Steely Dan

I love to hear stories like this, we are clearly looking at an advanced civilisation here.

They run the entire country from the back seat. If they didn't then the Israeli- Palestinian conflict would have beed done and dusted a long time ago.

Why not say what you mean - If they didn't then Israel would have been done and dusted a long time ago.

The only individual weasaling words around here in you Sport. Read my post and then read your post that you cut up and re-worded to suit your own agenda. You posted that I said israel would be done and dusted. WRONG. Totally wrong. I said that the The conflict would be done and dusted. You are blatantly trying to inflame the vibe of the thread through posting blatant lies about other members and the views. Grow up will you please.

Original topic Obama Address to the Nation on Libya - To which you go off on your usual tangent alledging Jews control the U.S and attacking Israel - Your agenda is there for all to see and it speaks for itself. :jerk:

They run the entire country from the back seat. If they didn't then the Israeli- Palestinian conflict would have beed done and dusted a long time ago.

Why not say what you mean - If they didn't then Israel would have been done and dusted a long time ago.

Your weasel words do give you away though. An idea, Company, invention or other human endevour takes on a life of it's own and does not belong forever solely to it's creator, You might as well argue that the atom bomb was a Jewish invention or refer to communism as a Jewish movement. Ironically trying to paint the FED as a Jewish agency forgets the fact that current Fed monetary policy is Keynesian invented by John Maynard Keynes, an Englishman, whereas it's antithesis is what's known as the Austrian school of economics, which Midas would no doubt refer to as the Jewish school of economics as it was invented by an Austrian of Jewish parents.

To claim Jews run American is just antisemitic nonsense, they may have been promenent in banking (One of the few jobs historically open to them) but the banks themselves are not of any religion any more than ideas or inventions are.

Yes indeed Coma

Otherwise you probably would not have seen a rather

peculiar sign of US vetoeing UN sanctions against

Israel 60 out of 63 times

Perhaps the U.S have sense to see the blatent antisemitism woven into various UN bodies such as the human rights council and thus veto accordingly.

The conspiracy you internet jihadists write about is real enough but is an Islamic one not a Jewish one.

The guy is lying just like all his Administration does..

just like Ben Shalom Bernanke does every time he makes an appearance

Ben Shalom Bernanke

Ben Shalom Bernanke

Ben Shalom Bernanke

midas doesn't want us to forget the guy is a Jew. Interesting agenda, midas. 'Nuff said.

Well they run the banks you know, and the media.

I also advocate strongly for a free Palestinian state existing ALONGSIDE a strong Jewish state of Israel. (There's the rub.) But not one that pledges to destroy the Jewish state of Israel in the process. If the Palestinians actually do want radical Islamic rule like Hamas, that is their right but I pity their minorities that don't like it (the ones that are still alive) but again they should have to right to rule (and stone amongst) themselves, but they have no right to destroy Israel and claim all the land of Israel as is their publicly stated goal. But they think they do. War mongering is irrelevant, there are irreconcilable differences. While it is clear Israel is very difficult to negotiate with and I criticize them for that, compared to Hamas, they are a piece of cake.

Jingthing, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr - 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.', hence I would not be indifferent to a radical Islamic human rights disaster, whether or not it left Israel alone. The rub is how you act to such a situation, you risk Afghanistan or Somalia situations whether you intervene or not. The best I think you can hope for is to stop them materialising in the first place, which is why I question what on earth the West was thinking about with their stance to Egypt and Libya.

With respect to a Palestinian state, I would welcome that if they would make peace, however just as a point of info I would be equally amenable to the area the Palestinians live in becoming part of Egypt or Jordan seeing as a separate Palestinian identity was a propaganda myth.

Meanwhile the rebels overrun Libyan army stores and sell the chemical weapons they found there to guess who? It really makes you wonder what on earth we are doing intervening here. Better the despot you know.

http://www.debka.com/article/20811/

Ha ha indeed. Do you think the Gazan rocket attackers were intending to put on a show, is that it?

It's the intent that counts. Iran and Syria have been constantly attempting to upgrade the destructive capability of Hizbollah, who as we know fire almost exclusively at civilian targets, the same applies to Hamas with the smuggling rat holes on the Gaza border or (ahem) peace ships actively attempting the same.

Here is the latest threat:

http://www.debka.com/article/20811/

Senior Libyan rebel “officers” sold Hizballah and Hamas thousands of chemical shells from the stocks of mustard and nerve gas that fell into rebel hands when they overran Muammar Qaddafi’s military facilities in and around Benghazi, debkafile’s exclusive military and intelligence sources report.

Word of the capture touched off a scramble in Tehran and among the terrorist groups it sponsors to get hold of their first unconventional weapons.

I fear there may be more 'Hahaha' to come or at best ambiguous condemnation in the offing.

