Print 130 comment(s) - last by lompocus.. on Jul 11 at 12:51 AM

"Don’t be upset, we’ll execute you legally."  (Source: Abdol-Qader Balouch/Global Voice Online)
Iranian legislation seeks to K-line bloggers from the real world

A draft bill in the Iranian parliament is set to give bloggers the death penalty, if the government deems their writing as advocating corruption, prostitution, or desertion of Islam.

If so classified, bloggers will join those guilty of the above crimes in the real world to be branded as mohareb (an enemy of God) and “corrupt of the earth” – making him or her eligible for punishments ranging from exile, to amputations, to execution.

Further, if the bill becomes law, punishment bestowed by the system “cannot be commuted, suspended, or changed.”

Iranian bloggers and human rights activists fear the ease in which the government could casually accuse bloggers of offending the country’s strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Anti-censorship activist group Global Voice Online notes that about 18 months ago the Iranian government demanded bloggers register their websites, although the initiative failed to produce meaningful results. Bloggers widely considered registration as an enabler for future government suppression, and many proudly displayed an “I do not register my blog/site” badge in defiance of the mandate.

 “Mentioning ‘blogging’ among crimes such as kidnapping, raping, armed robbery makes accusing bloggers easier than before… Such a law will harm the mental security of society more than the poor bloggers, who do not know what awaits them,” said Iranian blogger Mojtaba Saminejad. According to a Wikipedia bio linked by his “About Me” page, Saminejad spent 21 months in an Iranian prison beginning in 2005, including an alleged 88 days of solitary confinement and torture, due to a 2004 post reporting the arrest of three other bloggers. His official charges listed Saminejad as having insulted Iran’s head of state and “endangering national security.”

Another Iranian blogger notes that Iranian Parliament president Ali Larijani said the bill was discussed for “hours” with the country’s Judiciary before a draft was settled. After the number of executions last year almost doubled, from 177 to 317 according to Amnesty International, the Iranian government said the punishment is not given casually, and results only after an extensive legal process.

A censored version of the internet sees wide use in Iran, and young, tech-savvy Iranians have joined the rest of the world in blogging about everything from menial personal gossip to obscenities and questioning the government. The Iranian government actively filters out content it considers obscene, including websites promoting pornography, heresy, or political dissent.

The Iranian government considers blogging a threat to "mental security," a doctrine that human rights advocates consider to be a scapegoat used in the government's historically oppressive policies. It joins a variety of other countries, including Yemen and China, in monitoring online expression for politically and morally sensitive material.

The draft bill still needs inspection from the Guardian Council, which ensures the bills’ adherence to the Iranian constitution and Islamic law, and then needs to be “rubber-stamped” by a conservative government watchdog before being made into law.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 8:32:59 AM , Rating: 5
Such a peaceful people....

We don't like what you're we're just going to kill you.

RE: Yes....
By mdogs444 on 7/8/2008 8:58:57 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, peaceful indeed....much like their nuclear plan. Peaceful. ppssshhhhtt.

RE: Yes....
By MrPoletski on 7/8/2008 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 3
Until you produce some evidence otherwise, their nuclear program is peaceful.

If we are going to push freedom then you have to also push innocent until proven guilty.

RE: Yes....
By Ringold on 7/8/2008 4:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
The fact they're refining uranium the way that they are is evidence in itself, and they admit to the issue and turn down offers of civilian reactors that aren't capable of being used for weapon programs. There are reactor designs that can even use natural uranium.

At the moment, the ball is in their court to prove they have peaceful intentions, and they're just laughing maniacally in violation of UN mandates.

RE: Yes....
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 4:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I will agree innocent until proven guilty...

But, would you rather ignore them completely and act like nothing fishy is going on at all? We learned that this sort of attitude as practiced by Clinton in the 90's was detrimental to our society as a whole in the long run.

No, I'd rather us push for an investigation as to what is actually going on.

RE: Yes....
By Lerianis on 7/8/2008 4:41:41 PM , Rating: 4
There isn't anything really fishy going on YET. The enrichment of uranium that they are doing right now, is a step towards peaceful nuclear ambitions as well as nuclear weapons.
Now, there are some OTHER steps, that if the Iranians are doing them, that are only for nuclear weapons... but even then, Iran is only pursuing nuclear weapons because our 'Chimp in Chief' keeps on pissing them off at EVERY DAMN OPPORTUNITY and threatening them with invasion.
If I was Iran, in that situation...... I would damn well be trying to get nuclear weapons to, in all honesty. Heck, I would be trying to get things WORSE than nuclear weapons to dissuade the United States from invading my country.

We keep on having the BS put out that "Iran is dangerous if they get nuclear weapons!" They said the same exact things about: Russia, China, and a whole WIDE ASSORTMENT of other countries, and what happened when they got nukes? Absolutely nothing!
Now, some people will say "Iran is a radical Muslim regime! That makes them more dangerous!" No. It makes no more, and no less, dangerous than the radical Christians in OUR country.

RE: Yes....
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 4:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
So, you are saying that if we get rid of good ole' G Dubya, the Iranians will stop producing nuclear weapons?

They are only producing them because of our president?

I think you need to read your history books on the Middle East. The lust for power, domination and war has been in this region for thousands of years... Also, there is this other little country there known as Israel that all of the Islamic fundamentalists love to hate... Especially countries that are run by crazy fundamentalists. They've been pissed off with Israel since... umm, lets see - 1948. You also forget that Israel has nuclear weapons - quite a few actually (though they won't tell us this factually).

No, I don't think it is our fault that they want to pursue these means. I think there is far more below the surface such as Israel and their religious fanaticism that could be guiding them down this path.

You're right - fundamentalists... fundamentally are bad for any religion. Our Christian fundies are pretty darned extreme. So are Islamic fundies. The only difference is you don't see Christian fundies typically blowing themselves up in crowded areas in the name of Jesus... (there were some Abortion clinic shootings/bombings so us Christians aren't completely off the hook... don't forget the Olympic Park bombings too).

But, I think you aren't being fair when you say it is our fault they want nuclear weapons. No, I think it more has to do with their internal desire to have power, control, and - at least on a short-term basis, eliminate and destroy Israel.

RE: Yes....
By Nfarce on 7/8/2008 10:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
Now, some people will say "Iran is a radical Muslim regime! That makes them more dangerous!" No. It makes no more, and no less, dangerous than the radical Christians in OUR country.

Hey asshat, I don't see "radical" Christians constantly threatening to wipe Iran off the map, unlike say Iran's constant threat to do just that to Israel. Idiots like you don't deserve the freedoms you have.

RE: Yes....
By Ryanman on 7/9/2008 2:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Actually radical Christians regularly threaten to wipe the entire middle East off the map. They also threaten to wipe out homosexuals, Hispanics, drug users, atheists, and members of different christian denominations.

