Gay Teen To Be Sent Back To Iran, Hanged.

N1120A · Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:41 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):
Being a member of the military does not make you an automatic supporter of discrimination.

Yes, because you joined voluntarily.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):
It's a weak argument, and an impossible sell.

Oh please. Your whole rant at the beginning purported to attack my position, which you have never once correctly stated. That is the weakest argument of all.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):

But please, tell me how I can personally change the whole policy, single handily, and I will do it right now.

Leave, and you stop supporting it.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):

So then why did you tell us we need to respect Iran's right to enforce their laws!? If what they are doing is wrong - and there is only one level of wrong - then how can you ask us to respect something that is wrong?

We don't have to respect the laws or the reasons behind them. We have to, however, respect the rule of law if we expect the same of others.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):
We don't control internal Iraqi laws

Bull. Don't even pretend.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):
(odd... I thought Muslims weren't suppose to drink evil alcohol!!)

So, do you eat pork, shrimp or cheeseburgers?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):

But you said the the US has sanctioned the modern execution of gays.

No I didn't, until I showed you the Iraqi examples.

pawsleykat · Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:49 am

Quoting Gosimeon (Thread starter):
Opinions anybody?

It's sick!

It's horrible that someone can be hanged for something as simple as love; jeez, it's not like he chose to be gay, especially in a country like Iran.

That kid must be actual terrified, knowing that if he goes back to his home country, he's going to be killed.
Poor kid Sad

JG

UH60FtRucker · Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:54 am

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 50):
So, using your "logic" (and I use that term loosely), because I'm an American, I should be, de-facto, a supporter of the "war" in Iraq? And, if not, should I then move out of the country on principle?

Interesting point.

He says that because I am in the military, I am automatically supporting DADT, and helping to discriminate against gays.

Well he says he has two motherlands, the first being the US. And as an American, he is living in a nation that supports DADT. And as an American taxpayer, he is even helping to fund DADT! But at the same time, he also has said his second motherland is Iran.... a nation that is actively killing gay people!

So the way I see it, if he's true to his convictions and true to his advise:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 52):
Leave, and you stop supporting it.

... well Alireza... you're screwed when it comes to a place to call home!!!

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 51):
whatever, I do NOT feel that we have to "respect" the right of European authorities to send refugees into death-

MAF... it wasn't me who suggested we respect Iran's right to kill gays. It was N1120A. That was a quote from him.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 52):
No I didn't, until I showed you the Iraqi examples.

What a sleazy answer. This is why so many people distrust lawyers (btw: are you even a lawyer yet? Or still a student of law?) Anyway, I said "Iran has publicly killed gay citizens in the past." and you said "so has the US."

...You were referring to the United States specifically. It was obvious to anyone reading that quote. You weren't talking about how Iraq has done it, thus by proxy, the US has done it. You were specifically saying the United States has done it. And when I challenged you to give us case examples, you gave us a bullshit answer regarding Muslims in Iraq killing gays, and gave us an article that spoke about how the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has issued a fatwa calling for the murder of gays. And gave us another website highlighting Muslim brutality against gays.

But in neither case did you provide us evidence of a US government policy that dictated the execution of gays for simply being gay. It was a slimy lawyer cop-out, and it was transparent.

-UH60

N1120A · Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:35 am

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 50):

So, using your "logic" (and I use that term loosely), because I'm an American, I should be, de-facto, a supporter of the "war" in Iraq?

No, because you joined the military knowing full well of their discrimination.

CO7e7 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:04 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
Further, homosexuality is still very illegal in Morocco.

That might be the case, only they don't execute people for it.

I find this interesting, check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Morocco

ManuCH · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:22 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 52):

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 48):
Being a member of the military does not make you an automatic supporter of discrimination.

Yes, because you joined voluntarily.

People join the Army because they believe it's a good thing to serve and protect their country. Nonetheless, there might be things of the Army itself (for example, DADT) that even some of their members don't agree with. This alone doesn't mean that they're automatically a "supporter of discrimination": not everything's perfect in this world, things can be changed, but defending someone's country still remains an honorable thing to do, and I think it's a lack of respect accusing someone of being a "supporter of discrimination" only because their army supports DADT.

MSYtristar · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:27 am

Now I see why Mahmoud avoided the questions at Columbia regarding homosexuals in Iran, from what I can recall.

