101–102 of 102 posts
More interesting is that this drone was flown illegally into sovereign airspace and no one seems to mention that. Imagine if China flew a drone over LA.
As for Iran being a target for military action, history has shown that any country that it sanctions economically is always attacked.
Might as well just prepare for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"""I'm sorry, if I'm Iranian myself does your reply still applies? Just wondering.""" Yeah, it totally still applies. You can find dissents in any country. And, btw, you are not. Here's an older comment of yours on HN: """I'm from a country way more developed than iran in technological/scientific terms""". """This "everybody has the right to their way of living" is getting old and stupid."""" Really? Sorry, but I don…
I'm not stating I am Iranian (I'm not) just trying to point out that you jump into quick conclusions about others' judgements on Iran. And that you would most likely not do it if you knew in advance that the person you're talking to is an iranian citizen. """ Really? Sorry, but I don't find the "let's demonize them, force them to our own way of living, and basically use it as a pretext for invading their country and…
Well, didn't lots of Americans leave the states in the sixties to go to Canada to avoid the draft?
"""I recall you saying that they have the right to live their lives the way they want. But then you point out people that didn't haven't that right. I'm starting to get confused about your opinion, no irony nor sarcasm intended."""
I'm talking majority here. As I said, you can find dissents in any country, if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean you have to change the majority of the society to fit them. It's not like millions of Iranians are struggling to get out of the country. OTOH, after the invasion to bring "democracy", tons of Afghanis and Iraqis ARE.
"""I added that if the majority of Iranians didn't like how they live, then Iran would be objectively bad." Which is pretty obviously the case."""
Rather far from obvious. Western media showcases only the examples that fit that pattern, and westerners have the natural tendency to think "but of course, that's only natural, that's exactly what Iranians would be thinking".
For example:
"""Don't expect very informative surveys where saying "I'm not religious anymore" might be enough to get you killed."""
Well, hundreds of millions of people worldwide ARE religious, and wouldn't have it any other way. And not because they would be killed if they stated otherwise.
Take the Bible Belt for example.
Is there any doubt that the majority of the people there IS both religious AND conservative?
Now, there are also atheists in those parts, and you can find a ton of blogs saying "oh, my fellow Utah/Adelaine/Tulsa/... citizens are bigots and stupid" or such. And you can talk to a lot of folks from there that made it to New York or San Francisco or whereever, and they will badmouth their states and their governors.
The existence of the above does not mean that you'd be correct to say that the Bible Belt majority are atheists and progressive folk.
I have also some doubts about the "get you killed/stoned" thing. I used to get so angry at those stories, you know, them stoning a woman, hangings, etc, and think "those guys should be nuked for doing that".
But then I found out that a lot of those stories are BS, perpetuated as the media sees fit, and are representative of some local barbaric act in some village etc and not the state in general. Like, say, the lynching of some black folks, back in the 20's in the South.
A case in point is the story of this woman in Iran, it circulated a year ago I think, that was to be hanged. All the headlines made it sound like she was to be executed just because she had an extra-marital affair. Only if you read the whole article though, you'd find out that she also conspired with her lover to murder her husband. And even when they admit to this in the article, they bury it under suspicion and irony, as if Iranian justice is de facto faulty.
Compare these pieces for example: http://digitaljournal.com/article/299760 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315818/Iran-woman-A...
With the much more objective Wikipedia article:
On May 15, 2006 Sakineh pleaded guilty for having an "illicit relationship outside marriage". If a person pleads guilty to adultery under Islamic law, the sentence may be either death by stoning or 100 lashes. The court handed down a punishment of 100 lashes, her son watched the whipping.
Ashtiani had allegedly committed adultery with the man (Isa Taheri) who murdered her husband. Taheri was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Under Islamic law, murder must be absolved by diyya (blood money given to victim's family) or qisas (retributive execution); Ashtiani's children chose to accept diyya. Taheri was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. According to some sources, he is now no longer in prison, although Iranian officials deny this.
In September 2006 her case was brought up again, where she was tried for murdering her husband as well as committing adultery. She was found guilty of murder (qatl-e-amnd) and sentenced to death by hanging.
= = = = =
Now, I'm against the death penalty altogether, but it makes you wonder how reports of such cases are represented in our media.
And how often they are used to justify war/invasion etc, something that inevitably leads to hundreds of thousands more misery, destruction, death etc that some dozen such cases.