Get off your high horse. Every single religion has hateful people in it, and Christianity is one of the worst.

RE: Yes....
By thinkandbelieve on 7/9/2008 7:22:35 PM , Rating: 3
To see if any religion or creed have a good peaceful impact on humanity or not , you need to look for two important things. First what the text of that creed says and how it is interpreted by its patriarchs and second what did the leader and first believers seen as icons in that creed did in their life time. I have the privilege in studying both Christianity and Islam by their own scholars and I have big trouble labeling Islam as a peaceful religion “I studied that religion in its native Arabic language” but that is not why I am writing. When you look to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ there are tons of verses in the Bible that calls for peace and tolerance “Examples: forgive your enemies, blessed the peace makers, do not kill for whoever kill by the sword will be killed by the sword and so many other. Jesus and his disciples did not kill anybody or call for intolerance, on the other hand when a woman was brought to him that should be stoned to death by the Jewish law, he told the men whoever without sin could through the first stone. Freedom and Democracy is basically a Christian principle in the first place
Every time Muslims do a violent act, Christianity so ignorantly is pushed in the subject .It is totally superficial to put all creeds into one pot, it is like labeling all atheists as Hilters and Mussolinis for we have seen what an atheist would do when come to power, which I am sure not true. I am very Christian and I have very good atheist friends for example. It have become a tactic attacking Christianity by any way possible and the media is a perfect example. Please when you talk about religions do not generalize so ignorantly since there are huge differeneces between each and when you Judge it do not take only the bad apples that falsely claim they belong to that religion

RE: Yes....
By Ryanman on 7/10/2008 2:46:54 AM , Rating: 3
I actually didn't generalize:
radical Christians

was the term I used. I know there are millions of Christians who are apathetic about everything, and millions who are genuinely peaceful.
Christianity, as an offshoot of Judaism, was inherently violent too. See the Old Testament. Yahweh is/was a terrible, petty, and violent god. Please don't placate me by trying to say that the New Testament made up for it. The fact is, EVERY religion is like this. There's mixes of sex and violence along with the peace and love, which means anyone can interpret to their own means.

RE: Yes....
By thinkandbelieve on 7/10/2008 11:25:21 AM , Rating: 1
In the Old Testament, humanity did not see the salvation of Jesus and people were under the law. When Jesus come that ended and we became under his Grace. I do not want to go into details but what the above simply mean that all the virtues of forgiveness and peace taught by Jesus are the ones a true Christian should apply in his life . No interpretation according to what you want , no violence or anything like what you have said. Applying what some people who call themselves Christians as the standards of that religion without studying what it say or teach is very unfair

RE: Yes....
By P4blo on 7/9/2008 8:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
What complete rubbish. Bush may be a bit of a bible basher but to compare the influence religion has in places like the USA and Europe to that which it has in Iran is just crazy.

Are you forgetting about this article? They essentially want to legitimise the murder of those who oppose or resist indoctrination into their belief system. In the Bible did Jesus threaten, torture and hang people until they became his 'followers'? If religion started this way do you think it would even have gained sufficient ground? So these people are defecating all over the essence of what religion once stood for. Peace, education, forgiveness, tolerance and harmony. They're the worst kind of controlling hypocrites. Abuse of the Iranian people’s rights like this is just sick.

Perhaps we can hope that extremist religion will simply undo itself. This will probably never happen though if followers are garnered through brainwashing from birth as impressionable children or having a gun put to their head as adults.

RE: Yes....
By FaceMaster on 7/9/2008 5:59:18 AM , Rating: 1
...and America's nuclear program IS peaceful? Pet bombs or something? (YES I know that there are also nuclear power plants but I'm talking about BOMBS here. How can any country be worse than America when it comes to producing nuclear weapons?)

RE: Yes....
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 9:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you are ignoring the what was once USSR? :)

Most of our weapons are stockpiled from the cold war and we have been under treaty for many years to reduce our stockpiles - in fact, they have shrunk substantially from their height in 1964 (about 30,000 warheads), where the USSR reached the height of their stockpile in 1985 (about 45,000 warheads).

The only reason we produced so many is we were under intense pressure from Stalin (a maniac on the scale of Hitler - are you aware of how many of his own people he had murdered? How about the Cuban missle crisis?) and had to do something to curb his aggression.

It was in fact, a means towards peace. By mass producing such a large volume of warheads, their proliferation indeed prevented full-scale war due to the constant reminder over both nations heads that at the drop of a hat either country (or the world) could be destroyed in an instant.

No, it was not to conquer the world as some would mislead you to believe.

RE: Yes....
By FaceMaster on 7/10/2008 7:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
Give a child a gun and it's only a matter of time before they use it.

Fear is never the best way to prevent a war. In fact, by threatening countries to stop inventing nuclear weapons it's only making them more desperate to finish them so that America stops pestering them.

I'll admit that perhaps Stalin was some kind of maniac, though you would say that as I assume that you're American. It takes two to argue!

RE: Yes....
By lompocus on 7/11/2008 12:51:01 AM , Rating: 1
They just fired 8 nuclear-CAPABLE (so there wasn't actually any nuclear material on them) missiles 2 days ago. They heavily advertised the ICMB nuclear stuff.

and you STILL think it is peaceful?

"Yes yes, we come in peace, just wrap yourself in a burka, worship allak 20 times a day and offer the occasional child suicide bomber and we won't nuke you"


RE: Yes....
By Strunf on 7/10/2008 8:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah just like the WMD in Iraq... Peaceful. ppssshhhhtt

RE: Yes....
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and what does that islamic text on the cartoon actually say? Anyone know? Somehow I don't think the quote there is accurate.

RE: Yes....
By hadifa on 7/8/2008 9:18:43 AM , Rating: 4
"Don't frown unreasonably, you are being executed legally"

This is a word by word translation to the best of my ability.

By the way, the text is not "Islamic", It's just Persian(Farsi).

RE: Yes....
By hadifa on 7/8/2008 9:21:13 AM , Rating: 3
Forgot the initial part,

"Hey, Don't frown unreasonably, you are being executed legally"


"Look, Don't frown unreasonably, you are being executed legally"

RE: Yes....
By Rugar on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yes....
By FITCamaro on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yes....
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 11:50:52 AM , Rating: 5
No FIT, I have no idea what a written Native American language is called. As there are/were a large number of nations/tribes I imagine there may be various names. But to expose my government funded education to ridicule, I seem to remember that most Native Americans did not have a written language and relied on an oral tradition. I vaguely remember that some of the tribes in the northeastern US may have had a written language, but that may be a false memory. Texas schools focused mostly on the plains Indians so that is the majority of my knowledge.

That has bearing how by the way? I stand by my previous statement. Most Americans don't recognize the difference between Farsi and Arabic, nor do they realize "Islamic" isn't a language. You didn't.

