Iranian mother of two to be stoned to death by Niki2

Pizmo,

Maybe you missed the last round. There was a ton of this in the lead up to Iraq and Afghanistan, so I chalk it up to Runnup to War Redux.

But yes, there is a mindless way in which this happens, which also explains how the robot story got there. Though walking humanoid robots are probably already news.

This is what worries me: I was talking to my mom and she already knew all about the stoning, but not the robot, and she's a fairly sheepish consumer. I think this says something about the media penetration of negative impact stories which leads me to an agenda driven selection of stories.

What I find suspect is the seemingly official status of such persecution in these stories. It's much more likely that the media is lying about the auspices under which rape torture and stonings and the like are conducted in the muslim world, and that these are really crimes, outlawed by the govts. we are planning to attack, not actions of those govts.

One thing this always reminds me of is stories about Christian preachers in the south condoning child abuse, or new england small town mayors legalizing gay marriage out of their jursidiction, and more than anything random cases of horrible crimes being commited by fundies of various religions in the US, which would be sufficient for a muslim propagandist to say

"Christians in the US drown their children with official sanction." I can see such a story running as "Look, Dobson" and then "Multiple christians do this, we will cite examples, ergo, the unintelligent reader will conclude that christians do this" Praise Allah.

Okay, given that, this is the same thing. It's much less of a grand conspiracy, and much more data manipulation.

Here's where I see the conspiracy:

The media is owned by a handful of people and any amount of digging provides us with the information that all of these people belong to policy groups such as the CFR. The major dominant american policy groups openly favor conflict with Iran.

Now, considering that major movers and shakers on the political scene (Obama, McCain, etc. as well as many of their lower downs, Reid, Pelosi, etc.) belong to those same policy groups.

In that light if we re-examine our own policies, some things start to make sense that didn't earlier:

Barack Obama has adopted a policy of war in western afghanistan and western pakistan, saying "Tribalism represents the greatest threat to out way of life." Stanley McChrystal said "These people represent zero threat to the United States." Taken at face value, McChrystals statement is accurate, and the other is hogwash.

So, why in the world would we have such a policy? Well one explanation is that we have taken portions of northern and eastern Iraq and prepared military base sites. We have taken military bases in the former Soviet republics bordering Iran to the north.

Doesn't it make sense that capturing tribal regions of western Pakistan and western Afghanistan, regions which have less significance to the west than banana republics and random parts of subsaharan africa is in fact just an extension of this policy so that we can completely surround Iran?

It's comments like the one at the beginning of this thread that worry me. This is the sort of nonsense which is promoted to make a case for popular support for a conflict which would be extremely unlikely as something which would gain support under the auspices of military necessity after our recent disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, under the guise of saving them from themselves, the white man's burden, it is possible that this sort of attitude would become prevalent, nevermind the fact that Iran has a democratically elected govt. with a popular president and policies that the people there seem to generally like, I'm sure some think tank intellectuals have a better idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:18 AM

The concern over Iran getting nukes, obviously, is Israel. The question I have is if anyone is really dumb enough to use a nuke. Surely everyone must realize that if they use a nuke, the entire world will align against them. It's a suicide move, you kill one enemy, but you'd make 200 more.

I have my doubts even Israel would use the nukes we gave them. Sure they have US backing, and even stretched as thin as we are, I suspect the US is the only nation with enough military that we could get away with using a nuke, or supporting someone who used one. But I imagine Israel getting pretty hammered after that.

Would Iran use nukes? Hmm. No, I don't think they would. But Palestine or Lebanon might, and Iran might be willing to sell to them.

We don't want a nuke used, and Iran is close enough to the tech they're probably going to get this anyway. I'd much rather the material stay where we can watch it, rather than it mysteriously disappear when we march into the country.

So... How do we prevent Iran from selling to certain groups in Palestine, without destabilizing Iran? If we can figure that out, that's probably our best option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:24 AM

Pizmo:

Quote:

Marshall's work on infantry combat effectiveness in World War II, titled Men Against Fire, is his best-known and most controversial work. In the book, Marshall claimed that of the World War II U.S. troops in actual combat, 75% never fired their personal weapons at the enemy for the purpose of killing, even though they were engaged in combat and under direct threat. (Later research has cast doubts on his methods, but research into killing ratios of other wars, including the U.S. Civil War, has supported this claim; see below.) Marshall argued that the United States Army should devote significant training resources to increase the percentage of soldiers willing to engage the enemy with direct fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

Okay, so my "one third" was slightly high, but yeah.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:47 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Do you TRY for Epic Fail, Wulfie - or does it just come natural to you?"

I DO try. Its amusing to watch people foam at the mouth. Sarcasm, gallows humor? Anyone? Have we all lost our sense of humor and perspective?

Whats really amusing is so many condemning another cultures practice. Its not our place to sit in judgement, just as it is not their place to judge us.

Look at it this way... they want to kill us and take over because they see our women as being sluts, our foreign policy ruled by Jews, and our religion to be wrong.

We want to kill them and take over their country for its resources, and to make their culture like ours.

Its the same damn thing.

"But, OH NO!" you cry. "We have the moral high ground!"

Every culture that attempted to force itself on another has been tyrannical, and empire builders. History, folks, history.

You claim that its horrible for women to wear the burkha, while they think its horrible for women to run around almost naked.

2 sides of the same coin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:50 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pizmo:

Quote:

Marshall's work on infantry combat effectiveness in World War II, titled Men Against Fire, is his best-known and most controversial work. In the book, Marshall claimed that of the World War II U.S. troops in actual combat, 75% never fired their personal weapons at the enemy for the purpose of killing, even though they were engaged in combat and under direct threat. (Later research has cast doubts on his methods, but research into killing ratios of other wars, including the U.S. Civil War, has supported this claim; see below.) Marshall argued that the United States Army should devote significant training resources to increase the percentage of soldiers willing to engage the enemy with direct fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

Okay, so my "one third" was slightly high, but yeah.

Thanks for the cite Byte. Your number was actually low, Marshall said 3 out of 4 did not fire their weapons. No wonder his writings were considered controversial!

"Col. David Hackworth, wrote in his 1989 memoir, About Face, described at length his initial elation at an assignment with a man [Marshall] he idolized, and how that elation turned to bitter disillusionment after seeing Marshall's character and methods firsthand. Hackworth described Marshall as a "voyeur warrior" for whom "the truth never got in the way of a good story," and went so far as to say "Veterans of many of the actions he 'documented' in his books have complained bitterly over the years of his inaccuracy or blatant bias"."

There's more to say about this study but that's another thread.

DT - thanks for the info, solid. I think a fundamental motivation that every gov official uses to justify their actions is that "we need to be prepared just in case of blank." So maybe we're there just in case because not being there would be irresponsible to their nation in their eyes? These people can be pretty righteous in their servitude.
There's also the intimidation factor of ringing Iran - not like we're hiding it. More military diplomacy.
And I still say a third conflict is not doable.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:42 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Every culture that attempted to force itself on another has been tyrannical, and empire builders. History, folks, history.

That applies to conservatives and libertarians trying to force their "values" on others, too, y'know.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I'm going to jump on the "these people should not have Nukes" bandwagon. That they are this barbaric is a tad concerning. Not necessarily that they have a death penalty that involves rocks, rather the pics that they all stand around and watch this shit.

Kwicko wrote, "I've got a soft spot for animals"

I'm guessing he's talking about his anus......Well, it's true........

Huh. You're into bestiality? After all, you're the one posting about it. Well, it's true...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 6:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
There are probably thousands worse things happening on a daily basis in other countries, but just so happens this is "Iran" which scores very high in the public consciousness word cloud = cha-ching.

Absolutely, Piz, and right on target. That it will lead to war is another matter.

Uhhh, our two parties demonize one another, does that mean they'll go to war? They look for and enhance stories about one another, as does all propaganda. It doesn't necessarily lead to war.

If you're going to be so worried about Iran and nuks, what about Russia and nukes? There you have a society so corrupted that the nukes aren't even being taken CARE of, and parts of them are sold off on the black market. Leaving aside deliberately starting a war, isn't it much more likely to have something stupid happen which starts something? I agree that I don't see Iran using nukes, or Israel (besides, Israel is doing just fine without them!), but what worries me is the state of Russia's nukes and the chances of something going wrong.