I'm sorry....in 2008, there's no excuse for such barbaric practices. The lack of tolerance for people's lifestyles in certain parts of the world is dissapointing to say the least...but, sadly, not surprising.

I really hope it works out for this kid. It'd be a horrible way to die...both in practice and principal.

OA260 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:49 am

Very sad indeed. I can understand the UK is in a difficult position. Maybe they fear a huge amount of future cases but still if it has been proved he is in danger then there is no question about it asylum should be granted.

I was discussing this issue with a mate of mine the other day and he is a Muslim and Gay and he says that people and
governments in the Islamic world interpret things the wrong way and use it for their own gain. I was asking him how he deals with the contradictions of being a Muslim and being Gay. He still goes to the Mosque and doesn't eat Pork etc.... I guess its the same for a Catholic Gay just more extreme penalties. There is a huge amount of homosexual activity and relationships in the Muslim world, its just all underground and behind closed doors.

flynavy · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:35 am

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 50):
So, using your "logic" (and I use that term loosely), because I'm an American, I should be, de-facto, a supporter of the "war" in Iraq? And, if not, should I then move out of the country on principle?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 52):

I'm not talking about DADT. Answer my question without changing the subject.

I eagerly await your response.

[Edited 2008-03-10 04:02:23]

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:51 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 54):
whatever, I do NOT feel that we have to "respect" the right of European authorities to send refugees into death-

MAF... it wasn't me who suggested we respect Iran's right to kill gays. It was N1120A. That was a quote from him.

Sure. But while "respecting" Iran's right to execute homosexuals is out of the question for me, whenever we all cannot do much if they continue to do so, I find it unacceptable that European governments might even consider to send whomever is threatened by this back to Iran, as sending somebody back is indirect support to the Iranian judiciary. And again, the principle should be "in case of doubt in favour of the refugee".

flynavy · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:54 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 61):
find it unacceptable that European governments might even consider to send whomever is threatened by this back to Iran, as sending somebody back is indirect support to the Iranian judiciary.

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:46 am

Quoting OA260 (Reply 58):
There is a huge amount of homosexual activity and relationships in the Muslim world, its just all underground and behind closed doors.

But what really counts is that in most places, if things go badly wrong, some hassle by police and at worst a prison sentence may result, but NOT an execution.
-

signol · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:49 am

I think it's shocking. But as Leezyjet says, this has been used in the past as a route into the country.
It is still so very wrong to execute people for doing something that has no bearing on the lives of anyone else.

However:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 36):

would you mind removing these pictures? They make me feel uncomforable, and using shock tactics to make a point doesn't always help. Thanks

signol

halls120 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:53 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 36):
You did this in the last time we discussed this subject, and it didn't work then.

You can't "ask for a discharge", lol! I can't go to my commander and say, "Hey man, I ain't down with this deal anymore. I'll see you later!"

But you know what I can do? I can publicly condemn it - which I have, would you like a link/quote? I can also vote for a presidential candidate who will end the DADT policy. And I can chose not to re-new my service obligation in 2011.

But simply quiting? I can't do that.

But if you really want to discuss the DADT policy, you should start a new thread.

His anti-military rant is so predictable. It's what he typically does when he can't deal with the fact that he's an apologist for a regime that hangs people on account of their sexual preference.

Notice how Alireza hasn't once addressed the subject of his past comments? Now why is that?

flynavy · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:03 pm

Quoting Signol (Reply 63):
would you mind removing these pictures? They make me feel uncomforable, and using shock tactics to make a point doesn't always help.

Good. They should make you uncomfortable. If they didn't, then I would be worried. Deal with it.

airportugal310 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:14 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 65):
Deal with it.

Typical insensitive military people.

Yawn...whats new Embarrassment

flynavy · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:19 pm

Quoting AirPortugal310 (Reply 66):

Spare us all the pedantic B.S. - the fact of the matter is that the photos he posted are REAL. They drive the point home and puts a face on this sad, sad story.

767Lover · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:32 pm

According to the article in the OP, it seems like the Dutch court should provide him asylum based on the Dublin Treaty.

"The challenge and legality under question and debate in the Dutch court is if he can or should be deported back to the UK under the Dublin Treaty which compels EU states to send asylum-seekers to the first European country they claim asylum."