For the record: Yes, I am an American. Yes, I deplore the state of our schools such that many school children can't identify continents, much less nations.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

RE: Yes....
By FITCamaro on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yes....
By mikeblas on 7/8/2008 12:14:08 PM , Rating: 5
He was just trying to help you out, and politely corrected your mistake. In response, you quizzed him. Are you too proud to learn something from a stranger?

RE: Yes....
By glennpratt on 7/8/2008 1:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't mind the correction, but I would hardly call it polite, it wasn't even directed at him.

RE: Yes....
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well... I freely admit that I am ignorant about many things. I can do that because I understand that my ignorance in a particular subject area does not make me stupid. It just means that I don't have adequate knowledge. It seems that sometimes people confuse ignorance and stupidity.

With that said, I will admit that what little I really know about the middle east comes primarily from a youthful interest in the crusade era and from having conversations with colleagues from the region. Because of recent world events, I have been trying to improve my knowledge of the areas history so that I am an "informed voter" but I still consider myself woefully ignorant.

RE: Yes....
By just4U on 7/9/2008 5:59:40 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder if DT will get any Death threats over this article....

RE: Yes....
By PointlesS on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yes....
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 11:53:55 AM , Rating: 5
Well... I can't read either, nor could I even tell you which was Farsi and which was Arabic without prompting. But I know enough not to call it "Islamic".

Fair enough?

RE: Yes....
By Quijonsith on 7/8/2008 12:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
It looks to me to be about as much difference as there is between American and Mexican written languages. Or perhaps even as much difference as say, Chinese and Japanese. It all depends on what you're familiar with. To those familiar with them, Chinese and Japanese are vastly different written languages, but to those not they can appear identical. Same with English and Spanish, or any languages that use closely related alphabets/characters.

RE: Yes....
By imperator3733 on 7/8/2008 1:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Farsi uses the Perso-Arabic script ( ) which is based on the Arabic script used by the Arabic language. To people unfamiliar with those languages, they will look extremely similar, just like people unfamiliar with Cyrillic will confuse Russian and Serbian and those unfamiliar with the Roman script will confuse English, French, German, etc.

RE: Yes....
By quiksilv3r on 7/8/2008 3:33:53 PM , Rating: 3
"American" and "Mexican" written languages??

RE: Yes....
By Adonlude on 7/9/2008 12:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
me no speekah taco bell

RE: Yes....
By FITCamaro on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yes....
By TomCorelis on 7/8/2008 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
The cartoon was created by an Iranian satirist specifically in response to this particular initiative. The actual cartoon was originally posted here:

and translated at the Global Voices Online writeup.

RE: Yes....
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 3:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats fine. Don't know why my post got rated down when I was merely expressing an interest in the origins of the cartoon. Apparently trying understand where the cartoon came from is a bad thing.

RE: Yes....
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 11:57:29 AM , Rating: 1
Does this mean that under sharia law, that since they cause the offense with their pen that they should... be executed by it?

I can see it now - thousands of resistant Iranians stabbed to death with their own writing apparatuses.

What a sick country. What a sick religion.

God bless America and our freedoms we so enjoy.

RE: Yes....
By imperator3733 on 7/8/2008 1:09:20 PM , Rating: 4
What a sick country. What a sick religion.

You shouldn't confuse a religion with a particular interpretation of that religion taken by a particular country.

RE: Yes....
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 1:36:16 PM , Rating: 4
It is a perfect example of why religion should always be separated from government.

The two should never, ever intermix.

RE: Yes....
By Master Kenobi on 7/8/2008 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Truer words were never spoken.

RE: Yes....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/8/2008 2:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually a perfect example of what the US forefathers meant by separation of religion and government.
It was meant that no religious leader will take office nor will any political leaders run a church. More importantly it meant that there would be no national religion so that laws were/are not written to favor that religion.
It was never meant to say a Political leader could/should not use his religious up bringing to create laws (like: Kill – illegal, stealing - illegal, rape - illegal, damaging others property - illegal....more of course. These were all religious laws long before they were the laws of the land in the USA and other countries.)
Many will say, well they are common sense laws. I would say really? Do you really think so, or is it that it's how you were raised and taught from day one? To know the answer we would have to go back to Caveman days and see if they killed/punished for killing, stealing, rape, or whatever – I doubt it. The biggest and strongest probably had his way.

RE: Yes....
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 2:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
That is pretty much what I was getting at.

Separation of Church and State.

RE: Yes....
By thejez on 7/8/2008 9:09:53 AM , Rating: 5
thats what i was thinking... why does islam have to kill people for walking away from it? is it such a frail religion that it can't stand on it's own without the threat of death to keep people as it's members??

RE: Yes....
By mdogs444 on 7/8/2008 9:19:42 AM , Rating: 5
Well in Islam, at least in these extremist states, it appears that you have two choices: die for speaking out against Islam, or die for the sake of Islam and Allah.

Your choice, but either way you die. No wonder people are walking away from it, its about time.

RE: Yes....
By pxavierperez on 7/8/2008 9:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
hahaha. too true.

RE: Yes....
By robinthakur on 7/8/2008 10:28:48 AM , Rating: 1
I think its a little device put into the religion designed to increase the number of followers, probably dating from a time where it was in danger of dying out. Most religions have the whole 'There's only 1 God' thing. Its like a minimum contract of 1 lifetime :)

Islam just takes things slightly further than most...and to its credit that's why its the fastest growing religion still. Where Christianity is weakening and losing numbers, Islam is growing. Maybe its time for Christianity to change its t&c's ;)

Also I'm honestly not sure if this is the case with all strains of Islam or just the radical stuff like Wahabiism from Saudi favoured by suicide-bombers everywhere.

I'm sure you're all aware of what a self-replicating virus is, and this is the memology of all religion. "Because God says so"

RE: Yes....
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 12:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure if Christianity threatened to start killing members of the church who wanted to leave, they'd lose a lot less.

I'd be dead.

RE: Yes....
By imperator3733 on 7/8/2008 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Most religions have the whole 'There's only 1 God' thing.

Are you sure? If you're talking about Western (i.e. European/Middle East) religions, then yes, nearly all western religions that still exist today are monotheistic. Buddhism doesn't specify any gods and Hinduism is sort of both polytheistic and monotheistic. Shintoism is also polytheistic. However, in addition to those, there are plenty of other tribal/smaller religions that are polytheistic.

RE: Yes....
By robinthakur on 7/9/2008 9:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
I was counting Islam, Christianity and Hinduism. You are doubtless correct and I've learned something!

RE: Yes....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/8/2008 2:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you are off base. When Islam claims they are the "fastest" growing religion, its because they are counting all Islamics (whether they want to be in the religion or not) verse Roman Catholics...not all Christians. Roman Catholics are the largest denomination. Truth, there are many denomination in Christianity and many will not give out there numbers. So, we do not know the growth rate of Christianity over-all. You also have people transferring from Lutheran to Methodist to Baptist to Catholic to another denomination. So very hard to tell if some comes in or leaves verse switching denomination.

