Iran to kill two women

[octothorp]

We have no way of exerting any pressure on Iran. Economically, the west is just too into oil. Militarily, the west has made too many other commitments to put any pressure on the fairly sophisticated and entrenched Iranian army. Diplomatically, well, we ended up creating a UN human rights commission where countries like Iran and China are major stakeholders. I'm sure there are people within the Iranian leadership who enjoy the fact that these killings just enrage the west.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DESS

I know that's what they think, but I think that's ######ed. I've tried to help 3 or 4 times and that's enough for me.

If I were you, I'd go over there and knock the guy's teeth down his throat.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

We have no way of exerting any pressure on Iran. Economically, the west is just too into oil.

So we start weaning ourselves on ME oil.

Perhaps the US should tap into their own reserves....develop a bigger output in Alberta...etc, etc.

Develop alternative energy sources in the meantime....

screw Iran and their oil.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Maybe so, but what right do we have to tell them how to run their countries? Do we let them tell us how to do things? Nope. This is a correction in a cultural more that needs to be addressed. That culture can change that only if it wants to. All the outside influences in the world won't do much if they are not embraced by the masses. Until the people refuse to participate in the stonings, or rally to protect those that are to be stoned, nothing will change. We can't make that decision for them, only the citizens of Iran can make that decision.

Although there is a lot of truth to what you are saying, I don't think it is 100% correct. Nazi Germany would have kept on chugging along if we didn't intervene along with the Japanese Empire. A good modern day example is Afghanistan, society there has come a long way in the last 7 years.

A lot of times the majority of the people do not agree with what the government is doing but is powerless to change it or stop it. Sometimes external help is required. Look at the soviet Union under Stalin, there was plenty of political decent but it is hard for a populace to uprise when any wiff of decent is snuffed out with death.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by DESS

I know that's what they think, but I think that's ######ed. I've tried to help 3 or 4 times and that's enough for me.

Not refuting what you're saying at all, because I'm obviously not there, but what does someone beating their wife sound like? How does it differ from an argument and how can you hear it with the windows and doors closed during winter? Pretty crazy stuff and weird how some guys can dominate a lady enough that they won't leave. Real sad actually...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at it.

Says you.

If you know a government is killing it's own people ie: Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo........we are just suppose to sit back and let it happen because it is happening in a different country?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Says you.

If you know a government is killing it's own people ie: Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo........we are just suppose to sit back and let it happen because it is happening in a different country?

Isn't that exactly what we're doing/did?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Isn't that exactly what we're doing/did?

We did it with Kosovo only because NATO has some balls. As for Rwanda and Sudan, not so much.

Those however are extreme cases. There are many countries in the world that could be clasified in the same category.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If I were you, I'd go over there and knock the guy's teeth down his throat.

And that probably wouldn't work, just like how forceful foreign intervention doesn't work. If you walk over to their house and beat the guy up and trash the house in the process, the woman is probably not going to be very happy that some stranger came in and beat up her husband without her asking and wrecked the place. Sure there is a chance that you might help her, but chances are it'll just pull her closer to him and build a hate for you. Same thing with going into someone else's country. Your intentions are probably good, but taking out the leader and making a mess out of everyone lives isn't going to make you anyones friends or solve the problem.

[RT14]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Although there is a lot of truth to what you are saying, I don't think it is 100% correct. Nazi Germany would have kept on chugging along if we didn't intervene along with the Japanese Empire. A good modern day example is Afghanistan, society there has come a long way in the last 7 years.

A lot of times the majority of the people do not agree with what the government is doing but is powerless to change it or stop it. Sometimes external help is required. Look at the soviet Union under Stalin, there was plenty of political decent but it is hard for a populace to uprise when any wiff of decent is snuffed out with death.

I don't agree with the law in Iran that allows this to happen in any way, but there really isn't a comparison to be had with Nazi Germany. Unlike Germany at that time, Iran isn't attempting to take over other countries and unlike some African countries that someone else mentioned, genocide isn't an issue here at all. This is a LAW in ONE country that was broken by two people. They knew the consequences should they be caught. Even if they didn't have sexual relations the way I understand it is that it's still against the law to be out with a man other than your husband or family so they were breaking the law regardless of what they were doing.

