Iranian mother of two to be stoned to death

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 16:30
VIEWED: 8862
PAGE 6 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 1:45 PM

Demonizing the opposition is as much a part of building a war as is finding an actual motive for war.

If soldiers see the other side as human, most can't shoot unless that's been trained out of them. Back when we were fighting the Nazis, some people did some studies and found only a third of our guys would actually fire their weapons during a battle. And that was the goddamn Nazis.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 1:59 PM

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

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

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

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Demonizing the opposition is as much a part of building a war as is finding an actual motive for war.

If soldiers see the other side as human, most can't shoot unless that's been trained out of them. Back when we were fighting the Nazis, some people did some studies and found only a third of our guys would actually fire their weapons during a battle. And that was the goddamn Nazis.

I agree with you that demonizing the enemy, both for soldiers and for civilians, is something Hawks and the military take an active part in, but I can't see either of them thinking a war with Iran is practical, or even doable at this time. I don't rule out the msm being an unwitting partner in the smear campaign.

I seriously doubt the study you mentioned. It has that same ring that media uses for their, "crazy innit?" or "who would have thunk it?" newz leads. Maybe 1/3 just didn't have a chance, not everyone was in the sh*t. I know our current army doesn't have to have that kind of motivation. If anything, they are given more battlefield rules RoE to NOT shoot.

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

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:16 PM

Pizmo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's where I see the conspiracy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:18 PM

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

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

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

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

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:24 PM

Pizmo:

Quote:

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Its the same damn thing.

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

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

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

2 sides of the same coin.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pizmo:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:42 PM

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

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

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

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

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:44 PM

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

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

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

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

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

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

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE