Get Ready To Be Shocked

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:05 am

Ah yes... obfuscate.

I'm not an FOCer but here's what I will do... *I* will apologize to her

for the snark of another. I know it's not much but I'm sure sorry you

had to come here to FG and get that from somebody. I've been on the

receiving end of it on a number of occasions and it's no fun. (And

I'm far from the only or even most recent one!)

Allow me to say, however from the voice of much experience, that

you guys are wasting your breath trying to get a plain, simple

apology. You never will. You might get something which on the face

of it looks acceptable but get your guard up. It very likely will contain

"hidden" put-downs with the added bonus of being "laughed" at on

another forum somewhere.

Supreme intelligence along with zippo warmth seems to make for a

truly devastating combo, eh?

Again, Carolly, I'm sorry you had to experience that.

:-6

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:26 am

valerie;766936 wrote: Ah yes... obfuscate.

I'm not an FOCer but here's what I will do... *I* will apologize to her

for the snark of another. I know it's not much but I'm sure sorry you

had to come here to FG and get that from somebody. I've been on the

receiving end of it on a number of occasions and it's no fun. (And

I'm far from the only or even most recent one!)

Allow me to say, however from the voice of much experience, that

you guys are wasting your breath trying to get a plain, simple

apology. You never will. You might get something which on the face

of it looks acceptable but get your guard up. It very likely will contain

"hidden" put-downs with the added bonus of being "laughed" at on

another forum somewhere.

Supreme intelligence along with zippo warmth seems to make for a

truly devastating combo, eh?

Again, Carolly, I'm sorry you had to experience that.

:-6I said earlier that I wouldn't come back on this thread and I didn't.However Kaz pmd over your message Val and upon reading it I had to reply.Our paths have never crossed I believe Val so as stated in a previous message when somebody "stuck" up for me we are not friends.......yet. what you have said here has moved me deeply as have some pms I have recieved.To have a total stranger saying that means so so much...you really have no idea.You put that on knowing it would cause maybe a reaction from certain areas which would not be nice and yet still you went and put it.I can only thankyou from the bottom of my heart Val and ............oh dear heres those damn tears again.....but this time they come from the care you have shown towards me.......AGAIN THANKYOU SO VERY VERY MUCH.

justnonsense · Post by **justnonsense** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:52 am

I wonder why there is a towel under his arm.

And there is something strange about the photos.

If you look at them you can see what looks like feet under and inside the tire that is going over the boy's arm. That seems very strange to me, like the photo was edited or something.

One the other point of this thread.

Maybe this person did not intend any mischief at all

Maybe the poster is not Muslim and does not know about that culture.

I could understand a person being upset about this photo at first glance.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:55 pm

jimbo;767015 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl i just know your not really wound up it would be too easy .... i said i agreed with every thing you said how could i be having a go at you :yh_rotfl:yh_rotflx 100000000000000

Good reaction!!

I took your post at face value, more fool me, then I thought again and realised that you are just not that deep!!!!!!

Ignore me everyone, I'm just having a bad, pain filled day, I need cake and a bath so I'm going to bugger off in a minute before I say something stupid or get emotional!!

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:56 pm

Carolly;766718 wrote: Thankyou for your sensible thoughts.Im no expert on these matters by far and all I can say is what I see.As I have stated you cant believe all you see or hear but people fail to forget that does work both ways and tend to only see what they think and try to force their thoughts on us. Well none of us know certain things for sure and yet some seem to want to make an arguement over certain threads on here. A good debate is great but not when one of the parties just want to be right all the time.Again i repeat myself by saying I THINK what I see is real and if other people dont thats fine also but theres no need to be rude thats for sure.Also again I repeat myself by saying that I REALLY hope this is a "put up" job BUT if it isn't ..........that poor child.My thoughts only.Thankyou again Accountable for your comments.

Thats right!!!:D Well it would be awfully sad and screwed up if it is true!!! I agree with you Carolly! Even if it's not true I think we can "safely" say that punishments to this magnitude DO happen over there...and they are sick and twisted (punishments)!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:37 pm

To start a thread with something that you know will provoke debate is one thing.

posted by carolly

I got an email today and to hell if it causes a row here I cant let this one go.

Nothing wrong with that.

To then ask if people think it true.

posted by carolly

Some of you here have also seen this email as I have sent it to you so these facts can be confirmed.What the hell is going on out there fgs.

Nothing wrong with that but to decide that because someone doesn't share your point of view that any comment is a personal attack is just ludicrous. By your posting it i assumed you were asking people to comment on the truth or otherwise of it. If you think it true you should be prepared to argue your corner.

These kind of e-mails are just designed to provoke bigotry. Your posting it suggests you agree with it and I did assume you were a bigot and was posting to stir things up. Hence my rather robust language. Bollocks incidentally is a forceful colloquialism used to describe something as nonsense. It is vulgar, for which I apologised but the usage is perfectly acceptable in the English language . Testicles is not a suitable alternative word. Since you used an expletive in your post it never occurred to me you would find it offensive

posted by carolly

I refuse to post on this thread anymore as its obvious that those who are never wrong and enjoy a one way debate get their enjoyment from doing so. Say what you like.....insult how much you want....I really dont care anymore.Seems that you cant debate something and ask questions to get to the truth .........and its obvious this cant be done without slagging people off.............enjoy yerselves slagging me off you lovely gentleman.

If you set out to be provocative don't complain when people take umbrage at what you say. Nothing in this thread remotely constitutes a personal attack. If you don't like controversy then I would suggest you don't provoke it. If you believe something like that is true then it is only right you should explain why.