If an Arab did what these guys did they would be called terrorsits.

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-07-09/justice/soldiers.charged_1_fifth-soldier-three-soldiers-mahmoudiya?_s=PM:LAW

What that has to do with the topic I'm not sure, but yes it was a disgusting criminal act, the title says it all though as it contains the word charged as oppose to being praised for carrying out a 'heroic' action. Which was how the Palestinian group characterised those responsible for the murder of the Israeli family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6288156.stm

Is the BBC good enough for you, if they quote Amnesty international and is confirmed by the Iranian judiciary?

The Iranian judiciary says a man has been stoned to death for adultery - the first time it has confirmed such an execution in five years.

what exact law is used? please bring something with substance that looks reliable. I would really like to know more about stoning in Iran, honestly.

http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/stoningetc/stoning.htm

And then there's the well publicised case of the woman who had her death sentence by stoning commuted to hanging.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/world/middleeast/09stoning.html

In order to commute the sentence it has to still be available in Iranian law, and would no doubt have been carried out were it not for international outcry.

Interestingly enough stoning was only introduced in Iran back in 1983 when the (ahem) contemporary Islamic penal code was ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Iran

In Iran, stoning as a punishment did not exist until 1983, when the contemporary Islamic penal code was ratified. Many Muslim jurists in Iran are of the opinion that although stoning can be considered Islamic, the criteria under which it can be imposed as a sentence are stringent; because of the large burden of proof needed to reach a guilty sentence of adultery, its penalty is hardly ever applicable.[22] However many sentences of stoning have been made instead on the basis of the "knowledge of the judge".[22][23]

Following vociferous domestic and international controversy and outcry over stoning in the early years of the Islamic republic, the government announced a moratorium on stoning in 2002.[22] In January 2005, the Iranian judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad was quoted as saying "Stoning has been dropped from the penal code for a long time, and in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were over-ruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[24] Nevertheless, stonings were reported in 2006 (a man and a woman, not officially confirmed),[22][23][25] 2007 (a man),[25][26][27][28] 2008 (three men, one unsuccessfully)[25][29][30] and 2009 (a man).[25][31][32][33] In 2010, a woman Sakineh Ashtiani had her stoning sentence suspended after an international campaign.[34]

In 2008, judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi said that stoning would be removed from the penal code in new legislation.[26] A draft revision of the law without stoning was prepared by the Judicial and Legal Commission of the Majlis by mid-2009, though commentators were in disagreement over whether it would make stoning impossible.[25][31]

So what you are saying is that it is OK if it is Iran doing the stoning.

what stoning?

Allahu Akbar as they say in some parts.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

If the location of the U.S fifth fleet is there to uphold domestic human rights which is measured as simplisticly as the majority sect ruling then perhaps it should move to Syria instead where the population is 75% Sunni ruled by Assad's Alawites who make up 15% of the population. I'm sure Iran would have even more of a hissy fit than they already are over Bahrain but I doubt such a move is in the offing as Bahrain is perfectly situated come the eventual inevitable war against your beloved Iran.

International transfers are already closed down.

Except to North Korea Communist China & Russia from whence all that material to make nuclear weapons & missles to deliver them.

Maybe that goes in suitcases. LOL.

Hey Obama. There are some people you could protect. Get out of Libya & start bombing Iran.

Then you could make a case for national security.

I'll drink to that.

Well that just isn't cricket.

Meanwhile back on topic what have we here? Possibly some good news as Islamic regimes will no longer be so able to use blasphemy allegations as a way of escaping discussion or criticism of their less than pristine human rights records.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/03/defamation_of_religion_defeate.php

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) welcomed the UN Human Rights Council's significant step away from the pernicious "defamation of religions" concept. Today, the Council adopted a resolution on religious intolerance that does not include this dangerous concept. The defamation concept undermines individual rights to freedom of religion and expression; exacerbates religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence; and provides international support for domestic blasphemy laws that often have led to gross human rights abuses. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has promoted this flawed concept at the United Nations for more than a decade.

Not that it changes much but the cognitive dissonance must have been too uncomfortable for even the OIC to bear.

Tragically, it took the assassinations of two prominent Pakistani officials who opposed that country's draconian blasphemy laws-Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salman Taseer-to convince the OIC that the annual defamation of religions resolutions embolden extremists rather than bolster religious harmony."

Al-Qaeda are indulging in the same wishful thinking as Iran trying to somehow connect all the woes of the Arab world with Israel, which represents 1/700th the land area of the middle east. They do demonstrate how despots and fundamentalist fanatics scapegoat Israel for their own reasons, the despots to divert attention from domestic affairs and Al-Qaeda to try and steer unrest to further their own holy war. Neither begin to address the rights of the people in the Countries in question, but there again neither do the western powers here in stirring up a hornets nest.