By the way, thanx for the admission, Wulfwind. I'll save it to remind myself that you ARE deliberately trolling, not trying to engage in communication. I thought that was so, now you've admitted it. Good.

for being such a

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 6:43 AM

Quote:
Uhhh, our two parties demonize one another, does that mean they'll go to war? They look for and enhance stories about one another, as does all propaganda. It doesn't necessarily lead to war.

Actually, I don't see this as impossible.

But you misunderstand. It doesn't lead to war, but when building up for a war, it's important.

Quote:
f you're going to be so worried about Iran and nuks, what about Russia and nukes? There you have a society so corrupted that the nukes aren't even being taken CARE of, and parts of them are sold off on the black market. Leaving aside deliberately starting a war, isn't it much more likely to have something stupid happen which starts something? I agree that I don't see Iran using nukes, or Israel (besides, Israel is doing just fine without them!), but what worries me is the state of Russia's nukes and the chances of something going wrong.

I'm not, really, but being aware some people are, I was trying to start a discussion. It's not like I've never been wrong before, so we might as well spend our time coming up with contingencies.

Good point about Russia.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 6:59 AM

Pizmo

Don't forget "We must save them from themselves"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie,

So, by your twisted logic, we should ban cars, airplanes, boating, swimming, rock climbing, skateboarding, cycling, walking under trees, roofing, basketball, running,.... pretty much anything that has resulted in death. Because if the end result is death, it's the exact same as a death sentence.

Well, that analogy MIGHT make sense if your government were to strap you into your car and use OnStar to send your car hurtling into a bridge abutment. You seem to be saying that since people died while your government was torturing them, it's not government-sanctioned. You should ask "Hero" how the law works; you kill someone in the commission of a crime, it's murder. Ergo, the U.S. government, under the specific direction of the Bush Administration, is guilty of murder. Torture is a war crime; Bush ordered torture; people died as a result; Bush is a murderer.

Quote:

We've never sentenced anyone to death via waterboarding. Final.

We've killed people via waterboarding and torture. You've approved of it and endorsed it, time and again.

Quote:

I'm not wasting any more of my time on this.

Wanna bet?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Uhhh, our two parties demonize one another, does that mean they'll go to war? They look for and enhance stories about one another, as does all propaganda. It doesn't necessarily lead to war.

Actually, I don't see this as impossible.

But you misunderstand. It doesn't lead to war, but when building up for a war, it's important.

Quote:
f you're going to be so worried about Iran and nuks, what about Russia and nukes? There you have a society so corrupted that the nukes aren't even being taken CARE of, and parts of them are sold off on the black market. Leaving aside deliberately starting a war, isn't it much more likely to have something stupid happen which starts something? I agree that I don't see Iran using nukes, or Israel (besides, Israel is doing just fine without them!), but what worries me is the state of Russia's nukes and the chances of something going wrong.

I'm not, really, but being aware some people are, I was trying to start a discussion. It's not like I've never been wrong before, so we might as well spend our time coming up with contingencies.

Good point about Russia.

Byte's got the gist of it. Demonizing a group or a nation doesn't always lead to war, but we DO always show a need to demonize a people or a nation prior to going to war.

Anyone remember the Iraqis throwing all those Kuwaiti babies out of their hospital incubators? ;) Yeah... Never happened. Not one single documented case of that happening, but it sure made for great headlines leading up to Gulf War I.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Nice pun.

I oppose the death penalty, because I have squishy, delicate sensibilities. Its barbaric. But perhaps we can admit different degrees of barbarism, and not trip over ourselves in the rush to turn Iran's brutal Bronze Age practices into a window on our own failings. I don't need a poor Iranian woman to be stoned to put the US in perspective.

Oh but I think you can. You can say that 'we put our citizens to death in a slightly less barbaric fashion' but you can't really, morally get outraged about a system that supports murdering its citizens when you do that as well.