The only was that was disparaging of your post was perhaps me. In truth I find your posting such overtly racist nonsense offensive. I don't mind that you did and would indulge in debate about such issues but to post something so provocative and then get upset because you think people should not disagree with you is pathetic.

If you want something to get angry about how about this

http://www.stv.tv/content/news/headline ... f_20080129

Glasgow woman dies during forced abortion in Pakistan

Now this is actually real and highlights a very real issue for a lot of muslim women- forced marriage and arranged marriage are not one and the same. It's cultural though not about the religion itself.

There are enough real issues without getting worked up about fabricated ones.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:39 pm

G#Gill;766747 wrote: SPOT - YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER !!! THIS THREAD WAS PUT UP IN GOOD FAITH -- HOW MANY READERS WERE HORRIFIED AT THE CONTENTS ??? MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT 'FOUND GUILTY' THIEVES HAVE A HAND CUT OFF AS, SEEMINGLY, PART OF THESE PEOPLES' RELIGION, SO WHY SHOULD THIS INCIDENT BE DOUBTED BY ANY READER?

IN ANY CASE SPOT, THE ONLY WAY OF PROVING THAT SOMETHING HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THAT IT IS GENUINE, IS TO HAVE UNCUT AND UNEDITTED MOVING FILM. SO THE PICTURE THAT IS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AFTER THE EVENT OF THE BOY APPARENTLY UNHARMED, COULD WELL HAVE BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE EVENT, AS CAROL SAID.

AS FOR THAT LAST COMMENT SPOT - - WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY ?

WHAT ARE YOU INSINUATING?

CAROL DID/DOES NOT KNOW THIS REPORT IS A LIE - AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS WAS PUT UP IN GOOD FAITH.

SPOT ----- HAVE YOU GOT INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT THIS REPORT IS A HOAX ? WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THIS PARTICULAR REPORT HAS BEEN GOING THE ROUNDS SINCE 2004. BUT PARDON ME, THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE UNAWARE OF THIS FACT, BEFORE TODAY.

THAT LAST COMMENT, BY YOU SPOT, YOU WILL APOLOGISE TO CAROL FOR MAKING SUCH AN ACCUSATION - AND PUBLICLY ON HERE, NOT A PM

No one can hear you yell over the internet. Spot was not out of order. he put forth the facts of a rumor. A rumor used to spread intolerance, hate, and misconception.

He doesn't have anything to apologize for. The email was posted knowing full well it would cause "a row". It did, go figure. Suck it up and live with it. Quit spreading malicious falsehoods about something you haven't taken the time to understand.

Goddamn imagine an American saying that?

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:12 pm

KB.;767057 wrote: No one can hear you yell over the internet. Spot was not out of order. he put forth the facts of a rumor. A rumor used to spread intolerance, hate, and misconception.

He doesn't have anything to apologize for. The email was posted knowing full well it would cause "a row". It did, go figure. Suck it up and live with it. Quit spreading malicious falsehoods about something you haven't taken the time to understand.

Goddamn imagine an American saying that?

well at the end of the day that is your opinon but i feel he was taking the pizz,but again at the end of the day its only a forum

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:13 pm

neffy;767090 wrote: its only a forum

Exactly.

saffy · Post by **saffy** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:59 pm

wardah;766797 wrote: Ok, now I realise I only just joined recently, and so I’m not really sure whether or not it’s a bit cheeky for me to stick my oar in at this point, but¦

It really does get me annoyed when people write things like that email, but what also winds me up is the state of our media (if that’s the cause) which results in people blindly believing things like this. People are so quick to be outraged! It’s not so much that they don’t check the story, it’s that they can just believe it without a pause and don’t even think to check it.

No offence intended (oh how I hate that phrase), but I think it’s highly irresponsible to forward on emails like that, thereby allowing the message of tabloidesque fear and ignorance to spread. If you really do feel obliged to pass something like this on, surely it’s your moral obligation to at least spend at least a few minutes checking its authenticity first? It took google 0.33 seconds to tell me that that story was a fake – that’s not really a high price to pay to avoid spreading malicious and racist propaganda.

I'm fairly sure I'll have offended people by this post, but... well... there you go...

word.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:16 pm

Carolly;766957 wrote: I said earlier that I wouldn't come back on this thread and I didn't.However Kaz pmd over your message Val and upon reading it I had to reply.Our paths have never crossed I believe Val so as stated in a previous message when somebody "stuck" up for me we are not friends.......yet. what you have said here has moved me deeply as have some pms I have recieved.To have a total stranger saying that means so so much...you really have no idea.You put that on knowing it would cause maybe a reaction from certain areas which would not be nice and yet still you went and put it.I can only thankyou from the bottom of my heart Val and ............oh dear heres those damn tears again.....but this time they come from the care you have shown towards me.......AGAIN THANKYOU SO VERY VERY MUCH.
That's our Val. Very much the German Shepard personality, I think. :-6

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:24 pm

Accountable;767210 wrote: That's our Val. Very much the German Shepard personality, I think. :-6

What are you innuendoing ?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:29 pm

The German Shepherd breed has a distinctive personality. They should be direct and fearless, but not aggressive. They should be self-confident but often have an aloofness that does not always lend this breed to immediate and indiscriminate friendships. The German Shepherd should be approachable, quietly standing its ground and showing non aggressive confidence. They generally have a good sense of right and wrong and the ability to tell if something is amiss. They are a loyal and dedicated dog if they have a loyal and dedicated owner.

