Iran to stone adulterer who confessed after torture.

[Darth Rotor]

"The correct punctuation for a sentence that begins 'It's none of my business, but... is to place a period after the 'but'. Do not use excessive force providing this punctuation. It will get you talked about" R. A. Heinlein
(close--paraphrased)

Thanks, RW, I was trying to be half original, but RAH said it better.

 

[Naddig74]

Not quite my idea. In the real world, work toward weakening the regime ... and let its own inertia topple it. Same idea, albeit different discrete means, than what got the wall to come down ... we were in that together, yes?

How would this be carried out?

Really? My guess is they intend to use Nukes as a deterrent. In their place, I'd probably do likewise, if I thought I could pull it off.

Hmm. Deterrent against who? We certainly have a 'no first use' policy afaik. I certainly wouldn't trust Ahmedinajad to be so restrained.

That's irrelevant. So do the Chinese. That don't get out bayonets into Beijing. So have a variety of despots, tin pot banana republic tyrants, sheiks, and Kings the world over.

The chinese take slow, slow steps towards being a nicer place (see the thread about a recent ruling that confessions obtained through torture are no longer admissable in Chinese courts). Wolfman could tell you much more about that than I can. Also, we're stymied there by the First Rule of Warfare; ''Do not take your land armies fighting in China.'' And kinda by the fact that they are permanent members of the UN security council.

It's always been my feeling that the UN lets said tin pot warlords and dictators get away with far too much, and should be stamping out such regimes.

You remember the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Somalia? A rebel group in Sierra Leone captured a patrol of Royal Irish Rangers, with the intent of embarrassing the British Army out of SL by 'doing a Somalia' on us. A British assault on the rebel camp (Operation Barras) totally destroyed the West Side 'Boys' (they called themselves something else, but Boys was used in the British news reports about them) as an effective fighting unit, and shocked the rest of the disparate rebel forces into disbanding. The wholesale slaughter in the country stopped almost immediately; boys were no longer being forced to kill and become child soldiers. Since then, independent deputations from the SL people (not government) have twice asked the British to reinstitute colonial rule. I relate this story to illustrate that a show of stunning force can have the desired effect. Again with the acknowledgement that Iran is not Sierra Leone.

Hmmm, I'll take a sip of the bourbon and reconsider.

Brandy f'me old boy, what?

 

[Darth Rotor]

How would this be carried out?

If I get all the details figured out, I'll be contacting Sec Def Gates, not the JREF. The containment strat evolved over time, so must handling this lot.

Hmm. Deterrent against who? We certainly have a 'no first use' policy afaik. I certainly wouldn't trust Ahmedinajad to be so restrained.

Deterrent against force being used on his land and people.

It's always been my feeling that the UN lets said tin pot warlords and dictators get away with far too much, and should be stamping out such regimes.

Each tin pot tends to have a sponsor in the UNSC, or he has no top cover. See what happened to Noriega, eh? Also, to Pinochet, after he stepped down, and suddenly had no top cover.

You remember the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Somalia?

Yes, I know a few people who were there.

Brandy f'me old boy, what?

Warmed a bit, in the snifter?

 

[I Ratant]

These are very strong points. However, the Germans and Japanese are very different peoples to Iraqis or Iranians.

Regardless of the difficulties, can we afford to sit and wait for Iran to democratise itself? Does anyone really believe that a medieval theocracy will do so voluntarily, or before they nuke Israel?

.
Democracy has to work from within.
We have a thousand years of that beginning with the Magna Carta and the Reformation and the development of secular governments.
Islam is handicapped by not recognizing that secular government/self government is even possible.
Until a form of democracy that can be accepted in Islam can be developed, forcing "freedom" from the outside will result in nothing different... Dictators will come and go at the whims of the armies and mullahs.
With Iran, the certainty of slagging that country if they do anything really stupid has to be impressed on both the leaders, to keep them sane, and the population, to have them change leaders to those less volatile.

 

[Naddig74]

If I get all the details figured out, I'll be contacting Sec Def Gates, not the JREF. The containment strat evolved over time, so must handling this lot.

In broad terms, how do you destabilise a regime such as this without military force?

Deterrent against force being used on his land and people.

Hmm. You have more faith in his restraint than I do. How can you be sure he won't carry out his threats to 'destroy Israel?'

Each tin pot tends to have a sponsor in the UNSC, or he has no top cover. See what happened to Noriega, eh? Also, to Pinochet, after he stepped down, and suddenly had no top cover.

Agreed. So, how to get them out from under?

Yes, I know a few people who were there.

Savage. How accurate is the movie, if that's not a disrespectful question?

Warmed a bit, in the snifter?

Splendid. Cigar?

 

[Naddig74]

.
With Iran, the certainty of slagging that country if they do anything really stupid has to be impressed on both the leaders, to keep them sane, and the population, to have them change leaders to those less volatile.

So what circumstances would trigger said slagging, for you?

 

[Mycroft]

In broad terms, how do you destabilise a regime such as this without military force?

I'm just a layman, but the Iranian regime doesn't seem very stable to me even without intervention. Just last year their sham elections brought riots in the streets. Every indication is the majority of the Iranian people are getting fed up with the religious oppression.

It wouldn't take much effort to destabilize something that's that precarious already.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Hm. If you're saying a murder out of personal gain is the same as putting to death a convicted serial killer, does that mean that according to you kidnapping someone for ransom is essentially the same as incarcerating a convicted repeat offender serial rapist?

If that's so, you have a very wrong opinion about justice system.

McHrozni

No, he said executing by one method or another is still execution. The whole idea of execution is a nonsense and I find it worrying that people are happy to condemn the way its done in one country while defending how it is done in their own. If we are going to condemn all backwards countries with backwards practises then lets not make exceptions.