RE: Yes....
By bobsmith1492 on 7/8/2008 5:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Christianity is by no means weakening - only in the Western world. In China and Africa it is the fastest growing religion only you won't hear it from China since it is still mostly suppressed (leftover Communistic attitudes).

RE: Yes....
By robinthakur on 7/9/2008 10:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
So you just said that Christianity was weakening in the western world if I read you correctly. Where do you come from again? I live in the UK and have never met a religious person in the last 20 years (and I'm 28) though I assume they must exist somewhere. I suspect most countries are not quite as secular as the UK unfortunately. I'm not pro or anti any religion, I'm anti ALL religion and pro-humanist. One of communism's only plus points was its stance on religion.

It's sad to see a continent in Africa's weak position get suckered into religion. Religion has always preyed upon the weak however. Pun wholly intentional. Its a great thing to tell starving people at a big risk from certain fatal STD's that contraception is sinful. That really advances the plight of humanity doesn't it. Hopefully, as the economy of China becomes more resilient and living standards rise, religion will play a smaller role in people's lives.

When it comes to religion, I'm fairly convinced that even if Islam is not the biggest religion currently, its rate of growth and the fact that you can never leave will mean that at some point in the future the numbers will win versus Christianity. To its proponents, the religion governs all aspects of their lives in a way in which is rare to find with Christians since the Enlightenment anymore. Do you know any Christians willing to kill themselves to justify their religious viewpoint? Thought not...

RE: Yes....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/9/2008 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wow need to learn a little about Christians do we.... (sorry about length, but simple answer - but long explanation - if you care to learn the difference).
You stated you knew no religious person in the last 20 years... then ask do you know any Christians willing to kill themselves to justify their religious viewpoint? thought not.... well since you do not know religious persons you can not make that statement...period.
The correct answer is a Christian will do anything for God and for the Glory of God....If it does not Glorify God, then God will not ask his followers to do it. If his request means the death of a follower but for the Glory of God, then yes, every true Christian will do it. It's a very rare thing, but yes has happen and may happen again...
Now, a Muslim will do it because another human tells him Allah tells him to or demands. Then tells him he will be rewarded in death with xxx number of virgins. They believe they are justified because someone offended their religion, or does not believe in their ways of life...or whatever reason they wish to come up with for the day (like the article is about). Muslim do it for themselves and their religious beliefs. A Christians would only do it by God request and only for the Glory of God (no self reward – God is your reward). We do not care about this world - yes want it to stay in good shape for the future. However, God is not of this world. Life is just a stage point till we die and are judge to go to heaven or hell. Killing yourself, without being contacted from God directly (Joan of Arc claims she was – as an example – I have no idea if she was or was not)...and then not truly for God's Glory would be an act against God. This would make you an anti-Christ (no there is not one anti-Christ, there are many. You would be one based on your statement of “not for or against any religion”, because if you are not for Christ then you are against Christ and therefore an anti-Christ (only two options for or against). Which means: for Christ or with Christ would be heaven bound and against Christ or anti-Christ would be Hell bound, that would be a simplified explanation from the Bible. Hollywood made more of the anti-Christ then they should have.)
Funny thing is Muslims (from my understanding) get their foundation of their religion from the Bible. They claim some where along the line Christians made a wrong turn (verse making the wrong turn themselves). Why and when you would do things for the glory for God is explain almost from the start of the Bible (so before the “wrong turn”). Never, in the Bible would God ask for the wiping out of a small group of people in a market place or school or something a one man bomb could do – no where. He would ask a ground of 300 to kill a town of 30,000 yes... to show his power (for there is no way 300 men could attack a fortified town or village and kill 30,000 with just bow and sword). Therefore, God had to have influenced the out come. Blowing yourself up on a bus is not showing the Glory or power of's showing the power of a man made device. Therefore, this action would be against God.
However, I would also note, in the Bible it states when the end of the world (second coming of Christ) happens, most of the people of the world would be godless and against Christians (Israelites – Jews, are Gods special people so they would be somehow in the same boat as the Christians) everyone else would be considered godless. So, numbers of Christians and believers in God going down has always been foretold – well for about 2,000 years now. - Someone talked about Muslims being the fastest growing religion...

RE: Yes....
By hadifa on 7/9/2008 9:08:15 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting view points. I don't want to make it a long reply so I will try to point out a few things.

First some facts:
1- Fact, Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews. The one who created the world and everything else, and the one who send the prophets, among them Ibrahim, Jesus, Moses and Mohammad (PBUT)

2- Fact, Christ and Moses (PBUT) among other prophets, receive the same level of respect as Mohammad(PBUH) from Muslims. You are not a Muslim if for example you don't believe in Jesus (PBUH). In Muslim's tradition, Their names and memory should always be mentioned with reverence and respect.

Funny thing is Muslims (from my understanding) get their foundation of their religion from the Bible.

No. Having the same God/source obviously results in similarities. Muslims rely on Quran. That said, Muslim scholars would use Bible or other Christian/Jewish sources as well(since they are religions of the same God) but with a grain of salt since they doubt the authenticity of the current available books (not the originals). As a matter of fact, they are even careful about using Muslim's sources. every source should go through rigorous evaluation processes and its credibility is rated. Only Quran is considered absolute

Never, in the Bible would God ask for the wiping out of a small group of people in a market place or school or something a one man bomb could do –

That's probably the same for every religion book and definitely true for Quran. A Muslim can easily counter it with something like: Never in Quran would God ask for the wiping out and nuking of a whole city and thousands of innocents ...

Christian will do anything for God and for the Glory of God

Regardless of religion, not all believers are at the same level and their intentions and motives will not be the same.

Among other motives, some are good because they are afraid of hell, some because hope to get to paradise and an elite who love God. Realistically the drive is a combination of these with deferent propositions. If I take the "Glory of God" as to love god, then I don't think that's something only for Christians, nor fear and hope exclusively applies to Muslims. An aim of these religions to elevate people to that level.

However, I would also note, in the Bible it states when the end of the world (second coming of Christ) happens, most of the people of the world would be godless and against Christians (Israelites – Jews, are Gods special people so they would be somehow in the same boat as the Christians) everyone else would be considered godless. So, numbers of Christians and believers in God going down has always been foretold – well for about 2,000 years now. - Someone talked about Muslims being the fastest growing religio

Some problems in your reasoning.

First a fact, Muslims believe in second coming of Christ and share many of the prophecies.

Accounting Muslims for Not believing in God is incorrect, specially that they believe in the same God.