Looks like you got it covered Val:-6

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:57 pm

KB.;767170 wrote: Exactly.

clever very clever

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:28 pm

valerie;766936 wrote: Supreme intelligence along with zippo warmth seems to make for a truly devastating combo, eh?You know what baffles me, Val? That anyone on the planet can have allowed themselves to be so lied to for so long about the nature of Muslim society that they can have believed the utter drivel in that email for even a second. I think people have a duty not to be so foolish.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:30 pm

spot;767265 wrote: You know what baffles me, Val? That anyone on the planet can have allowed themselves to be so lied to for so long about the nature of Muslim society that they can have believed the utter drivel in that email for even a second. I think people have a duty not to be so foolish.

Maybe some of us were just born foolish.

Whatever !

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:46 pm

spot;767265 wrote: You know what baffles me, Val? That anyone on the planet can have allowed themselves to be so lied to for so long about the nature of Muslim society that they can have believed the utter drivel in that email for even a second. I think people have a duty not to be so foolish.
Spot, dude. Be done, man. Just be done.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:54 pm

Is this crap STILL going on?! You know, at the end of the day it's not about semantics, or who's right, what's right, Snopes, foolishness, blablabla. A person's feelings were hurt and the proper thing to do is to apologize. Since we know from experience it'll be a cold day in hell before we see that, why not let this stupid thread DIE? I hate to see a classy member like Carol be made to feel like sh.it by anyone, a moderator no less. That's out of line. When you care more about your facts than another person's feelings, all the knowledge and education in the world won't save you.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:06 pm

RedGlitter;767283 wrote: Since we know from experience it'll be a cold day in hell before we see that, why not let this stupid thread DIE?My turn?

What haven't I tried yet?

She started it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:12 pm

RedGlitter;767283 wrote: Is this crap STILL going on?! You know, at the end of the day it's not about semantics, or who's right, what's right, Snopes, foolishness, blablabla. A person's feelings were hurt and the proper thing to do is to apologize. Since we know from experience it'll be a cold day in hell before we see that, why not let this stupid thread DIE? I hate to see a classy member like Carol be made to feel like sh.it by anyone, a moderator no less. That's out of line. When you care more about your facts than another person's feelings, all the knowledge and education in the world won't save you.

Theres a thread somewhere about a guy in the electric chair that just wouldnt die. This is kinda like that huh ?

Ill go find the thread.

I dont know if Ill be back here though, dinners almost ready and I have this problem where after I eat I get really tired.

Maybe we should just forget about it.

Hell I dont even know what Im going on about anymore. Im just typing stuff, I cant seem to stop.

Humpty Dumpty WHEEEEEEE !

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:14 pm

WE WILL JUST CHANGE THE MOOD - JUST FOR SPOT

WHIPS AND TOPS

Once upon a time, back in the days of, let's say pre 'Health and Safety'. There was a nice little primary school nestling amongst some trees, beside a quiet little residential road. Along this road there were some rather elegant houses, all detached, wherein lived ordinary people who kept themselves to themselves with their 2.5 children and their dog, cat and rabbit for the children. Their children attended this nice little primary school, and they worked hard because their daddy and mummy did so much want them to do well and to pass the '11 plus' examination to get into the grammar school.

Other children who attended this little primary school came from an area of houses which were built straight onto the street, the houses shared outside toilets, but the children seemed happy and most of them enjoyed coming to school.

This little primary school had a very varied complement of children, from all backgrounds, who mixed together freely and mostly very happily. At playtime the children played different games, according to the seasons of the year. There would be the season for skipping, 'snobs' or 'jacks', conkers, whips and tops and so on. There was great competition between the participants. The children would gather together as teams. One of these teams was called the 'Whips' who were mostly children who were friends together from the 'backstreet' houses, and another was called the 'Tops' who were mostly the children from the 'detached' houses nearer the school, and each playtime they would earnestly compete.

By the end of the 'whip and top' season, although the Whips team did not do very well against the Tops team, they improved steadily until the Tops team were being beaten consistently and they finished the end of the season with their heads down in defeat.

The Whips were jubilant in their success for that season, but they were well aware that the Tops would return when the season began again. But the Whips would be well prepared to deal with the Tops when that time came around.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:49 pm

spot;767289 wrote: My turn?

What haven't I tried yet?

She started it.

Spot...you haven't tried a simple "I'm sorry." You don't have to be sorry for having a different opinion or for defending Muslims or any of that. How about just "I'm sorry for hurting your feelings?" Just that?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:52 pm

NAZI!

*dusts hands* There. That should do it.

grh · Post by **grh** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:53 pm

Nomad;767290 wrote: Theres a thread somewhere about a guy in the electric chair that just wouldnt die. This is kinda like that huh ?

Ill go find the thread.

I dont know if Ill be back here though, dinners almost ready and I have this problem where after I eat I get really tired.

Maybe we should just forget about it.

Hell I dont even know what Im going on about anymore. Im just typing stuff, I cant seem to stop.

Humpty Dumpty WHEEEEEEE !

Ya know, it was all quiet and peaceful around here until your frickin' Banned thread!

:D

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:06 pm

RedGlitter;767312 wrote: Spot...you haven't tried a simple "I'm sorry." You don't have to be sorry for having a different opinion or for defending Muslims or any of that. How about just "I'm sorry for hurting your feelings?" Just that?

Without wishing to push matters further, and without wanting to add anything controversial. and in an entirely innocent and non-malicious way, I'm not sorry I hurt her feelings at all. Her feelings ought to have been hurt. Where does this "my opinion's as good as yours" come from when it's fed by black propaganda and swallowed cheerfully without any critical judgement being employed?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:26 pm

Good grief. Of all the insensibility.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:06 pm

RedGlitter;767328 wrote: Good grief. Of all the insensibility.

There are doubtless things about the Iranian legal system which could be improved, just as there are in Western legal systems, but the existence of deliberate provocative lying about the Iranians, done to inflame hatred and knowing the allegations are false, is appalling. Someone invented that email in the first place, remember.

