Nancy Wants to Play Nice With These Folks

[Dakota435]

Group cleared over Iran murders
By Frances Harrison
BBC News, Tehran

An Iranian woman holds a copy of the Koran (file)
The accused men believed they were allowed to kill immoral people
Iran's Supreme Court has acquitted a group of men charged over a series of gruesome killings in 2002, according to lawyers for the victims' families.

The vigilantes were not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities, the court found.

The killers said they believed Islam let them spill the blood of anyone engaged in illicit activities if they issued two warnings to the victims.

The serial killings took place in 2002 in the south-eastern city of Kerman.

'Morally corrupt'

The case raises serious questions about vigilantes in Iran taking justice into their own hands and undermining the rule of law.

Up to 18 people were killed in just one year, but only five of the murders were tried in court.

According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was even buried alive while others had their bodies dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.

The accused, who were all members of an Islamic paramilitary force, told the court their understanding of the teachings of one Islamic cleric allowed them to kill immoral people if they had ignored two warnings to stop their bad behaviour.

But there was no judicial process to determine the guilt of the victims in these cases.

The group even killed a young couple they thought were involved in *** outside marriage, but media reports say the couple were either married or engaged to be married.

Lawyers for the victims' families say the Supreme Court has five times overturned the verdict of a lower court that found all the men guilty of murder.

Now the Supreme Court is reported to have acquitted all the killers of the charge of murder on the grounds that their victims were all morally corrupt.

Some of the group may, however, face prison sentences or have to pay financial compensation to their victims' families.

[Dasein]

Well, we cannot ignore Iran, and we cannot take them on militarily, so what else would you propose?

[Firetxmi]

Well, we cannot ignore Iran, and we cannot take them on militarily, so what else would you propose?

I say since Dakota is for dealing with Iran, he urge Canadian officials to invade! Then he can be the first to sign up to go over!

[Dakota435]

Well, we cannot ignore Iran, and we cannot take them on militarily, so what else would you propose?

Not much to be done right now. A conflict with Iran will come eventually. They are pushing pretty hard for one. Iran can't be occupied but it has a pretty puny military and has serious economic vulnerabilities and is ripe for either a coup or a general revolution. At some point something will have to be done before they get the bomb, that's for certain.

The US Navy has a plan in place to reduce the Iranian navy very quickly before it can block the St of Hormuz. That, combined with a gasoline blockade and a few choice bombs at some refineries would be sufficient to trigger a collapse of the Iranian economy.

Iran is trying to deal with its own insurgency. Recently a helicopter full of Al Quds officials was brought down. Who knows what going on in the shadows.

What is depressing is the fact that if the EU had a bit of spine and refused to trade with Iran they could be brought to heel without an armed conflict.

[Dakota435]

I say since Dakota is for dealing with Iran, he urge Canadian officials to invade! Then he can be the first to sign up to go over!

That's not very nice.

[Lov3ll]

Well, we cannot ignore Iran, and we cannot take them on militarily, so what else would you propose?

Destroy there air force and all there armour then let them fight there own civil war. [/stupid idea]
But either way Irans getting to cocky and needs to be put in their place. :|



What is depressing is the fact that if the EU had a bit of spine and refused to trade with Iran they could be brought to heel without an armed conflict.

Not going to happen the EU will always be spineless.

[Firetxmi]

That's not very nice.

T'was a joke. But while we are on the subject, why is it not nice? Would you go over and help deal with the situation? Apprehensions about the Canadian government going to Iran with a military agenda? How should the situation be dealt with?

[Dasein]

The problem with bombing Iran is that once their government and economy collapses, then what? Iran has Sunni and Kurdish minorities who might break off, and it would likely have hardline suppporters of the Islamic Republic who could wage a protracted insurgency and then you'd probably have your al Qaeda types and of course the drug runners and warlords looking to carve out their own feifs. In the end, you get a failed state that is the perfect terrorist breeding grounds.

Iran collapsing would have a negative effect on Iraq and Afghanistan, too, and one might very well end up with a vast quagmire of failed states from Afghanistan to Iraq, filled with warring crime lords, terrorists and religious fanatics.

[Dakota435]

T'was a joke. But while we are on the subject, why is it not nice? Would you go over and help deal with the situation? Apprehensions about the Canadian government going to Iran with a military agenda? How should the situation be dealt with?

Well, being nearly 51 years old I get to dodge that one lol. Now if I was a young whippersnapper I might consider going to Afg. In any case, the Canadian gov't has its hands full with our Afghan commitment. Our military is pretty tiny.

Nope, the good ole US of A is going to have to deal with this one way or another. If they get the bomb the world will have BIG problems.