Always be careful about interpreting the prophecies. And definitely don't try to bend them to your way of thinking. Believers in God can dwindle even if the whole world population proclaim themselves Christian or go to church. Religion is not a paint you can color people with and when finished say for example, this guy is a full fledged Jew now!

Will serve you well to remember this verse from Quran:
Whoever does the slightest bit of good shall see it; And whoever does the slightest bit of evil shall see it” (Qur’an 99:7–8)

O humanity! We have created you from a single male and female and have made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another (not that you may have pride over one another). Verily the most honourable of you in the sight of Allah is the one most pious. (Qur'an, 49:13)

No mention of religion or ethnic group, black or white ,east or west. Doesn't say Muslims or Christians or Atheists.

Because my parents are Christian or Muslim or whatever (which wasn't of my choice), shouldn't give me a bias over others or others over me in God's view.

And it only makes sense, and I wouldn't accept it any other way.

RE: Yes....
By hadifa on 7/10/2008 9:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why am I being rated down?

At least some people read my post! ;-)

RE: Yes....
By winterspan on 7/8/2008 9:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's unfortunate that ANY of these bullshit religions based upon millenia-old mythology even exist at all! I wish the world would wake up to a natural spirituality that embodies all of the positive virtues like selflessness, compassion, generosity, tolerance, etc while also not only maintaining compatibility with, but even embracing science and the pursuit of new knowledge of the universe and not attempting to rigidly describe every detail of our world, but instead recognizing the great mystery of it all... I digress.

Maybe I'll re-incarnate in a few hundreds years when humans catch up to common sense...

RE: Yes....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/9/2008 11:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
You are a fool if you believe that it is "natural" for man to be selfless, compassionate, generous, tolerant, etc... Man by birth is naturally self centered, self absorbed, (all me, me, me). Think I'm wrong then watch a baby, 3 years or younger will work. Watch what happens when two kids are together playing and there is only one “cool” toy. They don't naturally share it. They fight over it, say it's there turn, tell lies to get to their goal of having that toy. This is the natural way of man. It is because of religious beliefs that man has become compassionate, generous, tolerant... There has always been one big push for these attributes, the fear of the wrath of God's punishment. It is better to not have then steal, better to give some of what you have then horrid it all, better to help some stranger then walk away, rather then face God's wrath. These thoughts or similar ones are common amongst religions.
It does not matter to me whether you believe any religion or in a God. However, you should recognize that the level of peace we have on this planet is due to religion (and that not much peace). Without any religion there would be no peace. There would be no fear of reparation – so while you are alive take all you can, while you can, because when you die there will be nothing for you. Lie all you want – tell your neighbor sure we can be a peace. Then when he is not looking you can shoot him in the back of the head and just like that you own his land. Remember there will be no must trust your neighbor to be able to form a government. So, you will go back to the age of the physically strongest will be in charge – while they are the strongest . No you will not have technology on your takes many people working together to advance in technology (some one has to gather sand to make silicon, someone else needs to make that into CPU's, someone else programs....)
P.S. You can not be re-incarnated in a few hundreds years – that too is a religious thing and you would need a God. So I say to you, have some very basic common sense, be very, very grateful for the religions of the world (good and bad) for it is from them that we have the world we do today. Now, whether you believe in God or a god or not, well that is your own bridge to cross.

RE: Yes....
By hadifa on 7/9/2008 9:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
You are a fool if you believe that it is "natural" for man to be selfless, compassionate, generous, tolerant, etc... Man by birth is naturally self centered, self absorbed, (all me, me, me).

I don't think "me" is the only drive. There is more to it. "me" is one of them and so higher higher moral states like searching for truth, selflessness, etc. Some might come more naturally to some people than others and some can be obtained or improved by practice.

Bottom line, "me" is not the only drive. Don't believe me, look inside.

And about the world peace. I'm not an expert but I think Currently, in most places it exist because of balance of power and economic reasons. Though I like the idea that we become mature enough that we do and maintain it in regard to high moral values. (Keep wishing)

By Master Kenobi on 7/8/2008 8:29:40 AM , Rating: 5
Shame that people in the western world defend regimes like this and let them continue when they basically throw human rights out the window. Be glad you live in the western world folks. You can sure bet given the choice that most people in these countries would.

RE: Amusing
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 8:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
I thought we were the oppressors who's aim was to stifle things we don't least that's what the media tries to tell me.

RE: Amusing
By mdogs444 on 7/8/2008 8:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding. That section of the media preaches for us to only go to Iran diplomatically. As if "talking" with that country is going to solve anything...their own people can't even say what they feel w/o being executed.

RE: Amusing
By FS on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Amusing
By rykerabel on 7/8/2008 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
um... Civil War

RE: Amusing
By FS on 7/8/2008 5:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try even though you weren't sure but let me tell you that whatever I mentioned is from post civil war period. Yes, it was only a couple of decades ago when we still had laws favoring criminals over the victims, young black men were lynched by the mobs and people gathered to enjoy the scenario. Now coming back to my original point, I guess nothing was solved with the use of non-violence, "talking" etc. and it must've been something else which changed the situations in the US that I am not aware of.

PS: seems like people rate you down so a lot more people can read your message(red posts make them curious and thus they are more likely to read them).

RE: Amusing
By Digimonkey on 7/8/2008 2:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
After the beat down the first time? Seriously I'm all for not getting involved in other countries affairs that have nothing to do with us, unless there is out right genocide taking place.

However it's very apparent at what length Iran will go to in order to protect itself and it's religion against anybody who disagrees with their point of view. If they are fine killing their own citizens, they may be fine Nuking a country who threatens them and they consider infidels.

RE: Amusing
By FS on 7/8/2008 5:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
If they are fine killing their own citizens, they may be fine Nuking a country

read my above post and take a guess at which country your statement perfectly applies to.

RE: Amusing
By czarchazm on 7/8/2008 9:00:35 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, I agree, Master Kenobi, that certainly we have maintained the majority of our rights.

However, we, in the west, still exist in a power struggle in which some wish to assert their desires and perceived well-being as more important than human life. Once the right of any one person's life is in jeopardy, every person's right to life is in jeopardy.

This proposed government action to censor by death persons and their opinions, no matter how controversial, is flagrantly against our human right to life.

RE: Amusing
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 9:19:41 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is "censor by death"? There is a western nation that has a death penalty version of censorship? I'm very interested in you providing support for what seems to be a very asinine statement.

RE: Amusing
By Bender 123 on 7/8/2008 9:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Censor by death discourages actions that require censoring by executing those that perform those actions.

Same goes for death penalty for murderers...If you threaten death for the action, you , supposedly, will think twice before you kill, fearing being executed yourself.

RE: Amusing
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 9:53:32 AM , Rating: 2
I proceeded with that assumption Bender, but I'm still curious as to what western nation he is referring to which uses the death penalty as a form of censorship. Unless he means "Western Afghanistan" or something, I can't think of any western nation which uses the death penalty in that way.