I'm quite sure that some very few Iranian judges still try to impose amputation as a penalty when they're annoyed but it's an infinitesimally small proportion of sentences. To quote the latest Amnesty International report (issued in 2007) "At least two amputations were carried out and one person was sentenced to eye-gouging" in 2006, nationally, from all courts. It's there, it's exceptionally rare, it's going away. The black propaganda view that amputation is a standard method of punishment in Iran is a lie. The idea that it's imposed on 8 year old children is beyond mere lying, it's a deliberate attempt to sway public opinion with an overwhelming emotional response.

Who's at fault? The Iranians or the propagandists?

Who's responsible for the swayed emotions? The Iranians or the people who credulously swallow this filth without making the least shift to find out whether it's true or not?

What's at stake here is that a bunch of freak armchair warriors in the White House desperately want to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age and they can't do it without public approval. Every time someone posts a weepy ignorant oh-poor-kid thread like this the public approval for bombing creeps that little bit higher. People seem to ignore that the oh-poor-kid is more at danger from proposed US bombing than from any other danger he faces, most especially from an amputation imposed by any Iranian court.

grh · Post by **grh** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:34 pm

spot;767330 wrote: There are doubtless things about the Iranian legal system which could be improved, just as there are in Western legal systems, but the existence of deliberate provocative lying about the Iranians, done to inflame hatred and knowing the allegations are false, is appalling. Someone invented that email in the first place, remember.

I'm quite sure that some very few Iranian judges still try to impose amputation as a penalty when they're annoyed but it's an infinitesimally small proportion of sentences. To quote the latest Amnesty International report (issued in 2007) "At least two amputations were carried out and one person was sentenced to eye-gouging" in 2006, nationally, from all courts. It's there, it's exceptionally rare, it's going away. The black propaganda view that amputation is a standard method of punishment in Iran is a lie. The idea that it's imposed on 8 year old children is beyond mere lying, it's a deliberate attempt to sway public opinion with an overwhelming emotional response.

Who's at fault? The Iranians or the propagandists?

Who's responsible for the swayed emotions? The Iranians or the people who credulously swallow this filth without making the least shift to find out whether it's true or not?

What's at stake here is that a bunch of freak armchair warriors in the White House desperately want to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age and they can't do it without public approval. Every time someone posts a weepy ignorant oh-poor-kid thread like this the public approval for bombing creeps that little bit higher. People seem to ignore that the oh-poor-kid is more at danger from proposed US bombing than from any other danger he faces, most especially from an amputation imposed by any Iranian court.

So, if I'm getting the gist of this... you're thinking this is all part of the CIA master-plot to turn public opinion toward totally annihilating Iran, in an effort to stop them from running over some poor hungry boys arms?

And at this strategy meeting it was decided that the best vehicle for this propaganda would be carollys email....

Clever bastards!

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:38 pm

grh;767337 wrote: And at this strategy meeting it was decided that the best vehicle for this propaganda would be carollys email....
I don't think I suggested that, no. I discussed a consequence, not a cause.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:39 am

spot if this story is ture i do think then it is best to leave your army training behind and swollow your pride and i think you then should say sorry for hurtng another members feelings,after all we are paying customers on here. :-3

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:50 am

Okay, lets expand on this a little. Lets talk about Iran and how this country is run.

Iran: End Widespread Crackdown on Civil Society

Vague Security Laws Sharply Restrict Peaceful Dissent

– The Iranian government is relying on its broadly worded “security laws” to suppress virtually any public expression of dissent, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. It uses these laws to subject those arrested to prolonged incommunicado detention without charge, solitary confinement, and denial of access to counsel.

Dozens of Iranian laws provide the government cover for suppressing any peaceful activity they perceive as critical of their policies. The authorities can trample over people’s basic rights and still claim to be acting legally.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch

‘You Can Detain Anyone for Anything’: Iran’s Broadening Clampdown on Independent Activism

Report, January 8, 2008

Iran

The 51-page report, “‘You Can Detain Anyone for Anything’: Iran’s Broadening Clampdown on Independent Activism,” documents the expansion in scope and number of the individuals and activities persecuted by the Iranian government over the last two years.

“Dozens of Iranian laws provide the government cover for suppressing any peaceful activity they perceive as critical of their policies,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities can trample over people’s basic rights and still claim to be acting legally.”

Relying on information from detainees and eyewitnesses, as well as a close analysis of Iran’s security laws, “You Can Detain Anyone for Anything” documents the government’s use of security concerns as a pretext for detaining and denying due process rights to a range of civil society activists. These include women’s rights campaigners calling for changes to Iran’s laws that discriminate against women, students working for social and political reform, workers calling for better wages and independent unions, and journalists and scholars, including those with no history of political activism.

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in August 2005, government officials have increasingly used “security” as grounds for persecuting independent activism. A set of laws within Iran’s Islamic Penal Code entitled “Offenses Against the National and International Security of the Country” lay the groundwork for the government to suppress peaceful political activity and deny due process rights to those arrested.

The government has also increasingly brought security charges based merely on an individual’s connections to foreign institutions, persons, or sources of funding. In most of the cases documented in this report, the authorities have accused those arrested of undermining national security through their alleged foreign connections.

The authorities frequently hold detainees arrested on security grounds in facilities operating outside the mandated prison administration, most notoriously in Section 209 of Tehran’s Evin prison. Detainees in Evin 209 are subject to violations of their due process rights as well as abusive treatment during interrogation and in detention.