If you are given a fair trial and are convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances then I am in favor of the death penalty but not for some poor woman who did adultery or not.

The last execution we had in Georgia was of a man who had kidnapped, raped and strangled a an 11 year old girl. You want me to feel sorry for him.

But what if he was innocent? That was your objection to the other sentences. Or does the US not make mistakes? Only Middle Eastern countries issue questionable sentences?

We can march our massively powerful, well equipped, motivated, battle hardened, desert acclimatised, volunteer militaries in and remove the regime that carries out this kind of ****ed up ****.

We could, but I was kinda thinking of ideas that would help the people, not make their lives infinitely worse. You'd think eventually the Americans would learn that their international meddling doesn't really make things better.

 

[dtugg]

No, he said executing by one method or another is still execution. The whole idea of execution is a nonsense and I find it worrying that people are happy to condemn the way its done in one country while defending how it is done in their own. If we are going to condemn all backwards countries with backwards practises then lets not make exceptions.

Execution is not a backwards practice in and of itself. Stoning women for the "crime" of adultery after extracting confessions via torture is.

 

[DC]

Execution is not a backwards practice in and of itself. Stoning women for the "crime" of adultery after extracting confessions via torture is.

i think executions are backwards practice in an of itself.

Sure there are more humane ways to do it than stoning. But i think it is wrong.

But that ain't the topic here.

but here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179952

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Execution is not a backwards practice in and of itself. Stoning women for the "crime" of adultery after extracting confessions via torture is.

I believe execution IS a backwards practice in and of itself. You don't.

You believe stoning people to death is a backwards practice, the people who do it don't.

Don't know where that gets us really. Presumably 'acceptable practices' is going to come down to who has the biggest guns to defend themselves?

 

[dtugg]

I believe execution IS a backwards practice in and of itself. You don't.

You believe stoning people to death is a backwards practice, the people who do it don't.

Don't know where that gets us really. Presumably 'acceptable practices' is going to come down to who has the biggest guns to defend themselves?

Fair enough. But please stop pretending execution via lethal injection of convicted murderers who were given due process is comparable to stoning to death alleged adulterers who were tortured into giving up confessions. It isn't. One can easily find the former latter abhorrent and barbaric while finding nothing wrong with the former.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, the USA has bloody eff all to do with why I tweaked your nose.
You utterly missed the point.

That construction is a flag that you are about to excuse something.

Put another way, you might have been better off to make your point or observation, and not bother leading with the quote there ...

Wrong. You make an unfounded assumption. I was pointing out that in my comparison of Iran with the USA, my intention was not to excuse Iran, but to point out that the USA was itself open to similar criticism.

Rolfe.

 

[dtugg]

Wrong. You make an unfounded assumption. I was pointing out that in my comparison of Iran with the USA, my intention was not to excuse Iran, but to point out that the USA was itself open to similar criticism.

Rolfe.

Since the USA doesn't stone alleged adulterers after extracting confessions via torture, no, it isn't.

 

[Rolfe]

Fair enough. But please stop pretending execution via lethal injection of convicted murderers who were given due process is comparable to stoning to death alleged adulterers who were tortured into giving up confessions. It isn't. One can easily find the former latter abhorrent and barbaric while finding nothing wrong with the former.

You may not find the two situations at all comparable, we get that. However, others find the two situations similar enough that their reactions are little different. Particularly when we examine what passes for "due process" in many of the US cases. This is what you are entirely failing to understand.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Since the USA doesn't stone alleged adulterers after extracting confessions via torture, no, it isn't.

The US, however, electrocutes under-age children after legal proceedings that make a mockery of the term "due process".

You may find that quite different, and not at all reprehensible. That's your privilege. Others beg to disagree.

Rolfe.

 

[dtugg]

I don't understand it at all since it makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose it is just an excuse for people to bash the USA.

 

[dtugg]

The US, however, electrocutes under-age children after legal proceedings that make a mockery of the term "due process".

You may find that quite different, and not at all reprehensible. That's your privilege. Others beg to disagree.

Rolfe.

Since the USA doesn't execute minors and the electric chair can only applied in a few states and only to people who choose that method over lethal injection (which has happened I think exactly once recently), why should I take anything you say seriously?

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, I forgot. It sentences people to death for crimes committed as minors, and then waits until they're over 18 before killing them.

And from all I hear about other methods of execution, they're scarcely preferable to the electric chair.

Rolfe.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Fair enough. But please stop pretending execution via lethal injection of convicted murderers who were given due process is comparable to stoning to death alleged adulterers who were tortured into giving up confessions. It isn't. One can easily find the former latter abhorrent and barbaric while finding nothing wrong with the former.

I guess it depends what side of the fence you are on. The Iranians who handed out this sentence probably feel that the woman was given due process and found guilty and suitably punished. I'm not sure how we can objectively prove that your arbitrary moral judgements are better than arbitrary moral judgements made by Iranians.

I believe the US has in the past executed mentally ill offenders. I would put that up there with stoning to death of adulterers. I have no idea how to start ranking these things, so I just group them under the general heading of 'bad s***'.

As for the what can be done about it bit well if the majority of people in iran agree with stoning adulterers to death and the majority of people in the US think its just dandy to execute people then its not really my business. I can maybe try to persuade them to change their mind. At best I can open my doors to people who don't share that view and let them live in a society where that stuff doesn't happen.

If this stuff is being carried out against the will of the people then you might have a case for some stronger action.

It just seems like people are playing a game here to try to show just how bad Islam is. What good is that doing anyone?