RE: Amusing
By Bender 123 on 7/8/2008 9:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Gotcha, I guess the OP could have clarified exactly which he is talking about...I am not sure if he was switching back to the article or discussing a western nation at that point.

RE: Amusing
By czarchazm on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Amusing
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 12:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that might be what you meant, I just wanted clarification from you as it wasn't exactly clear since this was a discussion on censorship.

Re: Death Penalty and/or Abortion arguments. They are moral questions which can be argued ad nauseum. There are valid arguments all around and it comes down to a number of key points in my mind. But as this is a discussion about censorship and neither the death penalty nor abortion has a place here, perhaps we should wait until an article with bearing on one of those issues for that discussion.

RE: Amusing
By czarchazm on 7/8/2008 1:28:49 PM , Rating: 1
Master Kenobi's comment was about throwing basic human rights out the window and since the article included execution as a means to censorship, it was my opinion that the right to life was being infringed upon.

I wished to comment in response to Master Kenobi's post about our rights being protected in the west. Since human dignity is intrinsically linked to one's right to life, it follows that discussion about execution and censorship in the context of right to life is appropriate.

On a more relevent note, please demonstrate how one's freedom of expression is intrinsic to a person without moving into a moral question.

RE: Amusing
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 2:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
That part is fairly simple as long as you are both working under the same base assumptions. To wit, we live in the US and the constitution has not been torn up and thrown away. Moral underpinnings aside... the rule of law in the US guarantees freedom of expression. Morality actually confuses this issue since more often than not morality is used as the justification for abridging the freedoms of others.

Outside the US, things get quite a bit more complicated. Even more so when advocates for "human rights" become involved. I put "human rights" in quotes because that phrase is used quite often to justify the imposition of one groups beliefs upon another group. Are there basic human rights? I think so, but at what point do I go from being a crusader for justice to a benevolent dictator if I try to enforce my beliefs on others?

RE: Amusing
By bendgrimes on 7/8/2008 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the concept of 'censorship by death' is nearly as ancient as the human civilization itself... however, we westerners most likely recognize it as the punishment for failing to ‘censor’ state or military secrets (aka extremely treasonous disclosure of secrets), which is why it's used by Iran and other fundamentalist Islamic states for posing real or imagined threats of any kind against Islam. Remember, in this context, the government directly derives its power from Islam and therefore must vigorously defend Islam or risk losing legitimacy... and thus power.

RE: Amusing
By Bender 123 on 7/8/2008 9:14:17 AM , Rating: 1
Watch out...CAIR is probably reading your post and issuing fatwas against you now. I don't understand how many people in the "lets talk it out with Iran" crowd even cobble together enough brain power to sustain basic life functions...They want to kill you!

Most of these people: Converts from Islam, atheists, liberal Christians, Jewish people, gay, lesbian, believers in evolution, people who have sex outside marriage, women who dress provocatively (not fully covered), alcoholics, etc...would all be sentenced to stoning or mutilation in Iran, based on their code of law.

When your negotiating partner does not see you as an equal, there can be no common ground to begin negotiation. I for one, despite how mad I am about increased government oversight of my life, am still happy its not that far along and we have a chance to stop it before it hits that level.

RE: Amusing
By robinthakur on 7/8/2008 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
You are completely correct (add the mentally ill to this list as well), but these groups are persecuted pretty much by governments throughout the middle east. Even places like Dubai which seem pretty progressive, things like being a gay person is viewed as 'illegal'. Saudi Arabia is hardly modern thinking abcout these things either, but is a great friend of America and the UK last time I checked.

Having seen the consequences of Iraq however, its hard to say whether all wars are wrong or just the politically motivated, unneccessary or poorly-organised ones...America's example in what it and its allies have done to Iraq will and should influence all future wars and hopefully deter the arrogance of leaders who would cause mass death for fabricated reasons expecting a war to be neatly planned from start to finish. If only Bush had read Tolstoy...or even a kids history book he might have learned from the past.

I'm unsure as to why nobody has cried "war-crimes!" All those people (including ours) have died having gone to war over something which even at the time patently didn't exist. Surely that should be punishable in some way? "Sorry, we made a mistake" doesn't quite cover the trillions of dollars spent or the hundreds of thousands of people dead and buried plus inducing a civil war within a sovereign country and worldwide recession.

Whilst I wouldn't say personally that democracy itself has failed, when a country elects a person to office I hope you've learned that it needs to be the best person for the job and it DOES matter whether they can articulate themselves to all parts of the world much less locate them on a map.

RE: Amusing
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 2:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
The US has not killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq in this war. Fundamentalists have. The minute you start blaming yourself for the actions of another, you immediately paralyze yourself from taking any action.

People are free to choose for themselves. No matter what else you do, they have that freedom. Those people have chosen to follow an insane leader who preys on the weak and strives to kill them for not believing as they do. We are not responsible for their actions.

RE: Amusing
By robinthakur on 7/9/2008 11:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you disagree on a technicality of the fact that hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost due to America invading Iraq for no concrete reason. This is the root cause for why they are dead, and this is obvious to most people in the world who are not blind or willfully ignorant. They are certainly not all "enemy combatants" and "insurgents". But for the actions of the US, most of those people would probably still be alive and Al Qaeda would not have been active in or anywhere near Iraq. Whilst the decisions of individuals are obviously not the fault of America, at least before the invasion you only had one insane leader and now you've got hundreds...I suppose in your eyes Vietnam was a huge success also?

When you say "those people", which people are you referring to? The ones that are dead? You also choose to simplify the motivation for the war down to a Hollywood Rambo-esque scenario which doesn't really have a basis in truth. If it were that black and white then the war would have been over 5 years ago! You and I are free to choose living in the US and the UK respectively. If however you were living in the middle of shiites, sunnis and Al Sadyr neighbourhoods (apologies for spellings), your customary freedoms might be somewhat curbed.

RE: Amusing
By hadifa on 7/8/2008 9:33:04 AM , Rating: 3
Be glad but VIGILANT, or risk losing what your fathers gained.

By elpresidente2075 on 7/8/2008 8:37:52 AM , Rating: 3
I'm just glad I live in America(or any modern Western country, for that matter). Here we can express displeasure with the government, blatantly and openly insult and renounce any religion we want, and basically step on people's toes, all with impunity. Thank goodness for the Bill Of Rights (yes, #2 included) and all of it's corollaries in other countries.

Too bad for the people in Iran, it seems their government is bent on keeping it's people under its thumb for fear of losing it's power. It'd be interesting to see a 1960's-esque social revolution there, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Too many AK-47's and not enough weed.

RE: Well,
By mdogs444 on 7/8/2008 8:52:36 AM , Rating: 1
I agreed with all of your post....that is, until the "not enough weed" part.

Hippy's don't solve anything. Weed makes you retarded. But I will happily agree with the rest of your post.