One former detainee told Human Rights Watch about the psychological and physical abuse he and fellow detainees suffered at the hands of his interrogators in Evin 209:

“They would insult us and our family in the most vulgar ways. Or they would threaten to beat us or throw us in the cells of dangerous criminals like al Qaeda members. They would threaten rape with soda bottles or hot eggs. They also would give us false news about our loved ones and brought forged documents to scare us. They told one guy that his dad had been fired because of him and showed him a piece of paper on official-looking letterhead.”

Another former detainee described the authorities’ disregard for Iranian laws pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and their use of indefinite solitary confinement as a form of punishment:

“We didn’t know what we were being charged with, or what was going to happen to us. The guards blindfolded us at the entrance of [Evin] 209. Almost everyone objected at once to this, but they ignored us. I think to scare us for speaking out, they took one of us to solitary confinement right away.”

Iran’s vague security laws allow the government to arbitrarily suppress and punish individuals for peaceful political expression, association, and assembly, in breach of international human rights treaties to which Iran is party. Prison units such as Evin 209 and the treatment of detainees inside its walls are also in violation of Iranian laws governing the operation of detention centers and the rights of detainees.

Human Rights Watch called on the government of Iran to amend or abolish the vague security laws and other legislation that allow the government to arbitrarily suppress and punish individuals for peaceful political expression, association and assembly in breach of international law. Human Rights Watch also called on the government to treat detainees in accordance with international standards, and to either bring Evin 209 under the supervision of the regular prisons administration or shut it down.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:53 am

Or how about this.

On December 4, 2007, Iranian authorities hanged Makwan Mouladzadeh in Kermanshah prison in Iran in defiance of Ayatollah Shahrudi's order to stay the execution pending review of the case.

Makwan Mouloudzadeh, was sentenced to death for crimes allegedly committed when he was aged 13.

EU Presidency Statement on the execution of Makwan Mouloudzadeh

Press Release

On June 5, 2007, Branch Seven of the Penal Court of the city of Kermanshah sentenced Mouloudzadeh, to death for raping three boys in 2000, even though all of his accusers had recanted their statements and he had repudiated his confession as being coerced by the police. Mouloudzadeh, now aged 20, was convicted as a juvenile offender since the crimes were allegedly committed when he was under age 18.

After the Supreme Court in July upheld the conviction, the head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Shahrudi, exercised his authority to declare the conviction to be contrary to shari’a (Islamic law). An order by Shahrudi on November 3 requires that a branch of the Review and Follow-up Unit of the Judiciary investigate the case and then refer it back to the Penal Court of Kermanshah.

On December 3, Mouloudzadeh’s lawyer stated that the Kermanshah court had informed him that the sentence could now be carried out even though the required judicial review had not been completed.

Mouloudzadeh’s conviction followed a trial filled with irregularities. Iranian laws concerning “crimes of chastity” such as rape divest the prosecutor of some of his traditional prerogatives. These laws transfer authority to the penal court to question the accusers and arrange for examination by a physician, and to decide whether to bring the case to trial. Acting in defiance of these laws, the office of the public prosecutor in Kermanshah conducted these investigations and decided to take the case to trial.

During the trial, all of Mouloudzadeh’s accusers recanted their accusations against him and Mouloudzadeh himself testified that any confessions that he had made to the police about the alleged crimes were coerced and false. The judge did not accept their testimonies and sentenced Mouloudzadeh to death.

Under Iranian law, “crimes of chastity” such as rape are not subject to the regular appellate process, and are instead sent directly to the country’s Supreme Court for review. On July 19, Iran’s Supreme Court approved the death sentence for Mouloudzadeh, allowing the authorities to carry out the sentence at any time.

They hanged him last month.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:54 am

Here is another piece from HWR.

Iran leads the world in executing juvenile offenders – persons under 18 at the time of the crime – and is known to have already executed two juvenile offenders this year. Syed Mohammad Reza Mousavi Shirazi, 20, was executed in Adel Abd prison in the city of Shiraz on April 22, for a murder he was found to have committed when he was 16. Sa`id Qanbar Zahi was executed in Zahedan on May 27 for a crime he was found to have committed when he was 17.

Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its cruel and inhumane nature. In particular, in imposing death sentences on people for crimes committed before the age of 18, Iran flouts clear and specific human rights obligations. Two key human rights treaties that Iran has ratified, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, bar the imposition of the death penalty for such offenses. These provisions reflect the reality that children are different from adults. They lack the experience, judgment, maturity and restraint of an adult.

Iranian officials claim that legislation pending in parliament since July 2006 would end executions of juvenile offenders. In fact, the legislation would only offer the possibility of reduced sentences in a small minority of cases.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:56 am

Or lets hear from Amnesty International

Iran continues to pass death sentences on child offenders

Child execution in Iran

22 June 2007

Amnesty International (AI) is calling on the Iranian authorities to take immediate steps to end the shameful practice of executing child offenders (those convicted of crimes committed before the age of 18).

According to the report Iran: The last executioner of children, Iran has executed more child offenders than any other country in the world since 1990.

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Iran has committed not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under the age of 18.

Officials from the Iranian Government and the judiciary have repeatedly stated that Iran does not execute children. However, the facts tell a different story.

The report states that 24 child offenders have been executed in Iran since 1990, 11 of whom were under 18 at the time of their execution. In most cases, the authorities waited until child offenders turned 18 before executing them. It is not clear whether the authorities understand that such executions still violate Iran's international obligation not to execute child offenders under the ICCPR.

AI is aware of 71 child offenders who are currently under sentence of death in Iran. However, the lack of information available on the death penalty in the country means this number may only be a fraction of the total.

Campaigning against the death penalty both inside and outside Iran can make -- and has made -- a difference. In some cases, death sentences have been overturned and the person has been released. In many more, stays of execution have been won.