Not only that, but America didn't even get involved with Germany trying to take over much of Europe until they were personally affected by the war. They didn't seem to have much problem with Nazi Germany when it didn't affect them but because Iran has a crazy law, we should put a stop to them?

History is full of stories of revolutions and mass protesting by the citizens to force change in a government if they feel their government has gone too far or just feel change is needed to get "with the times". There's no need for Western forces to go in and force changes because we feel they have a screwed up law. If we do that, where do we stop? Why not go into all countries that don't see things our way and MAKE them!

BTW, this wasn't completely directed at you Malkshor, but the general idea that America should invade countries because we don't agree with the way they run their countries. It's none of our business, plain and simple.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I can't believe this can happen in the 21st century...but then again Iran (according to its own calendar) is in the year 1386, so it has 6 centuries to become a normal civilized country.

So wait... Iran has had video capturing technolgy since 1386? They are ahead of their time.

On a serious note... if my wife ever cheated on me I would probally want her to be stoned as well....

[CrusaderPi]

I fail to see how any of this surprises anyone.

[chris lindberg]

Do they still have beheadings in China?
Don't they cut your hand or finger off for stealing?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chris lindberg

Do they still have beheadings in China?
Don't they cut your hand or finger off for stealing?

Nope they shoot you in the back of the head and send your family a bill for the bullet.

[chris lindberg]

Oh yes, I remember hearing that.

read a book that said they sometimes even sell the organs afterwards.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RT14

I don't agree with the law in Iran that allows this to happen in any way, but there really isn't a comparison to be had with Nazi Germany. Unlike Germany at that time, Iran isn't attempting to take over other countries and unlike some African countries that someone else mentioned, genocide isn't an issue here at all. This is a LAW in ONE country that was broken by two people. They knew the consequences should they be caught. Even if they didn't have sexual relations the way I understand it is that it's still against the law to be out with a man other than your husband or family so they were breaking the law regardless of what they were doing.

Not only that, but America didn't even get involved with Germany trying to take over much of Europe until they were personally affected by the war. They didn't seem to have much problem with Nazi Germany when it didn't affect them but because Iran has a crazy law, we should put a stop to them?

History is full of stories of revolutions and mass protesting by the citizens to force change in a government if they feel their government has gone too far or just feel change is needed to get "with the times". There's no need for Western forces to go in and force changes because we feel they have a screwed up law. If we do that, where do we stop? Why not go into all countries that don't see things our way and MAKE them!

BTW, this wasn't completely directed at you Malkshor, but the general idea that America should invade countries because we don't agree with the way they run their countries. It's none of our business, plain and simple.

Yikes... so much for freedom, hey?

When they kick in your door, how you gonna go?

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by RT14

*snip words*

History is full of stories of revolutions and mass protesting by the citizens to force change in a government if they feel their government has gone too far or just feel change is needed to get "with the times". There's no need for Western forces to go in and force changes because we feel they have a screwed up law. If we do that, where do we stop? Why not go into all countries that don't see things our way and MAKE them!

*more words*

Can you think of one Islamic country where this happened?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Can you think of one Islamic country where this happened?

Well... Iran for one.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well... Iran for one.

heh. touche.

Not really what I meant though.

[maverickeastwood]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The old traditional stoning was to bury the condemned up to their neck and throw stones at their face.

there also used to be the traditional manner of tying a person to the ground and pulling a wall down on them.

The more modern interpretation is to put the person in a three sided walled off area and throw large rocks at them until their on the ground, then crush their head with a rock or a brick.

It might be barbaric but it beats being woven through the spokes of a wheel like the Brits used to do. Or sewing you into the body of a dead horse and covering your head with honey.

The medival execution style of throwing you into a burlap sack with a chicken in a dog and tossing you into the river was pretty nasty.

Or putting a rat in an upside down bowl over your stomach and lighting the bowl on fire was suppossed to be the most painful way to go.

Stoning is considered to be fairly merciful compared to some of the other techniques.

...You never cease to amaze, maybe I'll try to eat again tomorrow as my appetite up and left...