First of all, I am as immune to outrage as you are to reason. Second, if you really believe that there is no distinction to be drawn between stoning and other forms of the death penalty, Buddha help you. We might as well adopt stoning, and 8th Amendment be damned, because its all the same, you see?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 9:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I grant you it is utilized to lead up to war, but I don't think that's the purpose right now.

I understand making the enemy "less than" human and how it makes it easier for people to hate them and want to bomb them. I just disagree that our government, or any other, is contemplating actually invading Iran, much less nuking them. For one thing, I don't think any government could AFFORD it right now, given the state of the global economy. WE sure couldn't!

Israel may be better off financially (I don't know, haven't heard on that), but they've got to know we couldn't afford to back them, and they've got enough countries surrounding them who'd love the excuse to bomb them out of existence if they started something like that.

I just don't buy it; I certainly believe in propaganda existing and being used. On the other hand, what I saw in Afghanistan tells me it's certainly possible those practices are still being used, and Iran is as likely as any other place to do so.

As to torture and causing death, there is no question in my mind that people died while incarcerated from the behavior of our troops. I think to deny that is deliberate ignorance, or blind faith in our government, which nobody should entertain.

Dumbya lied and faked his way to getting his agenda and it worked great, partly because he stuffed his administration with go-to boys, including the Justice Department.

If the lawyers are in your pocket, and you want them to declare any form of torture legal, they will. That doesn't make it legal; rather, that makes it a double crime. Everyone with any sense knows that, and the courts have determined it so--those courts that weren't sycophants of Dumbya. He and Darth did many illegal things, it's just that politics and government being what they are, they'll never be brought up on charges and made to face their crimes.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 9:41 AM

Quote:

If the lawyers are in your pocket, and you want them to declare any form of torture legal, they will. That doesn't make it legal; rather, that makes it a double crime. Everyone with any sense knows that, and the courts have determined it so--those courts that weren't sycophants of Dumbya. He and Darth did many illegal things, it's just that politics and government being what they are, they'll never be brought up on charges and made to face their crimes.

Maybe we could waterboard a confession out of them, and then organize a stoning...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 9:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Damn, and here I was hoping at least ONE of you would trip to it.

Again - Follow. The. Money.

I can not only tellya it's a PR stunt, I can tell ya who is behind it, and I even gave you a friggin hint earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_%26_Knowlton#Government_of_Kuwait
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

They're the go-to propaganda arm, just like Blackwater is the go-to for deniability, duh.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:05 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

They are not known as Blackwater anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:05 AM

Quote:
I just disagree that our government, or any other, is contemplating actually invading Iran, much less nuking them.

I didn't say we were contemplating nuking them. I said Israel might be - MIGHT BE - but I doubt even that.

But invading Iran? Oh, I think we are contemplating that. There's a lot of sabre rattling right now, people in the media asking "is the US going to invade Iran," which is basically public idea seeding.

The main issue is that Obama's approval rating is pretty low right now, and he likely wouldn't have a lot of support for this war, but I think we've had our eyes on Iran for a while. Ever since Kuwait.

And as for economics, I think there's still plenty of dumb people making economic policy who think WW2 got us out of the depression (it probably did, but not how they think it did), and who are also seeing escalating a war with Iran as a good way to boost Obama's approval rating.

It's moronic, yes, but it doesn't mean there aren't people thinking this, and I know there are.

Quote:
Israel may be better off financially (I don't know, haven't heard on that)

I don't know where you're getting this. I didn't say this.

Quote:
but they've got to know we couldn't afford to back them, and they've got enough countries surrounding them who'd love the excuse to bomb them out of existence if they started something like that.

Pretty much, but that doesn't stop a feud.

Looks like the rest isn't directed at me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:09 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:11 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

If the lawyers are in your pocket, and you want them to declare any form of torture legal, they will. That doesn't make it legal; rather, that makes it a double crime. Everyone with any sense knows that, and the courts have determined it so--those courts that weren't sycophants of Dumbya. He and Darth did many illegal things, it's just that politics and government being what they are, they'll never be brought up on charges and made to face their crimes.