Campaigns have also prompted the Iranian authorities to publicly comment on cases, initiate reviews of cases, order retrials and even grant pardons or amnesties.

Human rights defenders in Iran stress that international publicity and pressure in support of local efforts can help bring about change in the country. AI believes that campaigning can save lives and will eventually persuade the Iranian authorities to end the illegal execution of child offenders and bring their legal practices into line with their obligations under international law.

AI opposes the death penalty for anyone, regardless of their age and the nature of the crime or the character of the condemned. Every execution is an affront to human rights and an act of premeditated cruelty that denies the right to life as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

AI's report calls for the abolition of the death penalty for child offenders in Iran. The Head of the Judiciary should immediately implement a moratorium on the execution of child offenders until such changes can be made law.

The death sentences of the 71 child offenders documented in AI’s report, and any other child offenders on death row in Iran, must be commuted.

Ending executions of child offenders in Iran, while a major objective in itself, is just one step on the road to total abolition -- but a vitally important step that should be taken without delay.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:01 am

What about stoning?

Iran: Death by stoning, a grotesque and unacceptable penalty

15 January 2008

As nine women and two men in Iran wait to be stoned to death, Amnesty International today called on the Iranian authorities to abolish death by stoning and impose an immediate moratorium on this horrific practice, specifically designed to increase the suffering of the victims.

In a new report published today, the organisation called on the authorities urgently to repeal or amend the country's Penal Code and to ensure total adherence in the meantime to a moratorium on stoning issued by the Head of the Judiciary in 2002.

"We welcome recent moves towards reform and reports that the Majles (Iran's parliament) is discussing an amended Penal Code that would permit the suspension of at least some stoning sentences, in cases where it is deemed 'expedient'," said Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International. "But the authorities must go much further, and take the steps needed to ensure that the new Penal Code neither permits stoning to death nor provides for execution by other means for adultery."

Iran's Penal Code prescribes execution by stoning. It even dictates that the stones are large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the victim immediately. Article 102 of the Penal Code states that men should be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes; nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones".

The serious failings in the justice system commonly result in unfair trials, including in capital cases. Despite the moratorium imposed in 2002 and official denials that stoning sentences continued to be implemented in Iran, deaths by stoning have been reported. Ja'far Kiani was stoned to death on 5 July 2007 in the village of Aghche-kand, near Takestan in Qazvin province. He had been convicted of committing adultery with Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, with whom he had two children and who was also sentenced to death by stoning. The stoning was carried out despite a stay of execution ordered in his case and in defiance of the 2002 moratorium.

It was the first officially confirmed stoning since the moratorium, although a woman and a man are known to have been stoned to death in Mashhad in May 2006. There are fears that Mokarrameh Ebrahimi may yet suffer the same fate. She is in Choubin prison, Qazvin province, apparently with one of her two children.

Amnesty International is equally worried about the remaining eight women and two men who may face the same fate, and whose cases are highlighted in the new report.

The majority of those sentenced to death by stoning are women. Women suffer disproportionately from such punishment. One reason is that they are not treated equally before the law and courts, in clear violation of international fair trial standards. They are particularly vulnerable to unfair trials because they are more likely than men to be illiterate and therefore more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit. Discrimination against women in other aspects of their lives also leaves them more susceptible to conviction for adultery.

In spite of this gloomy reality, there are grounds to hope that death by stoning will be completely abolished in Iran in the future. Courageous efforts are being made by local human rights defenders in Iran who launched the "Stop Stoning Forever" campaign following the May 2006 stonings in Mashhad. Since they began, their efforts have helped save four women and one man - Hajieh Esmailvand, Soghra Mola’i, Zahra Reza'i, Parisa A and her husband Najaf - from stoning. As well, another woman, Ashraf Kalhori, has had her stoning sentence temporarily stayed.

"We urge the Iranian authorities to heed our calls, and those of the Iranians who are striving relentlessly to obtain an end to this horrendous practice,"said Malcolm Smart.

But these efforts have come at a high price. Campaigners in Iran continue to face harassment and intimidation from the authorities. Asieh Amini, Shadi Sadr and Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh, another leading member of "Stop Stoning Forever", were among 33 women arrested while protesting in March 2007 about the trial of five women's rights activists in Tehran. Thirty-one of the detainees were released by 9 March. Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh and Shadi Sadr were released on bail of 200 million toumans (over US$215,000) on 19 March. They are likely to face trial, possibly on charges including "disturbing public order" and "acting against state security".

Human rights defenders in Iran believe that international publicity and pressure, in support of local efforts, can help bring about change in the country.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:05 am

What about the battle of the sexes?

Iran: Authorities thwart campaign for gender equality

Iranian women's rights activist Noushin Ahmadi Khorassani

23 August 2007

Women's rights activists in Iran face imprisonment

Activists campaigning for gender equality in Iran are unable to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and association, as shown by a number of recent arrests.

Many of those arrested are supporters of the Campaign for Equality, a network which works to end legal discrimination against women.

The Campaign for Equality

Some of the activists arrested this year were collecting signatures for the Campaign in its bid to collect one million signatures from the Iranian public to a petition against laws discriminating against women in Iran. In addition to the petition, the campaign also runs a website to provide information and a forum for debate, and works with grassroots organizations expose the problems women face and inform them of their rights.

Arrests of activists

The group have faced various obstacles in their efforts as authorities have stifled the debate on gender equality, including dismissal from work and threatening phone calls after hosting meetings.

On 4 March of this year, 33 women were arrested while protesting peacefully outside the court room where five women were tried in connection with a demonstration held on 12 June 2006 to demand that women be given equal rights with men under the law in Iran,. The June demonstration was violently dispersed by security forces, who arrested at least 70 people. All had been released by 19 March but are still under the threat of prosecution. A demonstration held for women’s rights in front of Iran’s parliament on 8 March, International Women’s day, was forcibly broken up by security forces, who are said to have injured several women.