RE: Well,
By elpresidente2075 on 7/8/2008 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
That of course was a joke, but anything to make them relax their grip can be a good thing.

Personally, I find drug use/abuse disgusting, but as it was a major factor in the social revolutions of our country, I figured it might help them in their quest for freedom.

RE: Well,
By Digimonkey on 7/8/2008 2:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Weed makes you retarded.

but one could does American television.

RE: Well,
By TomCorelis on 7/8/2008 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Both have dulling effects on the mind. But someone else could argue that they don't.

I've noticed, however, that the stoners I know are often far smarter, and far more interesting, than my friends that watch TV all day.

RE: Well,
By Lerianis on 7/8/2008 4:45:12 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, that is wrong. Most drugs do not have a 'dulling' effect on the mind. Instead, they make things sharper in most cases by allowing your mind to go in directions that it wouldn't normally go in, because of your taught prejudices.

Heck, seeing as how the 10 TOP STUDENTS in my graduation class of 1998 were 'druggies' and they are NOW making 200K to 500K a year..... it doesn't have much of an effect on your life.

Time to just legalize the drugs and regulate them, treating the few cases of true drug addiction (which come mainly from the WIDELY varying dosages of drug on the streets today) as a public health problem.

RE: Well,
By Digimonkey on 7/8/2008 4:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
...How do you know that the top 10 students in your class in that year used drugs?

RE: Well,
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes...weed....that will make Iran's insane, fundamentalist leaders change their ways......

RE: Well,
By glitchc on 7/8/2008 3:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, you people must realize that Afghanistan is right next to Iran. They probably have access to weed purer and cheaper than anything available on the streets of the United States.

RE: Well,
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
No they grow opium. Suicide bombers are wacked out of their minds on the stuff before they blow themselves up.

RE: Well,
By robinthakur on 7/9/2008 11:36:25 AM , Rating: 2
I had assumed that they were just high on life...

RE: Well,
By glitchc on 7/9/2008 1:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
True say. I just looked that up. For some reason I was under the impression that marijuana was an opiate.

RE: Well,
By Fnoob on 7/10/2008 5:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
"For some reason I was under the impression that marijuana was an opiate."

I'm pretty sure it was current US law that gave you that impression.

West is partly to blame
By themengsk176 on 7/8/2008 11:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
If we (the US) would stop threatening to invade them and actively arming states on all sides of their country, then maybe their relatively moderate people wouldn't cling to their radical and unpopular government.

If we would stop giving them a scapegoat for all their political and social problems, maybe they would reform themselves.

They say 'infidels invade our holy land' and we go and prove it.

RE: West is partly to blame
By funduck on 7/8/2008 11:12:13 AM , Rating: 3
The whole situation is really ridiculous actually. I've never seen a country take a diplomatic stance like the US is with Iran right now. The US is saying they will negotiate but only if Iran first agrees to what the US wants without negotiating... really quite insane imo.

If the US really wanted to stop Irans nuclear program (who's existence is even debated) they would go to table and leverage those sanctions they put in place for that purpose. Chances are Iran could be coerced into changing it's foreign policy if the US agreed to lift some of the sanctions.... but the administration wont even try! I seriously have no clue whats going on. Seems completely insane from my pov.

RE: West is partly to blame
By aegisofrime on 7/8/2008 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 3
I think it's better to just leave the middle east alone. Without westerners to kill, they will just wipe each other out.

RE: West is partly to blame
By Master Kenobi on 7/8/2008 2:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
If the US really wanted to stop Irans nuclear program (who's existence is even debated) they would go to table and leverage those sanctions they put in place for that purpose.

The sanctions currently in place are laughable at best. China and Russia veto any real sanctions.

RE: West is partly to blame
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 3:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah because they're the ones selling Iran stuff to further its nuclear ambitions.

RE: West is partly to blame
By Ringold on 7/8/2008 4:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound as if the US is alone; that would be far from the truth. Pretty much the entire Western world is taking the same position.

Beyond that, what incentive does Iran have to play ball if we lift the already weak sanctions? When has appeasement worked historically? Continued pressure appears to have made progress with North Korea.

Irans nuclear program (who's existence is even debated)

What is not debated is that they could pursue peaceful civilian nuclear power with none of the proliferation risk inherent in their current programs, the ones that aren't hidden away. They've shown no interest in any sort of deal where we would provide proliferation-proof reactors or fuel.

RE: West is partly to blame
By themengsk176 on 7/8/2008 10:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
Although I cannot speak with any great certainty as to what is in the minds of Iran's obviously radical and fundamentalist leaders, I can hypothesize that were Iran ever to actually get a bomb, they would never use it.

Why? Because if they did, Israel would be on them in an instant. They want an equal bargaining chip on the world table of negotiations. They are paranoid of us because the west has invaded and overthrown their country before, the US also gave military aid to Saddam in his costly and wasteful 1980-1988 war.

As I said, if we would stop taking such a hard line with Iran, they would gradually calm down and stop thinking that we will imminently invade them, not that we have done anything at all to allay those fears.

mccain !!
By Soulkeeper on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: mccain !!
By themengsk176 on 7/8/2008 12:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I mean, what kind of fool talks to the leaders of other countries?

We should just keep sanctioning and actively isolating them, and shadily undermining their legitimately elected their government at every turn.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my tax money spent on NEGOTIATIONS rather than BULLETS and BOMBS.

The former tend to be far more cost effective.

RE: mccain !!
By Master Kenobi on 7/8/2008 4:19:23 PM , Rating: 1
The former also tends to be an utter waste of time that produces no results.

The latter tends to produce measurable results.

Call me crazy but I'm with results on this one. No need to invade or anything like that. Simply bomb the nuclear reactor into dust and that's that. In reality Israel will do that sooner or later just to shut the Iranians up. When it comes time to put up or shut up, Israel has alot to lose if Iran gets nukes, so they would be the first ones to pull the trigger.

RE: mccain !!
By hadifa on 7/9/2008 9:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's great solution as long as you are by far more powerful.

I guess you rather beat the hell out of your child to make them pass an exam.

Easy fast results, huh!

A fair solution is the one that lasts the longest. You can't expect the world to dance to your tune just because you like it.

RE: mccain !!
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2008 4:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
The great thing about negotiating with bullets and bombs is they can't talk back and renig on the contract after the negotiations conclude.

All deals are final when you use bombs and guns. ;)

They also tend to be far more painful and destructive. :(

RE: mccain !!
By Ringold on 7/8/2008 4:40:14 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I mean, what kind of fool talks to the leaders of other countries?

What kind of fool lends the credibility of the office of the President of the United States of America to any jack-ass that happens to have a missile?

Besides, get up to date on your own propaganda. Obama has backed away from what was obviously a noob mistake on his own. We've got embassies and a State Department for a reason.

