Human Rights Groups Push To Save Condemned Programmer In Iran 244
First time accepted submitter debiangruven writes "Human rights Groups are making one final plea to save the life of Canadian programmer, Saeed Malekpour, who was sentenced to death for writing a program to upload photos to the Internet. From the article: 'Malekpour's supporters have created Facebook pages and websites in his support dating to at least 2009. Amnesty International has requested on its website that concerned individuals write Iranian authorities inside and outside the country to demand that Malekpour not be executed."
Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.
If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran. No, I'm not kidding. There are people on here who will claim that the United States is just as bad as Iran when it comes to human rights issues and even try to argue this point.
Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.
reagan begs to differ (Score:5, Interesting)
i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...his [Reagan] numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters
Don't forget the picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld (one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and then special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands in 1983.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld (one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and then special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands in 1983.
Funny, I could swear I've seen pictures of FDR sitting next to Mr. Gulag himself, Josef Stalin. If you're already in a conflict with scumbag X, and slightly-less-scummy-guy Y starts fighting him too, you might have to hold your nose and help Y in the short term.
Lefties and reality (Score:2)
You're trying to convince "our ideology failed in the real world 100 times but in principle it's great" lefties by pointing out that the real world requires compromises ?
I love your optimism, man. Just love it.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point, but I'm not sure how that's any different from the right wing ideologies. On paper they sound good but in practice they lead to a fair amount of misery, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the real world calls upon them to compromise as well. Too bad they are ideologically opposed to that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to convince "our ideology failed in the real world 100 times but in principle it's great" lefties by pointing out that the real world requires compromises ?
I love your optimism, man. Just love it.
And as everyone knows, "compromise" is always spelled "labour camp".
If you're not in favour of labour camps, you're in favour of Our Country's Enemies having labour camps. And that's just unpatriotic! What are you, some kind of freedom-loving leftwing nitwit? You just don't understand that the real world requires a little bit of forced enslavement and crushing despair. If you're not for labour camps, you're objectively in favour of our enemies.
Oh, for -! Look, they'll be patriotic labour camps. Smart, well-
Re: (Score:2)
By number of victims, Stalin was by far the scummier one.
You know what they say about hindsight, but maybe the right course of action for the USA in WW2 would have been to act opportunistic: stay out, let nazis and reds fight to the end, and only then swiftly move in to crush the weakened victor, whoever it is.
Re: (Score:2)
By number of victims, Stalin was by far the scummier one.
You'll get no argument from me on that -- I wear one of these [thoseshirts.com]. But it would have been tangential to the main point. Which, now that I think about it, is a silly expression, because you can't have a tangent to a point, a tangent is to a curve. But nevermind.
You know what they say about hindsight, but maybe the right course of action for the USA in WW2 would have been to act opportunistic: stay out, let nazis and reds fight to the end, and only then swiftly move in to crush the weakened victor, whoever it is.
The basic idea has merit on a coldly-logical basis, though I wouldn't like the deaths and suffering it would cause to innocent Russians -- or even innocent Germans, for that matter. Problem is, the USSR was in it second-to-last, and Japan would have broug
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the picture of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld (one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and then special envoy of Reagan) shaking hands in 1983.
Funny, I could swear I've seen pictures of FDR sitting next to Mr. Gulag himself, Josef Stalin. If you're already in a conflict with scumbag X, and slightly-less-scummy-guy Y starts fighting him too, you might have to hold your nose and help Y in the short term.
Someone in Churchill's cabinet made a similar comment in '41, when Hitler launched Barbarossa. His comment was that maybe Britain (and the other allies at war: this is all pre-US involvement) should sit on the sidelines and let them just destroy each other. Churchill's response then (or to a similar situation) was that if Hell declared war against Nazi Germany, it would become necessary to look for some of the good points in Satan.
Re: (Score:2)
i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.
Your post seems to be replying to its grandparent rather than its parent, so I'll assume you're saying that Reagan's speeches are incompatible with the former's statement about "Islam shaping up to be a modern day Nazi movement." The statement needs to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, true, but "this ideology is shaping up to be bad in general" does not contradict "these particular people who hold that ideology are good."
Re: (Score:2)
i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.