In April, five women were arrested while collecting signatures in a Tehran park. Three of these women were released the following day, though Mahboubeh Hossein Zadeh and Nahid Keshavarz were released on bail after thirteen days of detention. They were reportedly accused of “acting against state security.

Zeinab Peyghambarzadeh, a student and women’s rights activist who is involved in the Campaign for Equality, was detained on 7 May 2007, after being summoned to court in connection with her participation in the 4 March gathering. She was released on bail on 16 May, after court officials had repeatedly obstructed her father’s attempts to meet the bail payment. She had also spent four days in detention in January 2007 while collecting signatures on the Tehran metro.

Nasim Sarabandi and Fatemeh Dehdashti were the first activists to be tried and sentenced for peacefully collecting signatures. On 12 August 2007, they were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, on the charge of “acting against national security through the spread of propaganda against the system. They had been detained briefly in January 2007.

Discrimination in law

Women in Iran face widespread discrimination under the law. They are excluded from key areas of political participation and do not have equal rights with men in marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance.

Earlier this year, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi and Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, denounced discriminatory laws:

“As long as women are denied human rights, anywhere in the world, there can be no justice and no peace.

However, the arrests continue. Amir Yaghoub-Ali, a male activist, was arrested on July 11 while collecting signatures in support of the Campaign for Equality. He has since been released, but remains at risk of prosecution.

Amnesty International calls on the Government of Iran to urgently abolish laws that discriminate against women, and to drop all charges against these women’s rights activists, who have been exercising their internationally recognized rights to freedom of expression and association in collecting signatures and protesting peacefully. Anyone detained solely in connection with such activities would be a prisoner of

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:07 am

neffy;767381 wrote: spot if this story is ture i do think then it is best to leave your army training behind and swollow your pride and i think you then should say sorry for hurtng another members feelings,after all we are paying customers on here. :-3It's meaningless, neffy. I politely pointed out that the email was a hoax in my first post to the thread. Carolly said it was my opinion against hers and she was entitled to think what she wanted. How do I avoid hurting her feelings at that point?

The thread's littered with preconceived errors. Accountable's "isn't punishment for theft amputation?", Imladris's "That's what I thought too", Gill's "Most people are aware that 'found guilty' thieves have a hand cut off as, seemingly, part of these peoples' religion, so why should this incident be doubted by any reader?" - it's all clap-trap propaganda that they've swallowed without thinking to ask what's real and what isn't.

A person's feelings were hurt and the proper thing to do is to apologize? Not at the expense of the truth it isn't. "You don't have to be sorry for having a different opinion"? I should think not. My problem here is that my opinion, this time at least, is right and Carolly lacked whatever it takes to work that out. I could, if I felt like it, be annoyed that she's been emailing this blood libel on to all and sundry. I could even ask her whether she's emailed retractions now that she knows the emails were fake lies. What I'm not going to do is apologize for upsetting her, I'd rather that she was upset than that everyone was misinformed by her thread about something this important.

Did you miss my paragraph about the number of court-ordered amputations in the whole of Iran in Amnesty International's last annual report? At least two? And everyone comes in here saying "Most people are aware that 'found guilty' thieves have a hand cut off"? Do people actually prefer to believe things that are false rather than give up their prejudices?

Galbally, I did say that "There are doubtless things about the Iranian legal system which could be improved, just as there are in Western legal systems" and I meant it. Retaining the death penalty is what I had in mind when I wrote that, I'd be much happier if they signed international accords banning it.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:12 am

So from the original post, was the original email that sparked this debate here a hoax, yes it seems it probably was.

Did Carolly intentionally try to whip up internet xenophobia, or was she just upset by the nature of the story and perhaps not thinking twice about the email she recieved in terms of making sure it was a valid story, I would say probably the latter. So she was unwise perhaps, but hardly guilty of a hate crime.

Just because Iran is not run by very nice people, does that mean that we should believe every story we believe about Iran? Obviously not.

Is Iran a country run by the sort of people that I would waste one second of my life trying to defend from fair criticism though? No.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:15 am

I agree with all four paragraphs wholeheartedly.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:22 am

Fair enough. Well, I made the points I wanted to make here.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:07 am

very sad spot meaningless ok

i will have to leave it there less said sooner mended and all that crap

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:12 am

spot;767399 wrote: [...]

The thread's littered with preconceived errors. Accountable's "isn't punishment for theft amputation?", Imladris's "That's what I thought too", Gill's "Most people are aware that 'found guilty' thieves have a hand cut off as, seemingly, part of these peoples' religion, so why should this incident be doubted by any reader?" - it's all clap-trap propaganda that they've swallowed without thinking to ask what's real and what isn't.

[...]That's the first time I've seen a question used as proof that I've swallowed propaganda without thinking to ask what's real and what isn't. :yh_eyebro

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:14 am

Which question? What you quoted is a statement.

eta: ah. Your question. Being a question, you needn't have believed it to ask it. Okay.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:34 am

spot;767423 wrote: Which question? What you quoted is a statement.

eta: ah. Your question. Being a question, you needn't have believed it to ask it. Okay.
I always try to avoid the emphatic. I found this, though, from the NY Times:

Spate of Executions and Amputations in Iran {LINK}

By NAZILA FATHI

Published: January 11, 2008

TEHRAN — Using strict enforcement of Islamic law, the judicial authorities in a restive region of southern Iran amputated the right hands and left feet of five convicted robbers this week, part of what the government said was an effort to deter other troublemakers. [continues]

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:00 am

I have come here again for one reason and one reason only and then I wont again so any reply that is made will not to be replied to so anybody can say what they like about me ..I am sorry for not looking i nto things abit better than I did but I am appalled that a moderator of all people has seen fit to publicly castigate me for showing compassion for a fellow human being …

In my opinion if person concerned KNEW without a shadow of a doubt that the e-mail was a fake, he should simply have told me so in a civil way and in plain english and in a more friendly way ...... … there was no need to attack and belittle me time and time again in the way he did … after all I just posted something in good faith which angered and upset me so much.Yes I was wrong and for that Yes I am sorry.You see a big person can say sorry when they know they are wrong.