That's America where the majority of Muslims are secular or moderate. The OP is about Iran, and seeing as they were a major player in the Cairo declaration of human rights in Islam here is the Huff Post discussing this issue with respect to women in this case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nina-burleigh/egypt-and-the-universal-r_b_819178.html

We in the West should reconsider our own definition of the boundary between a cultural trait and a human rights violation, as it pertains to women. An extremist takeover of Egypt will be a disaster for Egyptian women, who must hope that the future will be better for their daughters than for them, and that whatever new society is being formed takes into account the universal - not just Western - human rights of women. The world and moderates among the Egyptian people must keep the human rights of women front and center in the discourse as they watch Cairo, and other Arab nations, transform themselves.

Different countries and cultures place 'severity of crime' on a different scale.

In some countries spitting gets a harsh sentence, in others it doesn't. We think some countries hand out far too severe penalties for what we consider relatively minor things.

We still have many aussies being caught in Bali with drugs. We think their sentences are far too harsh, including the death penalty, considering for some of the charges in our country they may only spend minimal time in jail.

That is not to say the penalties are wrong. They have different standards, different laws, different penalties. I am sure they think the same of our laws. So who are we to say they are wrong.

The trouble is that with radical Islam it's a one way street. They see it as their right to apply Sharia law everywhere as it recognises no borders, the sharia courts in the UK are one symptom of it, demands to try Quran burners for blasphemy or prosecute cartoon drawers are more telling evidence of this. Of course it does not work in the other direction with Islamic Countries rejecting the universal declaration of human rights.

What I find most nauseating is appologists for faschism bending over backwards not to criticise acts that they would have a field day criticizing Israel for. Human rights are universal, whether we intervene stopping kiddy fiddling on the Pitcairn Islands or stop cannibals eating people or shrinking heads we are right to do so, the myth of the noble savage is exactly that, a myth.

So what do you really think, no pussyfooting around for fear of upsetting anyone.

1) Should women a) be allowed to dress as they want. b ) have everything covered except both eyes. c)Only show one eye for fear of being provocative?

2) Should women a) Allowed to travel freely b ) Suffer sanctions for dishonouring their owner for straying too far c) have a gps monitor attached to a car battery which gives them a jolt if they exceed their permitted range?

3) Should women be a) Allowed to marry who they want. b ) Be forced to marry someone foisted on them, even if they themselves have not reached puberty and the husband to be is old enough to be their grandad.

4) Refusal to marry a family approved husband should result in a) Disappointment b ) death c) Disfigurement through having acid poured over their faces?

5) Should women be a) Free to pursue a sex life in the way men do. b ) Be genitally mutilated to satisfy the misogynistic psychopaths who decide what's right or wrong.

They are still light years away from Fatah and Hamas reaching agreement or indeed Hamas recognising Israel's right to exist so quite who you would confer authority to Fatah and certainly not Hamas seeing as they are a terrorist organisation. We then have the issue of what borders such a state would have.

What does it matter what you get executed for, different countries have different laws and different penalties for each. We are in no position to push our values on other countries. You know the laws and punishments, don't break them.

Isn't this what the OT is all about, Iran criticising a UN human rights resolution because of it's record in not respecting universal human rights?

So yes it does matter what you get executed for, infact it matters a lot if you can be executed for apostacy, homosexuality or adultery (that's if you're a woman) and of course everyone's personal favourite blasphamy, which means people are losing their lives for falling foul of a millenium year old piece of psychopathic fiction or being threatened with such for drawing cartoons.

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

fun facts

The United Nations Human Rights office is a central of the anti-Semites.

At least according to some sources:

"The worst example of how the UN is used by the anti-Semites rather than standing against them, is the Human Rights Council."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

Thanks for sharing, I wonder how they got that idea? Sorry it's youtube again wouldn't you love it to be banned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMNO9Ke7Uac&feature=related

Condell branded racist, Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Thanks for the second link, I recommend it to everyone it contains a link to the video which so upset the liberals at Berkeley who demonstrate that there is a strong corollation beteen the need to cow tow to fanatics and having no sense of humour whatsoever. Enjoy

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday approved a resolution for the appointment of a special human rights rapporteur for Iran. The motion received 22 votes in favor, seven against, and 14 abstentions.

Tehran called it an anti-Iran resolution. As expected.

Now hum your song about the superiority of the Western world and post more youtube videos with rants of hate by Pat Condell (whoever this old man is).

Ok if you insist seeing as he is actually talking of human rights and the UN here, enjoy as I sure as hell did. :jap:

Excellent links, not sure if you read them before posting.

You see the soldiers that did, were charged and convicted by Israel itself

Now please post a link where Hamas operatives were charged and convicted of using human shields by its own people or government

Well they would hardly charge and convict anyone carrying out their official policy would they now.