The mujaheddin != the Taliban. Remember that there was a civil war raging in Afghanistan for decades before we went in. One side was the Taliban and their supporters. We supported the other side, those that were once the Mujaheddin.
Re: (Score:2)
Osama bin Laden was Mujahideen and, yes, Reagan was a huge supporter of his efforts.
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit. Back when you supported mujahideen against the Soviets, there was no Taliban at all - but mujahideen varied in how extreme Islamists they were (though they were all Islamists - they weren't fighting for democracy, they were fighting against the secular communist regime and its unspeakable horrors such as putting boys and girls in the same class in school). After Soviets withdrew, and DRA started to collapse, mujahideen started fighting between themselves, too - and more extreme factions bec
Re: (Score:3)
You keep changing the timeframe. We're talking about Soviet-Afghan war, and U.S. help to mujahideen against DRA, not the war between NA and Taliban - both formed by mujahideen.
For that matter, Massoud was by far the most benign of CIA-trained and supplied insurgents. What about Hekmatyar [wikipedia.org], who got far more support?
And if you seriously think that you have "kicked Taliban out of Afghanistan", you're very much mistaken [wikipedia.org]. In Pashtun-dominated southeastern regions, it enjoys considerable popular support.
Mujahideen = Islamists (Score:2)
sorry, i dont know how you get around that one.
Re: (Score:2)
i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.
Myself, I like watching 1988's Rambo III [imdb.com] where he goes to Afghanistan and helps the proto-Taliban kill Russians.
There was absolutely no possible way such an enlightened defense strategy could ever have had unexpected side effects.
Re: (Score:3)
Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.
Really..... care to explain the crusades and spanish inquisition? Both religions are packed with hypocrites looking to twist the faith to fit their agenda. Both are evil and no longer necessarily have a right to exist much less wield actual power especially in a legal sense.
If idiots are willing to kill to prove their god is great, we should make sure they can meet their fairy tale hero ASAP. Both muslim AND christian.
Really, if someone says "mohammed or jesus is a homosexual and God does not exist" and
Re: (Score:2)
Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.
Really..... care to explain the crusades and spanish inquisition?
You'll have a valid point just as soon as you can show the programmer slain for writing a photo upload program in modern day Spain... What happened 500 years ago isn't really valid justification for what's happening today, unless you NEED to find some sort of justification to ameliorate your own sense of guilt.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
ie, easiest way to get to heaven is via a stack overflow (??)
Re: (Score:3)
Execute the code, not the coder.
But...but meta-programming is so popular these days!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you talking about the most recent Iraq War? Do you imagine your brutal invasion and occupation of a foreign nation premised upon falsified claims of WMDs to be merely "resistance to subjugation"? Do you consider the million Iraqi deaths [wikipedia.org] caused by America's actions to be "fuel for Muslim's bullshit sense of victimhood"?
What a perfect exhibit of the Orwellian mindset that has taken over so many Americans. No matter how many Muslim nations Americans are occupying, bombing, and threatening, most Americans imagine themselves to be the victims. And then they portray the world's Muslim community as idiotic and belligerent in what amounts to a textbook case of psychological projection.
A Matter of Perception (Score:5, Insightful)
American citizens ARE the victims, but our enemy is not Muslims, or some nameless and faceless turban-sporting brown person. In fact, Christians pose more of a threat to our way of life than any foreign government. Need proof? Read up on proposed policies by Santorum or Romney.
Our enemy is our government. They are the ones taking away our civil rights, encroaching on our free will, intentionally unbalancing poverty and wealth levels to maintain the status-quo. They are the terrorists - not some fictional enemy Muslim.
On a level of personal opinion, I think all religion is entirely bullshit, and the world as a whole needs to focus on reality and planning for the future instead of arguing over some unimportant stories of the long-distant past.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually... (Score:2)
hate is the opiate of the masses. Easy on those doses...
Re:A Matter of Perception (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you are a blind ideologue, and dangerously so.
Any time you have a shift in the fundamental construction of social values and institutions there will be those opposing the change, and there will be those pushing for change in unwise directions. American politics currently reflects that.
Equating any mainstream American Christianity with middle eastern Sharia Law Islam makes you look positively stupid. Compare your "encroaching" on "civil rights" to the Saudi practice of capital punishment for being raped. Or even this article of writing a program to upload photos...
To draw the inequality sign the wrong way is just sick.
Middle eastern radicalization (on the political level) is far more dangerous. If you want Americans to blame, blame the wealthy elite who buy laws and act with impunity abroad. They're the ones driving the real civil liberties crisis here and who stirred up the hornets nest over there.
On a level of personal opinion, I think all religion is entirely bullshit, and the world as a whole needs to focus on reality and planning for the future instead of arguing over some unimportant stories of the long-distant past.
You can go ahead and believe that, but be careful. The moment you start tarring all religion with the same brush, you become a bigot.
Re: (Score:3)
But it is not bigotry to refuse to accept another person's intolerance.
That depends on how you go about it. Do you attack the belief, or just everyone vaguely associated with it? For instance, slavery is evil. White people are vaguely associated with slavery and are frequently vilified by the inner city gang culture. A college professor teaching about the ugly side of modern slavery isn't a bigot, but many gang-bangers are.
Mormons are largely anti-gay,
That depends on how you define "anti-gay". I'm guessing you'd also say Mormons are anti-alchoholic. Don't think alchoholism is an inherrent part of wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A Matter of Perception (Score:5, Insightful)
No, intolerance is the problem. There are tolerant religious people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi. There are intolerant religious people like Bin Laden and Benito Mussolini. There are tolerant atheists like Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel. And there are intolerant atheists like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our enemy and the enemy of personal freedom is RELIGION.
The superstitions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all completely toxic.
Death to witch doctors and their servants.
Re: (Score:3)
I love how your post demonstrates one of the claims of those Americans beyond any single doubt : for muslims, there is no difference between military and civilians. It is obvious this is an unspoken assumption of your statement : your post only makes sense if every military target is considered on exactly the same as a civilian one. Which mainly highlights one thing : for Christians attacking a missile silo is different from attacking a kindergarten. For muslims (or for sharia) it isn't different at all : i
Re: (Score:2)
Actually my post demonstrates nothing of the sort since (a) I'm not Muslim and (b) you're response is just regurgitated anti-Muslim bullshit.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:4, Insightful)
You will need to also keep in mind that we're talking about particular Muslim cultures here, not the entire religion. According to the Koran, Christians are people of the book and so are not infidels.
Like many cultures claiming adherence to a particular religion, they are fairly selective about which parts they adhere to.
Re: (Score:3)
You may be right. But Iran is still about to execute someone for writing a program that uploads photos that someone else used to upload something that some repressive authorities found offensive. That is still the effed up story here. Your points may be valid, but that doesn't make Iran any less primitive or Islam any less disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's actions are deplorable and I am actively objecting to them via Amnesty International.
I am not defending Iran. I am objecting to the reductive, jingoistic, and false indictment of the one billion plus Muslims on the planet based upon the actions of select despots.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, that's fine. However, just about EVERYBODY in this thread is off topic. Some poor CANADIAN citizen is about to be executed because he wrote an image upload program for crying out loud.
But if most of those Muslims are so great why aren't they out in force protesting this disgusting display of moronic oppression? And where are they in Egypt, where it sounds like pretty much the whole country wants to behead a guy because he tweeted that he might possibly not think that Mohammed is not all that great?
Re: (Score:3)
Why aren't you?
The reason you aren't is because you do not identify with the oppressors here. I don't actually know your religious standing, but there's billions of Christians not saying a peep. They feel it's a Muslim problem. But hey look, these religions have a lot of things in common too, including some shared source material.
They feel that they shouldn't have to answer to the crimes of these muslims because Christianity is not Islam. And that's justifiable. But you can go further. Christianity vs
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the most recent Iraq War?
Oh yeah, because the world desperately needs ONE fuk nut country to cut the heads off infidels who would dare to write programs that up load photos. YES... yours is the reasonable POV...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As another dutch citizen i say you. Nuke them yourself, if you want that so eagerly. But no, you don't dare that, do you. You prefer USA doing the dirty work, so that we can wash our hands in innocence and the USA gets all the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, hand Anonymous the button. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We must be destroyed and subjugated, and if we resist, we fuel your bullshit sense of victimhood.
