, which means we aren't just talking about some simple street protests anymore; the accusations go much deeper than that.

Jessica Brown35 said:Look, man, you can't just say it was only three protesters in Iran; it wasn't just a handful of people out there, it was an entire movement involving countless others. If they were actually handing out sentences for protesting, why on earth would they only target three individuals? You saw the footage on CNN, just like I did, seeing exactly how those demonstrations unfolded on the ground.

So far, they’ve only managed to convict three of them, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg because over 4,000 people have been picked up by authorities, and there are about 140 currently facing trial. The core of the accusation against them is that they were trying to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, which is a bit of a stretch when you consider that the protests themselves weren't actually aimed at the Ayatollah or his inner circle. It's funny how things get twisted like that. Take Hossein Mousavi, for instance; he was actually a part of the revolution and held some pretty heavy-hitting roles back in the day, serving as the foreign minister and sitting on the Islamic council. You can't just paint everyone with the same brush.

Nancy Wood6 The user said:First off, let’s get one thing straight: calling Iran a dictatorship is just plain wrong. From what I see, it's actually a democratic nation with representative bodies that everyone living there gets to vote for, regardless of their religion, gender, ethnicity, or social standing. They have a parliament based on direct elections—none of that party-driven nonsense you see elsewhere—and they hold direct elections for the president and all the other major political and legislative branches too. Honestly, it stands as a pretty exemplary democratic state when you really look at the structure.

Are you being serious right now? So, you're telling me that even the most powerful person in the entire country gets picked by the people too?
If you look at places like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq, you might be tempted to label them as democracies on paper, but let’s be real—that’s just a complete fantasy. In reality, they aren't even close. Every single major move regarding foreign policy or military action is dictated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. He’s basically the one pulling all the strings, even going as far as hand-picking the Chief Justice and the head of the national broadcasting networks. It doesn't stop there, either; before any presidential candidate can even think about stepping onto the stage to run, they have to get the green light from the Guardian Council. That’s their version of "democracy" for you. It's a bit of a joke, really.

Nancy Wood6 said:Why don't you just start a whole new thread about the places where human rights are actually being trampled on—like China?

Do you honestly believe that human rights aren't being violated in Iran?
Do you honestly think that just because human rights are practically non-existent over in China, we should just stop talking about what's happening everywhere else? It’s like saying because one house on the block is a complete disaster, we can just ignore all the other crumbling buildings in the neighborhood. I don't see how those two things are connected at all. It feels like a weird way to dodge the conversation, almost like trying to justify ignoring problems here in the States by pointing at the mess in Urumqi, which doesn't really hold water if you ask me.

Jessica Brown35 The user said:God forbid we ever have to talk about Israel!

It’s only because the topic is Iran. If anyone actually dared to start a thread about Israel, you'd have those usual professional worriers jumping out of the woodwork immediately, demanding to know why there isn't a dedicated discussion on Iran instead.
We really ought to be standing up for human rights across the board, rather than just cherry-picking the specific spots that happen to fit our own little agendas.

rapidtinker6 said:From what I can gather, these three are facing charges for attempting to topple the Islamic regime, along with criminal activity and ties to terrorist organizations, which means we aren't just talking about some simple street protests anymore; the accusations go much deeper than that.

So far, they’ve only managed to convict three of them, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg because over 4,000 people have been picked up by authorities, and there are about 140 currently facing trial. The core of the accusation against them is that they were trying to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, which is a bit of a stretch when you consider that the protests themselves weren't actually aimed at the Ayatollah or his inner circle. It's funny how things get twisted like that. Take Hossein Mousavi, for instance; he was actually a part of the revolution and held some pretty heavy-hitting roles back in the day, serving as the foreign minister and sitting on the Islamic council. You can't just paint everyone with the same brush.

Are you being serious right now? So, you're telling me that even the most powerful person in the entire country gets picked by the people too?
If you look at places like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq, you might be tempted to label them as democracies on paper, but let’s be real—that’s just a complete fantasy. In reality, they aren't even close. Every single major move regarding foreign policy or military action is dictated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. He’s basically the one pulling all the strings, even going as far as hand-picking the Chief Justice and the head of the national broadcasting networks. It doesn't stop there, either; before any presidential candidate can even think about stepping onto the stage to run, they have to get the green light from the Guardian Council. That’s their version of "democracy" for you. It's a bit of a joke, really.

Do you honestly believe that human rights aren't being violated in Iran?
Do you honestly think that just because human rights are practically non-existent over in China, we should just stop talking about what's happening everywhere else? It’s like saying because one house on the block is a complete disaster, we can just ignore all the other crumbling buildings in the neighborhood. I don't see how those two things are connected at all. It feels like a weird way to dodge the conversation, almost like trying to justify ignoring problems here in the States by pointing at the mess in Urumqi, which doesn't really hold water if you ask me.

It’s only because the topic is Iran. If anyone actually dared to start a thread about Israel, you'd have those usual professional worriers jumping out of the woodwork immediately, demanding to know why there isn't a dedicated discussion on Iran instead.
We really ought to be standing up for human rights across the board, rather than just cherry-picking the specific spots that happen to fit our own little agendas.

Of course human rights are being violated in Iran—anyone claiming otherwise is simply lying. But—and there is always a "but"—does a single nation on this planet actually exist that doesn't violate them at some level??

rapidtinker6 said:From what I can gather, these three are facing charges for attempting to topple the Islamic regime, along with criminal activity and ties to terrorist organizations, which means we aren't just talking about some simple street protests anymore; the accusations go much deeper than that.

So far, they’ve only managed to convict three of them, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg because over 4,000 people have been picked up by authorities, and there are about 140 currently facing trial. The core of the accusation against them is that they were trying to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, which is a bit of a stretch when you consider that the protests themselves weren't actually aimed at the Ayatollah or his inner circle. It's funny how things get twisted like that. Take Hossein Mousavi, for instance; he was actually a part of the revolution and held some pretty heavy-hitting roles back in the day, serving as the foreign minister and sitting on the Islamic council. You can't just paint everyone with the same brush.

Are you being serious right now? So, you're telling me that even the most powerful person in the entire country gets picked by the people too?
If you look at places like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein’s old Iraq, you might be tempted to label them as democracies on paper, but let’s be real—that’s just a complete fantasy. In reality, they aren't even close. Every single major move regarding foreign policy or military action is dictated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. He’s basically the one pulling all the strings, even going as far as hand-picking the Chief Justice and the head of the national broadcasting networks. It doesn't stop there, either; before any presidential candidate can even think about stepping onto the stage to run, they have to get the green light from the Guardian Council. That’s their version of "democracy" for you. It's a bit of a joke, really.

Do you honestly believe that human rights aren't being violated in Iran?
Do you honestly think that just because human rights are practically non-existent over in China, we should just stop talking about what's happening everywhere else? It’s like saying because one house on the block is a complete disaster, we can just ignore all the other crumbling buildings in the neighborhood. I don't see how those two things are connected at all. It feels like a weird way to dodge the conversation, almost like trying to justify ignoring problems here in the States by pointing at the mess in Urumqi, which doesn't really hold water if you ask me.

It’s only because the topic is Iran. If anyone actually dared to start a thread about Israel, you'd have those usual professional worriers jumping out of the woodwork immediately, demanding to know why there isn't a dedicated discussion on Iran instead.
We really ought to be standing up for human rights across the board, rather than just cherry-picking the specific spots that happen to fit our own little agendas.

If we want to make any real progress regarding human rights, we ought to focus our efforts primarily on the countries and nations where those rights are most under threat. And Iran certainly ranks high on that list.

Angela Lee said:http://i33.tinypic.com/25q8847.gif

So, today in Iran—which I guess some of the online leftists, certain religious groups, anarchists, and those "peace and love" types seem determined to defend—three poor souls were sentenced to death. I suppose their only crime was standing up against the religious dictatorship enforced by the clergy throughout the country. Now, I wonder if anyone will try to claim this is a functional government, or a legitimate state, or a democracy, or true freedom. Of course, there will always be people who justify the Iranian clergy, but I think it’s mostly just because they want anything that stands in opposition to the West and the USA. It's quite sad, really😢. I find myself wondering how we can ever trust leaders who hold atomic weapons when those very same individuals are busy terrorizing and killing their own people.

I just finished reading this report on CNN...

For those who aren't up to speed—just to clarify:
The "Mujahideen" organization mentioned here, the one these people were tied to, is actually on both the American and the UN terror lists!

Jessica Brown35 said:I just finished reading this report on CNN...

For those who aren't up to speed—just to clarify:
The "Mujahideen" organization mentioned here, the one these people were tied to, is actually on both the American and the UN terror lists!

Give me a break! They aren't on the UN list, and the US will probably pull them off that '97 blacklist pretty soon too—just to play nice with the newly elected reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. Same goes for the EU; that group isn't even labeled as terrorist there.

blueotter70 said:Give me a break! They aren't on the UN list, and the US will probably pull them off that '97 blacklist pretty soon too—just to play nice with the newly elected reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. Same goes for the EU; that group isn't even labeled as terrorist there.

This article in The New York Times—which, mind you, is one of the major print outlets in Norway—discusses two members of a Norwegian political party who were sympathizers of the "Mujahideen." This particular party is well-known for its staunchly anti-Islamic platform and its vocal support for Israel. Ursula Evje and André Kvakkestad actually traveled to Paris to meet with members of the "Mujahideen"—and wouldn't you know it, the "Mujahideen" picked up the tab for their plane tickets and their hotel stay in Paris.

I'll provide a quick translation of a snippet from this article; the rest of you can finish the job using Google.:

"The 'Mujahideen' are featured on both the EU and USA terrorist organization lists—lists which Norway has also adopted."

The headline pretty much speaks for itself:
Progress Party representatives sponsored by a terrorist group

Look, let me explain this to you. During the war in the 90s, why was it that huge numbers of Muslim refugees from Canada flooded into the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, while almost nobody headed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia?

Nicholas Bishop46 said:Look, let me explain this to you. During the war in the 90s, why was it that huge numbers of Muslim refugees from Canada flooded into the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, while almost nobody headed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia?

It’s quite simple, really—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, or frankly any other Muslim nation, wasn't playing games with the lives of those Canadian refugees. They weren't treating people like disposable pawns in some geopolitical chess match. Those Western countries you mentioned... they actually had a moral obligation to take them in.

Jessica Brown35 said:It’s quite simple, really—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, or frankly any other Muslim nation, wasn't playing games with the lives of those Canadian refugees. They weren't treating people like disposable pawns in some geopolitical chess match. Those Western countries you mentioned... they actually had a moral obligation to take them in.

Is Norway or Australia somehow responsible for the war in Canada?