Hopefully this will work out in his favor, and the media coverage puts these barbaric practices in an even larger light.

Now, I am wondering where all the folks in the Waterboarding thread, who were talking about the US not being humane, are.

iflyatldl · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:34 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 65):
Quoting Signol (Reply 63):
would you mind removing these pictures? They make me feel uncomforable, and using shock tactics to make a point doesn't always help.

Good. They should make you uncomfortable. If they didn't, then I would be worried. Deal with it.

Navy- Welcome to my RR list!

FlyDeltaJets87 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:40 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 46):
You can't say any discriminatory law is wrong, whatever the penalty, because you actively support such policies by being part of them.

I'm sure the Tuskegee Airmen would be thrilled to hear that one! sarcastic

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 49):
So, using your "logic" (and I use that term loosely), because I'm an American, I should be, de-facto, a supporter of the "war" in Iraq? And, if not, should I then move out of the country on principle?

N1120A would certainly try to tell you that you should be an automatic supporter of the war in Iraq, based on the statements he's already made.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 51):
Yes, because you joined voluntarily.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 51):
Leave, and you stop supporting it.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):
Notice how Alireza hasn't once addressed the subject of his past comments? Now why is that?

N1120A address the points you specifically ask him to address? Has that ever happened, even once in the history of A.net?

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 56):
People join the Army because they believe it's a good thing to serve and protect their country. Nonetheless, there might be things of the Army itself (for example, DADT) that even some of their members don't agree with. This alone doesn't mean that they're automatically a "supporter of discrimination": not everything's perfect in this world, things can be changed, but defending someone's country still remains an honorable thing to do, and I think it's a lack of respect accusing someone of being a "supporter of discrimination" only because their army supports DADT.

*sigh*
Just FYI, you're wasting your time trying to use reason with that clown.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 53):
This is why so many people distrust lawyers (btw: are you even a lawyer yet?

I just hope if I'm ever accused of a crime and find myself unable to pay for a lawyer, I don't find out N1120A is my court appointed attorney. I would, however, certainly like to see him as the lawyer for the other side. biggrin

OA260 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:41 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 62):
But what really counts is that in most places, if things go badly wrong, some hassle by police and at worst a prison sentence may result, but NOT an execution.

Im fully aware of that having been to Iran. An interesting program on the BBC last week was on Gays being ''cured'' and trans sexuals. The Iranian government supports operations to make them either into a Man or Women as ''God has given them the wrong body''. It was certainly different.

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 65):
Good. They should make you uncomfortable. If they didn't, then I would be worried. Deal with it.

Hmm well it was quite a shock to see first thing this morning but no more than the things we see in Iraq/Israel/Palestine.

CF188A · Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:34 pm

Quoting Gosimeon (Thread starter):
The Iranian authorities have found out that I am a homosexual and they are looking for me." He added: "I cannot stop my attraction towards men. This is something that I will have to live with the rest of my life. I was born with the feeling and cannot change this fact but it is unfortunate that I cannot express my feeling in Iran. If I return to Iran I will be arrested and executed like my former boyfriend."
More @ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk....html

As for the Man's statement ... I have never claimed that one before...

Is it me or does that Iranian Pm sound like Hitler... yet nobody in the world steps up to stop it. He is "Cleansing" Homosexuals in his country. Any mention of this in the current US elections when Iran is brought up? Of course not, yet Britain will feed this guy right back for execution rightly knowing what will happen to him. I think the Iranian PM should be hanged for crimes against humanity. I don't care if you from that area of the world where it appears to be "normal" to hang Gay people. Who is making things unjust here? The guy pursuing an education like a responsible human being, or some sick Islamic extremist on power trips attempting to cleanse his nation and probably many other close nations.

gosimeon · Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:50 pm

Quoting CF188A (Reply 72):
Is it me or does that Iranian Pm sound like Hitler

Sad but true. I don't care if he has ingredients that might make big WMD's or any of that rubbish. It's this sort of pure evil stuff that drives me mad.

However, what precedent would it set if we (the West, democratic, liberial-ish nations) went in and changed things? That isn't an option. In many ways our hands are tied.

This lad should not be allowed back there though. No way. I don't believe it will be let happen.

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:40 pm

Quoting CF188A (Reply 72):
Of course not, yet Britain will feed this guy right back for execution rightly knowing what will happen to him.

Whomever is responsible for such an extradition should be punished in the same way as the victim

kiwiandrew · Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:55 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 76):
Whomever is responsible for such an extradition should be punished in the same way as the victim

While I dont agree with that as I dont believe in the death penalty I do agree that anyone responsible for knowingly sending someone to their death by deporting them should be prosecuted for murder , because make no mistake about it , that is exactly what it would be ... and let's not have any nonsense about 'just doing their job' we have heard that before at the Nuremburg trials, it wasn't an excuse then and it isn't one now - anyone who is a party to sending this man , or anyone else back to a country where they are going to be murdered by the state is just as guilty as if they had committed the murder themselves .

baroque · Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:02 pm

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 4):
Quoting Kmh1956 (Reply 1):
No wonder Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed there were no gays in Iran...they hang them all.

Don't worry, there will be people on this board defending it in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Well happily that prediction went down in flames, or I think it did, some of the subsequent argument was probably similar to the sort of stuff that goes on between the Ayatollahs when they are dreaming up these vile interpretations of the law.

For issues as basic as the Ayatollahs seem to think these are, I doubt if Ahmad has much if any say in the matter. Not that I suppose he opposes that law, I just don't think it matters whether he does or not.

Reprisals by a family are not unknown. So that is a possible problem.

Other than that, Iran should also be castigated for having a death penalty at all, but that view will not meet with universal approval I know. However, it needs to be said.

One other more general matter to put the issue in another context. I suspect that up to about 1965 or so, the numbers per year who committed suicide due to homosexual issues was probably greater in a number of western countries than the current number of hangings in Iran. It is great that attitudes to homosexuality have changed in most western countries, but we have a long sad and sorry history to live down.

Just look at some of the losses society has suffered, start with Alan Turing, the genius of code cracking and early computing methods and then add all the others. Then say, there but for the grace of progress, there went we.

I suppose I should not be surprised, but I just checked and yes, Wiki DOES have a list of famous suicides but you will have to work out which ones were homosexuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:33 pm

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 77):
I dont believe in the death penalty

Neither do I in fact, as I am against the death penalty out of principle, but a sentence of 26 years and 11 months might be fine !
-

Quoting Baroque (Reply 78):
that attitudes to homosexuality

the "attitude" in many countries still is rather negative. There was a case in the UAE about a year ago (extensively discussed on A-Net) and another one in Cairo, and in both cases, some Homosexuals in the framework of a police crackdown got to prison for up to 3 years. Such things are harsh, no doubt, but miles away from hanging. And this is what is so gruesome in case of Iran.

Maverick623 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:32 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Why? Even if it is a "Dishonorable" Discharge because you refuse the policies.

Try court-martial for desertion and hard time in Leavenworth.

Quoting AirPortugal310 (Reply 66):
Typical insensitive military people.

Life's tough, wear a helmet. The truth hurts. Get... over.... it.

bwest · Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:29 pm

Could it be possible to continue the "gays in the army" discussion somewhere else? This discussion deserves more than a flamewar.

I sincerely hope the British government will come back on its decision. Not just the British, but every European should protest against this injustice. The EU is based on equality and respect for human rights. By sending this guy back to Iran you might as well shoot him in the head right now and get it over with. This is so outrageous, it makes me so angry and sad...

I'm gonna look into possible ways of protesting to either my government or the British one

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:01 pm

Quoting Bwest (Reply 79):
I'm gonna look into possible ways of protesting to either my government or the British one

-
Here the E-Mail address of the UK Home Office, where you can send your comment to the attention of Mrs Jacqui SMITH. I have just sent mine.
[email protected]

fumanchewd · Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:20 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37):
And I can chose not to re-new my service obligation in 2011.

If you were so pro gay-rights, you should have never joined.

I'm confused. Don't gays join the military as well? Are you saying that they shouldn't join because it would make them anti-gay? Yeah sure

N1120A · Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:42 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):
sexual preference.

Orientation

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):
It's what he typically does when he can't deal with the fact that he's an apologist for a regime that hangs people on account of their

I don't appologise for anything. How about you try reading my posts.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):

Notice how Alireza hasn't once addressed the subject of his past comments?