So does this moderator have a hidden agenda or does he simply not like me....you make your own mind up.Spot I know that you will come out with your normal words that goes over so many of our heads but remember this, you have shown me something here in the past day that money could never buy.You see Spot also Im a good person no matter what you written about me here and thats the important thing that I have to remember when your words were hitting me so hard. l have also with your help seen True Friendship and learnt alot of truths that I never knew before about many things and for that I thankyou.I was brought up in a different world to you and thank goodness I did.You can go on any thread I may do.... as you have with one I put up this morning a very innocent one I may add.I wont ever reply to you as no matter what I say you wont be happy about.No doubt you will pull this message apart also.So Spot goodbye and thankyou.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:50 am

i think carol that was very wll of course spot may need prove and back that you have wrote that yourself :wah::wah:

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:41 am

Accountable;767427 wrote: TEHRAN — Using strict enforcement of Islamic law, the judicial authorities in a restive region of southern Iran amputated the right hands and left feet of five convicted robbers this week, part of what the government said was an effort to deter other troublemakers.

I'm glad you found that, it tends toward supporting my point. There's a spate, and it consists of five amputations? When I said the numbers involved were infinitesimal I was fairly close.

There is never, in my opinion, any circumstance in which the state can justifiably take life. I agree that this requires an international forum which successfully prohibits the invasion of the state's territory but other than working out how to achieve that, I'm quite firm in my statement. No killing by the state. Once state executions are allowed, innocent people end up being executed.

Next down, there is never, in my opinion, any circumstance in which the state can justifiably imprison someone either as a deterrent to others or as a punishment. Arguably, if it's effective, for rehabilitation, I'd allow that. Other than to rehabilitate, imprisonment is morally wrong. The state is taking away time from a person's life and again innocent people are being imprisoned.

I have a degree of unease in my mind concerning amputation but it's less of a drastic step, in my mind, than either execution or imprisonment. People lose limbs every day. It seems silly to me to tell someone after an industrial accident "be strong, be positive, life goes on, you'll find ways of coping" and then to throw your hands in the air[1] when a state uses the same physical condition as a punishment. It is most certainly, in my mind, less offensive than imprisonment.

The key to reducing crime, of course, is to guarantee detection and identification.

Anyway, the thread title's "Get Ready To Be Shocked" and at least what I've put in this post isn't going to be taken as a personal insult by anyone.

[1] - I'm sorry, I just had a terrible mental picture while re-reading this. It doesn't say what you think it might say.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:04 am

spot;767481 wrote: I'm glad you found that, it tends toward supporting my point. There's a spate, and it consists of five amputations? When I said the numbers involved were infinitesimal I was fairly close.

There is never, in my opinion, any circumstance in which the state can justifiably take life. I agree that this requires an international forum which successfully prohibits the invasion of the state's territory but other than working out how to achieve that, I'm quite firm in my statement. No killing by the state. Once state executions are allowed, innocent people end up being executed.

Next down, there is never, in my opinion, any circumstance in which the state can justifiably imprison someone either as a deterrent to others or as a punishment. Arguably, if it's effective, for rehabilitation, I'd allow that. Other than to rehabilitate, imprisonment is morally wrong. The state is taking away time from a person's life and again innocent people are being imprisoned.

I have a degree of unease in my mind concerning amputation but it's less of a drastic step, in my mind, than either execution or imprisonment. People lose limbs every day. It seems silly to me to tell someone after an industrial accident "be strong, be positive, life goes on, you'll find ways of coping" and then to throw your hands in the air[1] when a state uses the same physical condition as a punishment. It is most certainly, in my mind, less offensive than imprisonment.

The key to reducing crime, of course, is to guarantee detection and identification.

Anyway, the thread title's "Get Ready To Be Shocked" and at least what I've put in this post isn't going to be taken as a personal insult by anyone.

[1] - I'm sorry, I just had a terrible mental picture while re-reading this. It doesn't say what you think it might say.

Spot are you seriously trying to say that cutting off a car thief's clutch-pedal leg off is less morally odious than imprisoning him with hot meals in a centrally heated building for 6 months? Or that imprisoning people on any basis is indefensible? This is laughable nonsense and it's becomming bizarre.

I mean, in one way I might expect the editor of the Daily Telegraph to aplaud such a misguided opinion, you know, "cut off Rapist's willy out, that'll shew em" or "lets amputate the cockney pickpocket's arm, off with it!" While also some of the more lunatic among the fashionable right-on brigade would also no doubt lionize your somewhat "avante-garde" (for want of a better term) attitude to the actual enforcement of civil law. But I am surprised (to say the least) that you hold it. You never struck me as either the medival type or someone who had lost perspective so badly because of intellectual vanity.

You neglected to mention that apart from punishment, and rehabilitation, imprisonment is also deisgned to keep dangerous people who display criminal behavior away from law abiding ones, without having to kill them, and I am not sure how cutting a thief's right hand off prevents him from then going off and murdering his accuser with his left hand. All I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion of course, but I am glad that you don't actually legislate the law either in the UK or over here.