http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/world ... 9iran.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... lb2emNYxfw
the message board for Dubai English speaking community
Koran 5:33 - This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement,
He added, "God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on Earth."
chevaliers-de-sion wrote:if they are not trying to kill superior westerners they are killing each other, its only two less members of the peace cult but is a start .......... yee- haaa
will it be a stoneing and will there be a video
melika969 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... lb2emNYxfw
chevaliers-de-sion wrote:if they are not trying to kill superior westerners they are killing each other, its only two less members of the peace cult but is a start .......... yee- haaa
will it be a stoneing and will there be a video
dee7o wrote:melika969 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... lb2emNYxfw
Honestly melika if I were you, I would tone down a bit on criticism of Iran's government. Don't get wrong, it is definitely warranted and your posts on this topic are informative but what I know is that Iranian authorities are heavily monitoring internet use nowadays searching for people posting videos, new links and so on. I don't think I am exaggerating in suggesting that you take care of yourself and what you post. At least make sure you are using an IP filter or something. Call me paranoid but better safe than sorry.
dee7o wrote:chevaliers-de-sion wrote:if they are not trying to kill superior westerners they are killing each other, its only two less members of the peace cult but is a start .......... yee- haaa
will it be a stoneing and will there be a video
Nah not stoning. Probably crucifixion for heretics? Or flaying in front of Westminster Abbey? Maybe should they burn them at the stake for practicing witchcraft? Ever heard of the Iron Maiden Mr. Chevaliers of sifon (toilet flush in arabic).
dee7o wrote:chevaliers-de-sion wrote:if they are not trying to kill superior westerners they are killing each other, its only two less members of the peace cult but is a start .......... yee- haaa
will it be a stoneing and will there be a video
Nah not stoning. Probably crucifixion for heretics? Or flaying in front of Westminster Abbey? Maybe should they burn them at the stake for practicing witchcraft? Ever heard of the Iron Maiden Mr. Chevaliers of sifon (toilet flush in arabic).
event horizon wrote:dee7o wrote:chevaliers-de-sion wrote:if they are not trying to kill superior westerners they are killing each other, its only two less members of the peace cult but is a start .......... yee- haaa
will it be a stoneing and will there be a video
Nah not stoning. Probably crucifixion for heretics? Or flaying in front of Westminster Abbey? Maybe should they burn them at the stake for practicing witchcraft? Ever heard of the Iron Maiden Mr. Chevaliers of sifon (toilet flush in arabic).
Yes, Islam does instruct Muslims to crucify 'mischief makers' and those who wage war on Allah.
The Iranian theocracy would agree with you.
event horizon wrote:The Iranian Mullacracy are executing these protesters because the Koran instructs the Muslim government to execute 'mischief makers'.
I can't see how this is exclusively a Shia belief/interpretation of the Koran - so the problem lies with taking the Koran literally and in rejecting the reactionary commands in the Koran in favor of modern ethics.
shafique wrote:My point was to find out whether what I had read about the last shah were true - eg that he was put into power by the Brits who forced his father to step down, and that Moussadek's reforms were in the interest of Iranians, but the CIA objected and deposed him. Subsequent to this the Shah's rtegime reportedly imprisoned, tortured and raped Iranians - hardly a model for freedom.
Didn't the shah also famously spend millions on a party celebrating Persian history (inviting the great and the good) when the rest of the country was suffering economically?
I perhaps have a hard time reconcilng what appear to be atrocities carried out by a puppet dictatot (someone put into power by external forces because the father was not playing nice) with the description 'he did some bad things'
But that's just based on what I've read happened - if this is a mistaken view of the Shah's regime, please let me know what is incorrect.
I personally don't make distinctions between atrocities - where they hapopen, they are wrong. I have a particularly low regard of thoise in power who exploit and oppress those under them - hence why I'm not a great fan of the current mid-east leaders (with a few exeptions)
I also think that sanctions have a large part to play for iran's economic woes, rather than mismanagement of reources.
Cheers
Shafique
shafique wrote:Thanks symetric for offering to answer my questions.
The question above to melika I guess is where to start - is it true that Shah Muhammad Reza was put into power by the Brits who deposed his father because he was not co-operating? What I've read (and seen in documentaries) is that the 21 year old was given power after his father was forced out.
Now, I think we can make a good argument for the last Shah's nationalism. However, a lack of nationalism is not one of the crimes he is accused of. Most of the heinous dictators of the 20th century cannot be accused of hating their respective countries, for example.
What I'd like to find out in future questions is whether it is true that the Shah did not act in the best interest of Iranians - specifically I want to look at the Mousadek attempts to get control of oil resources under Iranian control, and what happened after that.
But first, can you tell me from your perspective what the circumstances were behind the last Shah's ascension to the throne at the tender age that he was.
Cheers,
Shafique
shafique wrote:
So, doesn't that incident show that the Shah was acting for the US when he went along with this and then imprisoned and tortured the opposition? Wasn't he therefore turning against Iranians who only wanted the best for Iran - and basically doing US's dirty work?