Um, you people turned this whole thing into a thread about what you allege to be my past comments and I have addressed that with every post.

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 59):

I'm not talking about DADT. Answer my question without changing the subject.

I did answer your question.

skidmarks · Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:53 pm

In no manner or form do I support a regime that hangs gays or stones women, but I do believe that what N1120A is actually saying is right. We should NOT try to interfere with Iran's or anyone elses laws and customs despite our own sheer abhorence for them. But what we should do is NOT send people back to regimes like this when they ask for help. Which, again, is what N1120A was saying.

I have to say I rarely agree with his arguements and statements. I often find them pompous and condescending. But they are HIS beliefs and whilst I and many others may not agree, they should be respected. And in this case I think he is right. We spend a lot of time in these threads pontificating on what other nation states should or should not do according to our beliefs. Disagreeing with them is our right, demanding they change is not. And embroiling ourselves in often pointless arguements over ethics and law is also, in my view, pointless.

Plus the fact that many, many threads degenerate into name calling and pure rudeness is a sad inditement of the standards adopted by some here. People are different, have different ideas that often don't match our own and it is up to us to be mature enough to accept that.

So, the subject here is Iran hanging homosexuals, not N1120A's apparent defence of this regime. I think it's wrong, I think it is barbaric and I think I can do absolutely nothing about it. What I can do is offer my support to any Iranian homosexual who asks for asylum and harangue my own Government if they refuse it without trying to ascertain the facts. Oh, and I'm not homosexual and have no particular axe to grind. (Sorry guys, but I just don't swing that way - in fact it very rarely swings at all these days!)

Andy old

fumanchewd · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:00 pm

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 83):
We should NOT try to interfere with Iran's or anyone elses laws and customs despite our own sheer abhorence for them.

You are right. Sudan is doing their thing, why interfere? If someone wants to commit a holocaust within their framework of laws with sovereignty, who are we to try to stop them? Yeah sure

PPVRA · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:09 pm

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 83):

Well said

Even though I disagree with N1120A many times this one isn't it.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 84):

You are right. Sudan is doing their thing, why interfere? If someone wants to commit a holocaust within their framework of laws with sovereignty, who are we to try to stop them?

Iran is out of U.S. jurisdiction, or anyone else's except Iran itself. If you are outraged by something they did, go over there and join a coalition to change their government. Go and join rebels and fight them, but don't draft me or others who want to just stay home peacefully into your conflict. Don't do it in other people's name, either, which means you are on your own and no military assistance. It's the Iranian people's job to change their government not anyone else.

U.S. laws are limited to U.S. territory only, the same thing with Brazilian and European laws. Military force should only be used for self-defense.

[Edited 2008-03-10 14:10:33]

kiwiandrew · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:26 pm

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 83):
We should NOT try to interfere with Iran's or anyone elses laws and customs despite our own sheer abhorence for them.

a lot of people said the same thing when the Nazis started rounding up gays and jews etc ... "Tsk , tsk ,it's terrible , but it really isn't any of our business what they do in their own country" , perhaps that was where Hitler really went wrong , if he had been sensible enough to stick to murdering people inside his own borders those who had the sheer random good luck to have been born elsewhere could have continued to consider it none of their business and he would have lived to a ripe old age ( unlike those Germans unfortunate enough to have been born gay , or jewish etc )

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 85):

U.S. laws are limited to U.S. territory only

really ? tell that to any US citizen who has been prosecuted for spending US dollars in Cuba

fumanchewd · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:32 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 85):
Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 84):

You are right. Sudan is doing their thing, why interfere? If someone wants to commit a holocaust within their framework of laws with sovereignty, who are we to try to stop them?

Iran is out of U.S. jurisdiction, or anyone else's except Iran itself. If you are outraged by something they did, go over there and join a coalition to change their government. Go and join rebels and fight them, but don't draft me or others who want to just stay home peacefully into your conflict. Don't do it in other people's name, either, which means you are on your own and no military assistance. It's the Iranian people's job to change their government not anyone else.

U.S. laws are limited to U.S. territory only, the same thing with Brazilian and European laws. Military force should only be used for self-defense.

I understand the concept of sovereignty. But the concept that a nation's sovereignty takes precedent over human life is immoral and disgusting. If the global community held to the rules and notions of sovereignty, no criminal action would be stopped-no atrocity would go punished.