Doesn't sound all that far removed from Christianity, now does it? I guess that's what they get for worshiping the exact same god.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of BS is this? Muslims, dissidents, executed by drones? :)
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Over 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan. You're right about one thing - the US is not at the level of Iran, nowhere close.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When we talk about freedom, let's not appeal to the Founders, ok?
No, lets appeal to the ministers of Antwerp and the Dutch East India Company, and the English Mercantile gentry who started trading in slaves. I, for one, have no problem appealing to those men. Jefferson in particular. He was an incredibly bright guy. Those men were products of their time. Dismissing them because for an institution that during their time was endemic AROUND THE WORLD is a bit short sighted.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:4, Interesting)
Not all Americans are ignorant "Christians" my friend. Hell most christians I've met here don't even really understand what it is they believe and regularly get facts about their own faith wrong. They know they love Jesus and hate Muslims though.
Our government feels that basic human rights only apply to Americans while in America when it's convenient and non-embarrassing for them. When it's not convenient, they do whatever they feel like and claim it's a national security secret and therefore above the law and the fact that you even want to know makes you look suspicious.
Hell, Obama even tried to claim sending drones to kill folks in another country is not even a "Hostile Act" or "Act of War". Sorry, I consider telepresence to be the same as actually being there pulling a trigger.
That doensn't change the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Execution does not fit the crime of making software that uploads images. The US government would not execute someone for doing this, and no government should, because the right to draw a breath is a basic human right which should only be denied in the most extreme of cases (which this does not remotely qualify).
Arguments about political or religious relativism do not apply, in this case, for several reasons:
1: We aren't talking about a fine, some community service, or a few months in jail. The stakes are much higher.
2: We aren't talking about a person who deliberately exercised civil disobedience while within a country that has such punishments, he was just passing through after having done something harmless in a completely separate country.
3: We aren't talking about laws that make a good attempt to balance the protection of safety and commerce against personal freedom; we are talking about the legislation of a code of morality based on ancient myths.
While it is true that all governments, including America, wrongly impose their own interests on others, it is also true that these laws are oppressive and backwards and entirely based on a religion that is equally oppressive and backwards. We are entering an era, as a species, where we will not be able to function while simultaneously abiding such deleterious nonsense.
People who are stuck in the past like this, to the detriment of those around them, should be ridiculed for it, and should be called to account for it. The harm they cause should be stopped.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws ? Made ?
You realize you just offended muslims, right ? According to islam, laws can't be made. (Actually it's more complicated than that, Christianity is the only branch of "abrahamic" religions that is (partially) OK with man-made laws. Partially, incidentally, is why we have the constitution-regular law divide)
You could even make the case that even atheists are against man-made laws. Certainly their philosophy doesn't agree with self-determination : you should just be rational, which means you only e
No surprise it was posted AC then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally, I think you need to read your philosophy coursebook a little more closely. An "atheist" is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods. That is *it*. Rejection of belief in gods does not, in and of itself, require acceptance of the postulate "you should just be rational."
While it is true that many atheists would probably agree with the statement "you should just be rational," most will have very different ideas about what constitutes "rationality" in any given circumstance and some may object entirely. And in any case, accepting even this statement doesn't reject the possibility of making and honoring laws. Doing so could be considered a very rational behavior (the argument is left to the student).
Being an atheist also does not, in and itself, require rejection of a religion. Many sects of Buddhism, for example, deny the existence of any gods and as such are atheist. New-age weirdos can deny the existence of god as well and still believe in auras and energies and what-not. Again...many atheists might also reject these belief systems, but it is not a requirement of the word.
Some might try to argue that there is a chain of reasoning at work...something like rejection of god means rejection of religion which means rejection of religious codes of morality which means rejections of any code of morality which means acceptance of the only possibility left which is "you should act rationally," but such a chain of reasoning is philosophically sloppy with incorrect assumptions each step of the way. Though being an atheist doesn't automatically make someone a rigorous philosopher, so plenty of atheists might think this way.
I am also curious about how it has been "mathematically proven that there never are any rational course[s] of action." Mathematics generally deals with the modeling of quantifiable relationships, whereas "rationality" is more in the domain of psychology, sociology, economics, and perhaps philosophy. Does the proof look like this?:
Let x = .33333... (repeating infinitely)
let y = 1/3
therefore: x = y
therefore 3x = 3y
therefore (3)(.3333...) = (3)(1/3)
therefore (.9999...) = (3/3)
therefore (.9999...) = 1
therefore there is never a rational course of action.
Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is far worse. In Iran, you know what you're getting. Americans hide behind the lie of democracy and fairness while murdering millions of foreigners in aide of a crude substance that waits beneath sand that does not belong to the United States.
How many people are labelled as "illegal" and deported? Wasn't the USA supposed to be a bastion of human liberty? Oh, only if you're rich, white, and not attracted to members of the same gender.
You may not like it, but at least "they" are honest with their intentions.
You just proved my point. Thank you.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not "shaping up to be". Islam has always been about forcing the one true view of god to everyone.
It's by definition intolerant and bent on world domination.
Re: (Score:2)
So are all religions which are proselytizing. They see world domination as their goal. And they count every other belief or the lack of any belief as inferior. Christianity currently has about all of the most powerful countries on their side (with the exception of China), so Christianity can have a pretty laid back attitude right now. Islam is not in that position, so it tries more aggressively to gain power.
Re: (Score:3)
Islam is about dedicating your life to the worship of god, and following the law of god in everything you do.
Christianity (in modern times) is about loving and accepting others.
So I wouldn't exactly say that all religions are the same with regards to tolerance.
Christianity barely exists at
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is about dedicating your life to the worship of god, and following the law of god in everything you do.
*ahem* That statement is about as meaningful as "rationality is about doing the smart thing". The problem of course is what does "dedicating your life to the worship of god" mean ? There's an answer for that, of course : hisbah [wikipedia.org]
Translation (of the relevant arabic sentence):
Commanding right and forbidding wrong
Note 3 important facts :
1) nowhere does it states that a muslim has to do right and not wrong himself
2) the choice of verbs is not just a coincidence : it is not about asking, pointing out, or helping, it is about forcing
3) "right" and "wr
Re: (Score:2)
Very few of the people I know believe in god as depicted in the bible, even though a lot of them were baptised or married in a church, and are thus registered as christians.
Most of them haven't even ever read part of the bible.
From my personal experience, it's especially the case with people under 40 and even more so under 30. Additionally the more highly educated a person is the less likely he is to believe in god. I'm just inferring from that.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the history of Islam. Mohammad specifically prohibited converting people by force. Two years later, armies under his command attacked a city (that he had a peace treaty with, by the way) and gave everyone a choice: convert to Islam or die.
Christianity started to be used as a justification for atrocities shortly after the Roman emperors converted. Islam was like that from the start.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, there is no such thing as a true, fixed interpretation of a religion or ideology. Ideologies emerge from a surrounding geopolitical and economic reality and are always in flux with that surrounding geopolitical and economic reality subject to individual interpretation. It is bogus to say "Christians believe in X, and Buddhist believe in Y, while Muslims believe in Z." Distinct individual agents are constantly reinventing their interpretation of their religious experience.
Their is divide in human culture between those who believe in peace and those who don't. There are Christians and Muslims and Jews and Atheists in both camps, but the majority of people in all religions want peace. I saw this in my graduate program which had a good mix of Jews, Atheists, Muslims, and Christians in it. This was an educated crowd and everybody there wanted to get along. The trick for the human race is to not let our belligerent minorities set us against each other. They are eager to spark conflict and set us against each other for their own gain.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, there is no such thing as a true, fixed interpretation of a religion or ideology
Well, it's hard to interpret Islam as anything BUT hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All religion is oppressive, all religion is based on lies as there isn't the slightest logical reason to believe in Sky Fairies, and religions insist on imposing social restrictions BASED on superstition.
Re: (Score:3)
. It is bogus to say "Christians believe in X, and Buddhist believe in Y, while Muslims believe in Z." Distinct individual agents are constantly reinventing their interpretation of their religious experience.
For the most part Christians don't know what they believe, for example that Hell thing isn't in the Bible. They say they believe in One God then turn around and deify Satan (that fits Islam too). The Christ himself hung around with Whores, Divorcee, Tax-collectors
and people who were consider the scum of the Earth types of their time.
Re: (Score:3)
Muhammad claimed that he was being constantly guided by Allah throughout his life. So his position in that sense was perfectly consistent - prohibition on forced conversions was divinely inspired, and was necessary at that point in time. When it became unnecessary, it was abrogated [wikipedia.org] by a new commandment, which was equally divinely inspired.
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity was started by Jesus Christ
lol
Re: (Score:3)
Can't tell if you're ignorant of world religions, or simply brain washed to the point where you think that Islam has been sunshine and bunnies from the start. Islam has been "putting people to the sword" in the "convert or die" type of way from the start. In Christianity, the regular people had their reformation already tossed off the yoke of the church, and more then one government did, from the simplistic to the grandest points.
But I'm sure your first point will be to try and argue that it was "christia
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Christians murdered people as soon as they got political power. Muslims murdered people as soon as they got political power. And during the few times in history when Jews managed to seize power, they murdered people too.
The lesson, in case this isn't obvious to you, is that ideology by itself confers no moral advantage whatsoever. Once a group has political power its principles are distorted to suite the needs of the elite.
Re: (Score:2)
Christians murdered people as soon as they got political power. Muslims murdered people as soon as they got political power.
That is true. The crucial difference is that the core teachings of Christianity do not say anything about seizing political power - quite the opposite, in fact, "render unto Caesar" and all that. Islam, on the other hand, has positioned itself as not just a religion, but also a political philosophy from the get go - and declared a struggle for dominance through its founder and all its holy texts. That's why it took Christians almost three centuries from the death of Christ to start slaughtering their oppone
Re: (Score:2)
The reason "it took Christians almost three centuries from the death of Christ to start slaughtering their opponents" is because it took them 300 years to consolidate power. Prior attempts to seize power were simply dispatched with force. If Christians had been in power for centuries and only gradually started to oppress people, you might argue that their ideology was inherently more peaceful. But if a group becomes violent the microsecond they seize power, then, no, I'm not going to give them credit for
Re: (Score:2)
The reason "it took Christians almost three centuries from the death of Christ to start slaughtering their opponents" is because it took them 300 years to consolidate power. Prior attempts to seize power were simply dispatched with force.
What prior attempts to seize power existed in, say, the 1st century, when Christians were violently suppressed and torture-killed?
If Christians had been in power for centuries and only gradually started to oppress people, you might argue that their ideology was inherently more peaceful. But if a group becomes violent the microsecond they seize power, then, no, I'm not going to give them credit for the period when the Romans were forcibly keeping them in check.
The part of their ideology that had to do with coming to power and oppressing their past enemies was created by Romans suppressing them. The original Christian tenets of non-violent resistance and martyrdom may be noble in some way, but they sure as hell aren't practical - those people who strictly adhered to them were all fed to the lions pretty early on. It was, in effect, arti
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In Slashdot religion bashing threads, there is one thing that always stands out to me. When child-abusing Mormons, anti-abortion Catholics, or other anti-science Christians are getting a much-deserved pummeling, absolutely NO ONE raises their voice to blunt the attacks with "so are all religions", nor does anyone bring up Islam as a counter-argument of "this religion is not the only one". Yet in threads where outrageous things are done in the name of Islam, there are always a disproportionate number of post
Re: (Score:2)
When people are bashing Mormons for child abuse, nobody points out the colossal problem of child abuse in the Catholic church? I find that pretty hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to my ancestors, of which some have been convicted to death for not being christian enough.
Or as the christian religion says: Matt 7:20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
21st century demands 21st century standards. Bringing up how bad the Christian world was 400 years ago is not a relevant point to make when we speak of Islam in the 21st century.
Re:Goodwin be Damned (Score:5, Insightful)
Religions are often just a "cover-up" ideology for economical interest and can be interpreted in many different ways. From the peaceful mystical one to the nationalist and revolutionary one.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.
"Is shaping up?" It's been doing that for the last millennium (and almost a half). BTW, guess what: The Arabs and the Nazis have always been very friendly [youtube.com] to each other. And guess which book is a perennial best-seller in the Middle East...
Re: (Score:2)
If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran
That's a stupid thing to claim. However US is slowly sliding towards a totalitarian regime. It's not there yet but in a decade or two who knows?
Stupid? Here's another reply to my post that kinda proves the point I was trying to make:
The US is far worse. In Iran, you know what you're getting. Americans hide behind the lie of democracy and fairness while murdering millions of foreigners in aide of a crude substance that waits beneath sand that does not belong to the United States.
How many people are labelled as "illegal" and deported? Wasn't the USA supposed to be a bastion of human liberty? Oh, only if you're rich, white, and not attracted to members of the same gender.
You may not like it, but at least "they" are honest with their intentions.
Iran's many self-inflicted wounds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
there is a certain strain of people running around, voting for ron paul, idolizing ayn rand, arguing for no financial regulation, abolishing the fed, etc., that are basically free market fundamentalists. a pseudoreligion whose central belief is that a market without any rules will somehow be more fair. i thought 2008 would take the wind out of their sails, since 2008 is what you get as the end result of deregulation that started under reagan, but they have delusionally marched on, saying 2008 was the produc
perspective (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about this.
The European Parliament seem hell bent on protecting human rights lately, despite a barrage of 4-letter acronym pro-censorship laws.
Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't go to these countries. (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if you've got relatives there, or if the only archaeological remnant you want so see of some civilisation lies there, or it has the best undisturbed nature reserves... just don't go there. As soon as you go to such a country, your life is theirs. Before you go on holiday, check if your destination is a democracy with reasonable laws and institutions. If not, don't go.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a solution.
What about the people who live there? Should they simply leave? Unlike you, the mere visitor, they are living constantly there under the treat of the regime. Even if they are hostile towards visitors, there's less risk for you because your visit will be temporary, while an inhabitant is permanently there. A visitor to Iran, especially if they do their research before visiting, ought to be safer than a random member of their society right now. Many of them might choose to leave, but for
I wonder how the RIAA/MAPP feels? (Score:5, Funny)
I am guessing they are for executing anyone that writes a program to upload anything to the interwebs. I'll bet they even discussed trying to put this provision into ACTA.
He is NOT Canadian (Score:3, Informative)
The guy is not Canadian. People say that he is Canadian because they want to pressure the Canadian government into taking action. He is not a Canadian citizen though. He was merely a permanent resident. In addition to that, it was reported in the past that, while living in Canada, this guy had blogged defending the government of his country - i.e., Iran. Apparently, after moving to Canada, he still felt a very strong connection with his country (i.e., Iran) and he felt that he had to voice his support to his government - namely, the same government that now is planning to execute him. I am not saying that he deserves the sentence or anything like that. But really, this is something the Canadian government should not get involveld into. The guy is Iranian, he spent most of his life there, and for the most part he supported the crazy regime they have there - even after moving to Canada. What the heck did he move to Canada for if he was so in love with his country? He should have just stayed there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what you say, it actually sounds like Canada should get involved - because if they do manage to get him out, they'll now turn a guy from tacit supporter of Iranian regime to its outspoken critic - and the story of his conversion would be a powerful propaganda tool in and of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not any other person who faces any kind of punishment that Canadian government or its US overlords believe to be unfair?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, fuck him for not wanting to die. Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3)
You should read about how Galileo Galilei confessed his supposed crimes and then wrote a great book reiterating his "crimes".
Re:Confessed then took it back (Score:5, Informative)
Easy for you to say, Coward. In some places it's common to beat the confession out of suspects, sometimes to death.
Even in supposedly more civilized places, the innocent often get coerced to pleading guilty: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/When_the_Innocent_Plead_Guilty.php [innocenceproject.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss that whole part in TFA where it mentions "physical torture"?
Re:America would never kill a programmer for this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, the American legal system would only destroy someone's life if they wrote a circumvention for a copy-right protection system.
Re:And the US has NDAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when does spouting your passionately negative and rightfully angry views warrant robotic execution? They couldn't even give him the dignity of getting shot in the face by a CIA agent?
They actually treat drone attacks as being more legal and humane than using real people to carry out assassinations. This WAS an ILLEGAL assassination, plain and simple. Their views that human rights don't apply to those that renounce their citizenship is plain backwards. Human rights and freedom apply to well.....HUMANS.
What they did to this guy was no better than executing a group of folks here for saying we need another armed revolution.... ya know.... since voting and playing by rules that have been turned against us has been completely ineffective.