What would you do?

[Dakota435]

The problem with bombing Iran is that once their government and economy collapses, then what? Iran has Sunni and Kurdish minorities who might break off, and it would likely have hardline suppporters of the Islamic Republic who could wage a protracted insurgency and then you'd probably have your al Qaeda types and of course the drug runners and warlords looking to carve out their own feifs. In the end, you get a failed state that is the perfect terrorist breeding grounds.

Iran collapsing would have a negative effect on Iraq and Afghanistan, too, and one might very well end up with a vast quagmire of failed states from Afghanistan to Iraq, filled with warring crime lords, terrorists and religious fanatics.

You have a good point, but if the Mullahs get the bomb the prospects are infinitely worse.

[Firetxmi]

Well, being nearly 51 years old I get to dodge that one lol. Now if I was a young whippersnapper I might consider going to Afg. In any case, the Canadian gov't has its hands full with our Afghan commitment. Our military is pretty tiny.

Nope, the good ole US of A is going to have to deal with this one way or another. If they get the bomb the world will have BIG problems.

What would you do?

The question was asked only because you have your hand (keyboard) in all the U.S. political discussions.

As far as the U.S. being the one who has to deal with it, I kind of disagree. I think it is everyones responsibility to deal with it, as the U.S. won't be the only one threatened if they get Nukes.

To answer the question as to what I would do: I would try diplomacy, embargo's, and other non-military actions to the fullest extent. The U.S. military is stretched extremely thin (between Afghanistan and Iraq) and can't really afford to go to yet another front.

[Dakota435]

The question was asked only because you have your hand (keyboard) in all the U.S. political discussions.

As far as the U.S. being the one who has to deal with it, I kind of disagree. I think it is everyones responsibility to deal with it, as the U.S. won't be the only one threatened if they get Nukes.

To answer the question as to what I would do: I would try diplomacy, embargo's, and other non-military actions to the fullest extent. The U.S. military is stretched extremely thin (between Afghanistan and Iraq) and can't really afford to go to yet another front.

I agree with you. If somebody could talk the EU into an economic embargo of Iran it could be bought to heel. Maybe President Hillary could do it eh?

[Firetxmi]

I agree with you. If somebody could talk the EU into an economic embargo of Iran it could be bought to heel. Maybe President Hillary could do it eh?

Yikes, no Hillary! Maybe Obama if I vote for someone from the Dem. side. Haven't done enough research on any of the candidates though. Besides it is too early for that!

[Dakota435]

I might have more sympathy for Hillary if she have the balls to dump that narcissistic personality disorder afflicted asshole she's married to...

Bill and Belinda’s excellent adventure

But Clinton’s new, er, friendship isn’t helping his wife’s presidential aims, writes eric reguly

As potential girlfriends go, Belinda Stronach would rank as a true catch. She is single, youngish (she just turned 40), attractive, wealthy, impeccably well-connected and politically ambitious - glamorous in every respect. Two years ago, Time magazine listed her as one of the 100 most powerful people on the planet. The tabloids cut to the chase: they called her the "blonde bombshell" or "Bubba's blonde."

Bubba, of course, is Bill Clinton. He has been photographed with Stronach (right) several times. The sightings seem to be getting more frequent, leading to press speculation that their relationship has moved beyond official "friendship" - the description used by Stronach's PR people - to true romance. Poor Hillary Clinton. In the run-up to her presidential campaign, the last thing the New York senator needs is lurid stories about her skirt-chasing husband.

Two years ago, the woman Canadians refer to as "Belinda" quit both her job as CEO of the C$10 billion Magna International auto parts empire (created by her father, Frank Stronach) and her then husband - Norwegian speed-skating champion Johann Koss - for politics.

She was elected in a Conservative riding (constituency) just north of Toronto. More important, despite supporting abortion rights, gun control and same-*** marriages, she ran for leadership of the Conservatives - but lost to the right-winger Stephen Harper.

[Dakota435]

Yikes, no Hillary! Maybe Obama if I vote for someone from the Dem. side. Haven't done enough research on any of the candidates though. Besides it is too early for that!

As a Canadian who would naturally gravitate to a Dem that I considered serious about international affairs, I'm turned off by Obama. Seems like a kid who would be TOTALLY over his head. I'd take the Hildabeast over him just because of her rep for ruthlessness. One tough bitch.

I don't know why any sane person would want the job of US president in the first place. Gotta be the world's most thankless job.

[Firetxmi]

I kind of want a politician who doesn't have a long political history. Less corruption and hands in his (or her) pockets. Besides, he/she can surround themselves (and hopefully would) with good, experienced people.

I wouldn't want to be President at all!