I suppose you are right. We should all let the UN continue to issue warnings and pleasantly critical speeches to Iran. That'll teach 'em.

skidmarks · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:37 pm

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 84):
You are right. Sudan is doing their thing, why interfere? If someone wants to commit a holocaust within their framework of laws with sovereignty, who are we to try to stop them?

A fairly simplistic and somewhat naieve comparison in my opinion. As you may have noticed Sudan is "getting away with it" with the West doing little or nothing to stop Darfur. But that is a slightly different thing to a country acting under it's own laws and customs and, in their eyes, completely legally. The current rulers in Sudan know they are in the wrong but also know the West, or anyone come to that, is reluctant to get involved. Zimbabwe is another case in point.

I would suggest that had the Sudan or Zimbabwe had the same sort of status to the White House or Downing Street as Iran has then perhaps the crusading west would have stepped in long ago and been embroiled in another dirty war that is next to impossible to win.

Maybe Europe should demand the US stops the death penalty on the threat of invasion and punishment because in Europe's mind this is barbaric and cruel behaviour? I don't think so, do you?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm as disgusted and appalled by much of what goes on the world as anyone, but that doesn't mean I think any country has the right to dictate to another what rules and laws it may or may not have.

Andy old

CF188A · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:42 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 33):
Not to mention the fact that international community, victim rights organizations, gay rights organizations, and all civilized people, really needs to ban together and publicly condemn Iran's murdering of human beings, simply because they are gay.

Don't you agree?

Oh come now UH60 .... the Iranian Human Rights commission will do a fine good job at defending this young man... The trial is probably held while his neck is around the noose, whereby he is guilty when the crowd chants at certain volume. Allah then will pamper all those who just murdered him because of course that is the mission of this so called "God of the Desert"

fumanchewd · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:52 pm

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 88):
Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 84):
You are right. Sudan is doing their thing, why interfere? If someone wants to commit a holocaust within their framework of laws with sovereignty, who are we to try to stop them?

A fairly simplistic and somewhat naieve comparison in my opinion. As you may have noticed Sudan is "getting away with it" with the West doing little or nothing to stop Darfur. But that is a slightly different thing to a country acting under it's own laws and customs and, in their eyes, completely legally. The current rulers in Sudan know they are in the wrong but also know the West, or anyone come to that, is reluctant to get involved. Zimbabwe is another case in point.

I would suggest that had the Sudan or Zimbabwe had the same sort of status to the White House or Downing Street as Iran has then perhaps the crusading west would have stepped in long ago and been embroiled in another dirty war that is next to impossible to win.

I don't think that Sudan should have been allowed to "get away with it" and that is a red herring to my point that sovereignty should not be something that is held to the highest apex of foreign policy.

PPVRA · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:14 pm

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 87):
If the global community held to the rules and notions of sovereignty, no criminal action would be stopped-no atrocity would go punished.

Says who? Look at Chile and Pinochet. Fair enough, he died before all charges were brought to him, but with the UN in charge it doesn't look much different either!

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 87):
But the concept that a nation's sovereignty takes precedent over human life is immoral and disgusting.

Governments have to abide by their laws and cannot act outside them nor impose them on others that do not have a say in this government. That is sovereignty and rule of law and "stretching" it is very bad precedence.

Government also has no right to use citizens as means to achieve their ends, no matter how well intended.

[Edited 2008-03-10 15:18:31]

fumanchewd · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:19 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 91):
Says who? Look at Chile and Pinochet. Fair enough, he died before all charges were brought to him, but with the UN in charge it doesn't look much different either!

And Pol Pot lived out his days. Idi Amin, Stalin, and many others.

All lived life to the fullest under the protected cover of sovereignty. Ah well. I guess it better not to ruffle feathers than do whats right.

mal787 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:25 pm

Quoting Iflyatldl (Reply 69):

Navy- Welcome to my RR list!

I second that welcome to mine flynavy

Mal787

halls120 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:50 pm

Quoting Bwest (Reply 79):
Could it be possible to continue the "gays in the army" discussion somewhere else? This discussion deserves more than a flamewar.

I suggest taking it up with N1120A. He's the one who tried to hijack the thread.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 82):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):
sexual preference.

Orientation

Fine. My point remains valid. You remain an apologist for a regime that hangs people on account of their sexual orientation.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 82):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):
It's what he typically does when he can't deal with the fact that he's an apologist for a regime that hangs people on account of their

I don't appologise for anything. How about you try reading my posts

I have. You have consistently been an apologist for the Iranian regime. Here are some of your 'greatest hits.'

Quote:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 92):
and a government sanctioning them.

That is the law. You don't have to like the law, but at least they adhere to a rule of law.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 92):
Murdering two boys

In the US, the government murders people all the time.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 92):
Physically punishing people for their sexual orientation, and condoning it under your judicial system?

Again, that is the law. We have the death penalty for crimes here in the US too. I find both things disgusting, but both are the law as stands now. While as Americans, it is on us to change laws/lawmakers we don't agree with, it is not our right to tell people in Iran how to run their country.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 82):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 64):

Notice how Alireza hasn't once addressed the subject of his past comments?

Um, you people turned this whole thing into a thread about what you allege to be my past comments and I have addressed that with every post.

And you have tried to turn this discussion into a referendum on DADT. You aren't fooling anyone.

N1120A · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:35 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 94):

I suggest taking it up with N1120A. He's the one who tried to hijack the thread.

Excuse me? It was UH60, aided by you and a few others who hijacked this thread by attacking me before I had even seen it.

UH60FtRucker · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:57 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 95):
Excuse me? It was UH60, aided by you and a few others who hijacked this thread by attacking me before I had even seen it.

I was simply pointing out that in the past you excused the murder of gay teenagers, and suggested that we ought to respect Iran's right to enforce their laws.

I mean... if you want to say you were wrong and you don't feel that way anymore... please say so, and the issue is settled!

-UH60

halls120 · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:59 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 95):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 94):

I suggest taking it up with N1120A. He's the one who tried to hijack the thread.

Excuse me? It was UH60, aided by you and a few others who hijacked this thread by attacking me before I had even seen it.

YOU tried to turn it into a referendum on DADT.

I see you aren't interested in discussing your past apologist posts.

No surprise.

[Edited 2008-03-10 16:59:49]

N1120A · Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:35 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 96):

I was simply pointing out that in the past you excused the murder of gay teenagers

You were simply asserting something completely false.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 97):

I see you aren't interested in discussing your past apologist posts.

I'm not interested in discussing what doesn't exist.

PA110 · Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:40 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 98):
You were simply asserting something completely false.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 98):
I'm not interested in discussing what doesn't exist.

I've stayed out of this cat fight so far, but enough is enough... Your previous posts have been interpreted by almost everyone as excusing the behavior of the Iranian government in its murder of homosexuals. Now how is that? Do you write poorly, or do you really think you have been inadvertantly misinterpreted by virtually everyone in this thread?

FlyDeltaJets87 · Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:43 am

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 83):
In no manner or form do I support a regime that hangs gays or stones women, but I do believe that what N1120A is actually saying is right. We should NOT try to interfere with Iran's or anyone elses laws and customs despite our own sheer abhorence for them. But what we should do is NOT send people back to regimes like this when they ask for help. Which, again, is what N1120A was saying.

Why? If we're going to respect Iran's right to hang homosexuals, we should respect and honor their request to have those guilty of this crime returned for a fair trial. By acknowledging Iran's right to call this a crime, you're required to honor any extradition requests that you have with the country.

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 88):
But that is a slightly different thing to a country acting under it's own laws and customs and, in their eyes, completely legally.

Oh man, is that opening a can of worms right there. I mean, by that count, the Northern States should have completely respected the State's Rights Amendments and never brought up the issue of slavery (since the South didn't see it as wrong), and it never should have come down to the South seceding and leading to the Civil War.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 92):
All lived life to the fullest under the protected cover of sovereignty. Ah well. I guess it better not to ruffle feathers than do whats right.

As Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Well, it's quite clear who the ones who wish to do absolutely nothing and would rather turn a blind eye.

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 88):
Maybe Europe should demand the US stops the death penalty on the threat of invasion and punishment because in Europe's mind this is barbaric and cruel behaviour? I don't think so, do you?

Putting our most heinous murderers to death is slightly different than putting someone to death for something that is beyond their control and biologically natural, don't you think?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net