Maybe we could waterboard a confession out of them, and then organize a stoning...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

You are gay......still

”Niki--condescending arrogant fat old bi-polar hag....You are an asshole...one does not need a sockpuppet to tell you to fuck off" ...sayeth Kane

Kwicko wrote, "I've got a soft spot for animals"
I'm guessing he's talking about his anus......Well, it's true........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Actually, I wasn't "directing" at much of anyone. I don't think you've been alone in saying these stories might be a precursor to war. I was responding to what's been said since I last posted. Wasn't thinking of you in particular.

The financial thing wasn't aimed at ANYONE at all; I was making a point that going to war with a third country right now would be difficult for any country, given the situation. Just point out one more point against the idea that these stories are a run-up to an actual war.

Badmouthing Iran has gone on seemingly forever. I don't think this is necessarly any different. I also am not convinced it doesn't actually happen, tho' from what I've read, they government of Iran is trying to squelch it.

Yes, there are probably those who believe a war would be good; there always have been. But there have to be ENOUGH of them to get something done, and I don't believe there are. I think being in two wars right now is enough to keep us from aiming at a third target, or at least enough to keep the hawks from making much headway in doing so.

I don't see how anyone could believe starting a war with Iran would be good for Obama's ratings! A majority of Americans want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq as it IS; the desire to start a third just isn't there, far as I can see.

As far as I can see, there was much more talk about invading Iran during the Dumbya years than there is now. It's an ongoing thing, and I'm not convinced Darth and Dumbya wouldn't have liked to, but I don't think the current administration has the stomach to even consider it seriously.

As for feuding, like I said, I think Israel is doing just fine at that now, without having to resort to more. JMHO.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:22 AM

If you've posted in this thread, then one of the following applies:

1) conspriacy theories organize your world view

2) reflexive disdain for the US passes for your world view

3) reflexive support for the US passes for your world view

4) you have too many, or too few, chromosomes

I suspect I'm susceptible to 4.

Anyway, lets kill all of the Iranians, and why stop there? Lets kill off the entire species. *cues War Ensemble*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:28 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 10:46 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
If you've posted in this thread, then one of the following applies:

1) conspriacy theories organize your world view

2) reflexive disdain for the US passes for your world view

3) reflexive support for the US passes for your world view

4) you have too many, or too few, chromosomes

I suspect I'm susceptible to 4.

Anyway, lets kill all of the Iranians, and why stop there? Lets kill off the entire species. *cues War Ensemble*

I just popped in because the thread title said something about getting stoned. Very disappointed to find it was about primitive mating practices and Kwicko's homosexuality. Definitely a #3 though and possibly a 4.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:17 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
If you've posted in this thread, then one of the following applies:

1) conspriacy theories organize your world view

2) reflexive disdain for the US passes for your world view

3) reflexive support for the US passes for your world view

4) you have too many, or too few, chromosomes

I suspect I'm susceptible to 4.

Anyway, lets kill all of the Iranians, and why stop there? Lets kill off the entire species. *cues War Ensemble*

Music to my ears..

--------------------------------------------------

”Niki--condescending arrogant fat old bi-polar hag....You are an asshole...one does not need a sockpuppet to tell you to fuck off" ...sayeth Kane

Kwicko wrote, "I've got a soft spot for animals"
I'm guessing he's talking about his anus......Well, it's true........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:21 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

THis will probably be ignored, but hey, gotta try.

HOW ABOUT WE WORRY ABOUT OUR OWN BEFORE WE GO MESSING WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
THis will probably be ignored, but hey, gotta try.

HOW ABOUT WE WORRY ABOUT OUR OWN BEFORE WE GO MESSING WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD?

dude, relax, we'll get around to butchering each other in due time. before we worry about our own, we've got to make sure we are the entire world--the rest of it will be a stinking bog of un-American corpses. first, we gotta worry about killing the Iranians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie,

So, by your twisted logic, we should ban cars, airplanes, boating, swimming, rock climbing, skateboarding, cycling, walking under trees, roofing, basketball, running,.... pretty much anything that has resulted in death. Because if the end result is death, it's the exact same as a death sentence.

We've never sentenced anyone to death via waterboarding. Final.

No, but you've sentenced people to death via being electricuted, hanged, shot, gased and given lethal injection.

If you can't see the difference between ACCIDENTAL death and government sponsered murder, then you are a strange one indeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:10 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie,

So, by your twisted logic, we should ban cars, airplanes, boating, swimming, rock climbing, skateboarding, cycling, walking under trees, roofing, basketball, running,.... pretty much anything that has resulted in death. Because if the end result is death, it's the exact same as a death sentence.

We've never sentenced anyone to death via waterboarding. Final.

No, but you've sentenced people to death via being electricuted, hanged, shot, gased and given lethal injection.

If you can't see the difference between ACCIDENTAL death and government sponsered murder, then you are a strange one indeed.

I've sentenced no one to death.

If you can't tell the difference in stoning for adultery and execution of murderers and rapists, then YOU are a strange one indeed.

Waterboarding ? At any time, those terrorists could have simply started singing like canaries, given up the info being asked, and never once gotten a drop of water on their allah lovin' heads.

Big, BIG difference between chopping off a hand or de-tonguing a person for something they said, and enhanced interrogation that can be stopped, at any time, by merely cooperating.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:

First of all, I am as immune to outrage as you are to reason. Second, if you really believe that there is no distinction to be drawn between stoning and other forms of the death penalty, Buddha help you. We might as well adopt stoning, and 8th Amendment be damned, because its all the same, you see?

First of all, I have no idea about the 8th Amendment because I am not that familiar with your constitution. I do know the fifth - that's because it is in movies, "Take the fifth"

I never said there was no distinction to be drawn between stoning and other forms of death penalty, as I clearly said stoning was more barbaric, being it's intent is to be a slow painful death. I was however pointing out an inconsistency in the outrage expressed by Americans (not necessarily you) over this - given that your country still has the death penalty and it can be argued that waiting on death row for 20 years undergoing appeal after appeal, to be finally killed could constitute cruel and unusual punishment..let any method being barbaric, particularly when organised by the state.

In WW2, the Nazis invented gas chambers because they were a more humane (and efficient) way of killing people (as opposed to mass shootings, dyamiting and other methods previously used, and to pander to the 'sensibilities' of those involved in the murder. Doesn't mean that we now condone it because it took a few minutes less, or involved less gore than the other ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I've sentenced no one to death.

You = the society that is America. Glad to hear YOU as an individual hasn't, but someone connected - appointed? by your government has.

Quote:
If you can't tell the difference in stoning for adultery and execution of murderers and rapists, then YOU are a strange one indeed.

State sponsered murder is just that - you pass that authority to the state when it is appropriate to murder someone. In your society, it is murderers and rapists, in another it is adulterers and theives, in another it is political opponents, in another it is people who commit acts of treason - actually, probably still applies in some parts of the US. The Rosenbergs were executed for treason only a few decades ago. Culturally, there are differences about what constitutes a crime serious enough to be considered a capital offence.

I disagree with it for any reason. I don't think the government or the state should ever hold that much authority over another, for whatever reason. And hopefully, the citzens of the world are moving away from inflicting pain and death on others for whatever reason, as fewer countries now enforce the death penalty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:53 PM

Sorry Magon, I tend to assume everyone is 'Merican, unless told otherwise, because I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. The 8th prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which covers specific applications of the death penalty. Its the difference between, say, stoning (which is designed for maximum agony), and lethal injection (while vile, designed to minimize the agony).

I oppose the death penalty because it cannot be administered fairly, and tends to disproportionately be imposed on certain groups. I do not oppose it because killing is wrong, even though it is. Killing is a fact of life, and disliking it is fine and dandy, but does not change the fact that we've been busily killing eachother since Caine pwned Abel.

If people are outraged over stoning, that 'Merica is unlike that old bitch gone in the teeth (Europe) matters little. A bit, but not totally like sugesting you can't be queasy with honor killings because there is domestic violence in 'Merica. Its apples and oranges, and borders of sissy evasion.

That said, I endorse extinction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Magons....

I'm not "society". I'm an individual. A singular human being. I'm a member of the largest minority group in the world.

I am an individual.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Magons....

I'm not "society". I'm an individual. A singular human being. I'm a member of the largest minority group in the world.

I am an individual.

Bullshit. You are 6 billion/6 billion. You are fungible. Your individuality is an illusion, your singular identity meaningless.

I loathe individualists, rugged or otherwise.

Magons right, though, inasmuch as you can't wash your hands of a system that benefits you...that you support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:20 PM

≈
1) The have the death penalty in iran, not stoning
2) the eighth is cruel and unusual punishment. Magon, you're actually a brit, right, aussie notwithstanding, so you're a resident or citizen of great britain? Either way, this is your document. The bill of rights, UK 1689. Know your rights, use the google.
3) Russia is not so unstable as some would have you believe
4) The parties of the US have indeed gone to war. Democrat Jefferson Davis and Republican Abraham Lincoln. And if you don't think that was a major part of the war chances are you haven't studied the subject.
5) Why can't Iran have nukes? Is this a judgment call, and on what basis? Are we suddenly a race of godlings that we decide? I mean, sure, humans shouldn't have nukes, but the iranians built nukes by themselves, which is more than I can say for some nuclear powers.

Frem,

I suggested it earlier, but what else do you have. I mean H&K are a likely suspect. And, someone said 1st gulf war, but it was also the iraq and afghan wars as well. Ahmed Chalabi cooked a lot of the bogus iraq stories up himself. But I'm not sure, are you saying that the incident is fabricated? I would've thought they would've thought of something better, but it does fit the image that they're trying to create.

Also, because some folk have forgotten: Iran has more engineers than any other nation IIRC, and I think the per capita college education. It's not exactly the back of beyond. We're actually discussing a full fledged war with a first world industrial power that has the backing of both China and Russia. This is not Vietnam, guys, or nothing remotely like it. We're seriously talking about world war three. Just soes you know.

ETA: For all the chaos, this is a great discussion. I wish that politics were more often discussed in this more fact getting investigative manner, and not with the bludgeoning over the head with the partisan poles.

Oh, and I agree with Rap on individualism, except for Rap, who could be a little more individual. Find something to agree with Obama on. Come on, it's not that hard ;) Even Cheney can find something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:30 PM

Uhm...Iran can't have nukes because they are the enemy? Seems sort of simple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:26 PM

Mince,

you missed the tone of moralistic judgement call which kinda read "idiotic child race"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Magons....

I'm not "society". I'm an individual. A singular human being. I'm a member of the largest minority group in the world.

I didn't suggest you were a society, but rather a member of one.

BTW Largest minority in the world = oxymoron

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

2) the eighth is cruel and unusual punishment. Magon, you're actually a brit, right, aussie notwithstanding, so you're a resident or citizen of great britain?

No I'm an Australian citizen and Australia is a member of the Commonwealth. I'm not a citizen of the United Kingdom, I can't pass their border without a visa, and would be unable to live there unless I passed their residency requirements, a bit the same as you.

Either way, the US Constitution is not my constitution.

Additionally, I am not covered by a federal Bill of Rights. The UK one does not directly apply to me, although I guess the Westminster system uses it as its basis.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:51 AM

FREMDFIRMA

DT, not fabricated out of whole cloth, but spun up, overblown and distorted in a way that both screams western involvement (middle eastern newsies sensationalize too, but they do so a bit differently) and in a fashion that as HAK's fingerprints all over it, starting with exactly which western news outlets it was first passed on to, touching on who translated it (and you KNOW who that is), and landing finally on the engineered american media "reaction", chapter and verse.

Kind of like how a specialist can tell you who built a bomb just by it's construction.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 4:49 AM

Magon,

The little known reality is that the bill of rights, which passed in the empire in 1689, was inherited by all colonies, and that our constitution was not the creator of said bill, but was in fact created in 1789 by the federalists to replace the articles of confederation of 1781 for the purpose of extending executive power and specifically to eradicate the bill of rights from US law. The result was the Supreme Court, whose purpose in existence is to supplant the rights of states to implement the bill of rights which the federalists were unsuccessful in striking down in the original deliberation thanks to some stalwart defenders of freedom like George Clinton, and a bunch of people who tend not to end up on currency.

So, unless your constitution says explicitly that you don't have them, you should have them.

Frem,

That's pretty much what I thought.

Quote:
middle eastern newsies sensationalize too

Ya don't say ;)

Quote:
which western news outlets it was first passed on to, touching on who translated it (and you KNOW who that is), and landing finally on the engineered american media "reaction"

Actually I don't. I've noticed bad farsi translations recurring in our media so I figured it was a single source but don't know who.

i also hadn't tracked that these stories all originated from the same handful of sources, that seems very likely, but I hadn't pieced it together. Often I'm reading foreign news and miss stuff like this, I should be more attentive. A map of this sort would be useful. I assume you're talking something more obscure than the usual suspects (CNN et al, and Weekly Standard/Jpost et al.)

Quote:

Kind of like how a specialist can tell you who built a bomb just by it's construction.

Or a random guy with access to the internet. Did you catch my detailing of the bomb a few years back... Bush held up a fragment of a bombshell and said "This is proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq, this bomb was made in Iran!" So I did a bit of googling and cross referenced and posted it all here.

It took me 15 minutes to find out the the shell was made in Wilkesbarre, PA, the device in Milan, NY, and the whole thing assembled in Texarkana, TX before being sent off to our guys in Iraq.
-Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:35 AM

The "Rights of Englishmen" thing might depend on if Australia was denied it during the period of time they were a penal colony. They should have it, but it's not a guarantee, see also natives of India.

EDIT: Ah, they don't have one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia#Protection_of_r
ights

Does Canada have one? Hmm, looks like they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada#Canadian_Charter_o
f_Rights_and_Freedoms

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Any nation can choose it's own "bill of rights" when it is an independent entity. Australia is an independent entity.

I disagree with capital punishment in this country because, pragmatically, it is financially stupid--takes far longer and costs more to carry out a death sentence than life in prison, and even THEN we sometimes execute the wrong person.

I don't think I fit any of those categories listed...how about "perspective, perspective, perspective"? I'm not convinced it's a run-up to war, but I'm also certain it's a useful tool to turn people against another nation. I don't know whether all the stories are true or false, but my personal experience tells me they were things that were done for centuries in that part of the world, so possible. I think America has been responsible for her own atrocities, and waterboarding is one of them; waterboarding is torture and has caused death, that puts us right up there with any country you choose to name.

The remark that they could "sing like canaries" omits the fact that it's been proven over and over again that torure does NOT result in accurate information, if any, but that other methods do. Torture is for those who are simple enough to believe it works. UN-tortued people arrested since we supposedly stopped waterboarding have sung like canaries and assisted in the apprehension of their cohorts, or so we're told. It's deliberate blindness to keep trotting that old cow out as if it were valid.

How does that make me any of those you listed? I live in a world filled with colors and greys, not only blacks and whites.

Back and forth, back and forth, and everything seems to be black or white, "America's horrible", "America's good", "Iran's horrible", "Iran's civilized". Goes nowhere.

It's an interesting story, that's about it, to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Actually I don't. I've noticed bad farsi translations recurring in our media so I figured it was a single source but don't know who.

That'd be MEMRI, most american media is damn near wholly dependant on them for "translation", much of which borders on outright fiction.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5720

Kind of a "who counts the votes" kind of thing, by insuring that they are damn near the single source for translation of middle eastern news, it provides them both the ability to manipulate it by distorting the translation however they please, which in combination with media spin feeds the psychotic, intolerant, racist, kool-aid drinkin horde by telling them what they wanna hear and winding them up to scream for more war, of course.

And all the while the Mil-Industry-Complex and the Likudniks rub their hands and giggle at their fucking gullibility.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:55 AM

Byte,

IIRC, Australia as a penal colony was overplayed in HS history. Technically, they had penal colonies on australia, but they were prisons. Australia was a colony. All colonies inherit whether they choose to codify it or not. Remember all the fuss there was about Habeas Corpus? I don't recall any document specifically making the Magna Carta of 1215 US law, but it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:09 AM

Frem,

Yes, Interesting. I see this as a weakness of an english-only society. You're right about the gullibility of the masses. I think we need a little more skepticism starting at a much younger age if we're to have thought at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:14 AM