We should just keep sanctioning and actively isolating them, and shadily undermining their legitimately elected their government at every turn.

Am I wrong, or did it just recently finally work with North Korea? And am I wrong, or did Clinton's appeasement of North Korea ultimately fail? Bush also managed to get Libya to give up its own program.

As for legitimately elected government, why don't you do yourself a favor and look up who it is that vets who is allowed to run for office and who ultimately has final say on all issues regardless. (Hint: They are not elected.)

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my tax money spent on NEGOTIATIONS rather than BULLETS and BOMBS.

What happens when negotiations fail? Surrender?

Have no fear, though. Israel is the one in danger, and unlike the US they still have a pair of balls. If all else fails, we can sit on the sidelines and they'll protect themselves. I heard one theory, and agree; Israel may well strike their nuclear facilities after the election in Nov, but before the next president is sworn in, thus avoiding accusations of election manipulation and not needing permission from a new president.

RE: mccain !!
By themengsk176 on 7/8/2008 10:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of fool lends the credibility of the office of the President of the United States of America to any jack-ass that happens to have a missile?

Last I looked, chief, the credibility of the office of the President of the US is at an all time low, what with our invasion of Iraq, the double standard in which we give un conditional support to Israel, and the impractical and ineffective embargo of Cuba.

Don't worry, in a few decades, China and the EU won't have to worry about such heavy handed and unilateral actions from the US, as our super power status will drop right along with the value of our dollar.

What happens when negotiations fail? Surrender?

Are you kidding? Surrender? We're in their gulf with our navy, we've occupied countries on all sides of them. We refuse to take even a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table. WE are the aggressor in this instance.

Is it such an affront to say that you shouldn't pre-emptively bomb a country to keep it from having what by its own sovereignity it should have?

And just to delve into the hypothetical here a moment, what do you think will happen if Iran does get a nuke, and then uses it? Israel will obliterate them, they know this. They want a nuke so that they have an equal bargaining chip with the west.

Freedom for who?!
By The Dark Lord on 7/8/2008 11:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
having world's rank 1 in deaths in car accidents, hanging, etc and lot's of similar famous 1st ranks it's not odd for me to see an article about my hellish country's Anti human right's doings in web but in DailyTech?! I mean Iranian's blogging considered as "tech" along side 4870 VS GTX260 and NASA news?!

unfortunately my English is not good so the best translation I can come out with is:

"hey! don't give me that angry face! you are going to executed legitimately!"

the problems with my people is we really deserve this ruthless brutal government. just take a look at Wikipedia's article covering modern history & politics of Iran.

it will take decades to teach people of Iran's about their very own primitive rights.

you will be killed by government for blogging? it will be something normal next week considering things to come! no matter how much pressure being done by government on Iranians there is still space for far more!

and human right activists namely this Mojtaba Saminejad.(Samin-Nezhad) what these guys are doing is completely pointless & without any afford. you will not found just 2 of these people agree with each other on even very basic topics.

there is only one but not really very simple solution: leave the country!

RE: Freedom for who?!
By aegisofrime on 7/8/2008 11:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
Since you said "my people", I take it you are Iranian.

In which case, I am seriously concerned about your safety and your life.

After what you have typed...

RE: Freedom for who?!
By The Dark Lord on 7/8/2008 11:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
noting to be proud of, but yes!

Ministry of information guys are really not that good! there is no valid IP here and I'm stock with 33.6 Dial up (the fastest internet for home users here is limited to 128k ADSL Blazing speed! in my case there is no ADSL coverage here!) so I'm still alive and looking forward to be!

RE: Freedom for who?!
By hadifa on 7/9/2008 9:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
so I'm still alive and looking forward to be!

STILL ! ;-)

I won't be surprised if we don't see another post from "The Dark Lord".

the problems with my people is we really deserve this ruthless brutal government.

Nope, they deserve much better.

Satanic laws
By crystal clear on 7/8/2008 8:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
They already have a death sentence passed but not yet executed for -

Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses

RE: Satanic laws
By crystal clear on 7/8/2008 8:48:03 AM , Rating: 3
Memory refresh-

Five months after the book's release, Iran's religious and political leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, sentences Rushdie and his associates to death, with a bounty that eventually rises to more than $5 million. Rushdie goes into hiding under British government protection and remains in fearful seclusion for six years. During this time, the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, Hitoshi Igarashi, is stabbed to death and attempts are made on the life of the Italian translator and Norwegian publisher of the book. The death sentence persists, even after the Ayatollah Khomeini dies and is replaced by a less fundamentalist regime.

RE: Satanic laws
By robinthakur on 7/8/2008 10:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I'm glad that the current regime is so much more pleasant and easy to get along with. They're much better than the Ayatollahs...

Not Iran related, but please don't forget Theo van Gogh: shot then skewered to the street whicle riding his bike home after choosing to make a movie about Islam within one of the most democratic countries in the world today. Clearly some muslims show little respect for their host country's laws and an equally low belief in the value of human life, regardless of religious myopia.

Kill the infidels!!!
By funduck on 7/8/2008 11:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Long live the Islamic republic of Iran!

RE: Kill the infidels!!!
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 3:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
I truly hope you're joking.

By James Wood Carter on 7/8/2008 8:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he isn't completely wrong, America's history(less than 50 years ago) is clouded with poor human rights, racism, misjustice, mistreatment of humans in that sense not much different from their society. However USA today has improved alot and has shown the world a good example, which many countries i believe should follow or even be better.

This is why--
By nah on 7/8/2008 9:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
Church and State should be separate--otherwise you have clerics (Mullahs) thinking that they ARE God instead of being simple intermediaries

RE: This is why--
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 10:17:06 AM , Rating: 3
When in reality they're neither.

First, freedoms were lost
By mikeblas on 7/8/2008 12:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
America isn't far behind, with laptops being seized at customs, habeas corpus being suspended, and all the wiretapping leniency ...

RE: First, freedoms were lost
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 12:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the feelings, but still... Not far behind? You seriously need to rethink the differences between the US and Iran if you think that we are "not far behind".

By Inkjammer on 7/8/2008 2:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
There would be sort of a bitter irony if Iranian bloggers were doing so from

RE: DeadJournal
By TomCorelis on 7/8/2008 3:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Good one, though slightly tasteless :-)

F Islam
By Reclaimer77 on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: F Islam
By abzillah on 7/8/2008 2:19:33 PM , Rating: 1
F you reclaimer77.

RE: F Islam
By Rugar on 7/8/2008 2:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
As much as you want to abzillah, it's probably best if you don't feed the trolls.

RE: F Islam
By abzillah on 7/8/2008 5:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's hot as hell here in the bay area, and the smoke is getting to me. I hate it when people make ignorant comments, and it just hit the wrong cord. So, reclaimer77, I'm sorry for my comment.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki