Two Iranian Youths Just Before Their Murder
I am not normally a vengeful man, but I would not hesitate for a moment to kill every person who ordered, was involved in, or sanctioned the murder of two young men in Iran on July 19. The thugs who did this all deserve death, without mercy. It’s unlikely in the extreme that I would ever have the chance to exact the justice that is called for, but I hope that I live long enough to see the photos of them hanging for what they have done to these two young men and to the rest of the population of Iran. More importantly, I hope that I live to see the day that such things are only terrible memories.
In the meantime, more details and how to write to the Iranian Ambassador to Canada are available here.
One of the Youths Being Taken to His Murder
Everything has context. Nothing happens out of the blue. Not even meteorites. Massive murder always has a context. This turns into a rationalization when it comes in the context of a discussion about whether large numbers of “fundamentalists” should be killed.
Your plea to “save my day” is best directed at “saddam.” He invokes Israel and calls for mass murder in the same breath.
Everything has context. Nothing happens out of the blue. Not even meteorites. Massive murder always has a context. This turns into a rationalization when it comes in the context of a discussion about whether large numbers of “fundamentalists” should be killed.
Your plea to “save my day” is best directed at “saddam.” He invokes Israel and calls for mass murder in the same breath.
Margo,
I don’t know how many need to die. In Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the numbers were quite high. But it was necessary. If you think WW2 was optional, then there’s really not much point carrying a dialogue with you.
But why don’t you tell me how you would solve the problem of the mullahs in iran killing innocent gay people for being gay. Or terrorists blowing up the tube in London. (The iranian gay youth and the british are not big supporters of israel, so you have to think of something else.)
Also, Margo, if the iranian executioners were atheists, would you be OK with killing them? If there was a big problem with atheist terrorists blowing stuff up, would you be OK with using force against them?
There was no need to wipe out two Japanese cities. Japan was ready to surrender. Roosevelt wanted “unconditional” surrender. Japan wanted to keep their emperor. As they did in the end anyway. A horrible waste of human life.
There are many problems. Not all have solutions. What you seek is a final solution. We all know where that leads.
Israel has nothing to do with it. Your belief that you can hide behind Israel and advance your idea of mass murder is obscene and an insult. You don’t know how many people you want to kill. All you know is that you want to kill a great many. I can only shake my head and wonder.
Margo, you brought up Israel first, I did not address the subject, except by saying that you ought to stop bashing Israel.
I answered your perfidious anti-american remark re: Hiroshima, saying that Hiroshima had to be put back into context.
That is all.
NV
Margo
History does not agree with your assessment of japan’s willingness to surrender but that’s beside the point. Many Japanese died well before the atom bombs were dropped, and you appear to accept those deaths as necessary.
I didn’t bring up Israel. Herr Heinrich did.
Yes, I want to kill a great many islamic fundamentalists, as per my definition of that term above. I want to kill them before they kill more innocent people, like the gay kids in Iran, the people in Sharm el Sheikh, London, the World Trade Center, Luxor, Bali, and yes, Israel, many of whom were muslim and all of whom were innocent.
If you believe force is unnecessary to stop the threat of terrorism and topple regimes such as iran’s, please tell us how you would more peacefully accomplish these objectives.
Margo
History does not agree with your assessment of japan’s willingness to surrender but that’s beside the point. Many Japanese died well before the atom bombs were dropped, and you appear to accept those deaths as necessary.
I didn’t bring up Israel. Herr Heinrich did.
Yes, I want to kill a great many islamic fundamentalists, as per my definition of that term above. I want to kill them before they kill more innocent people, like the gay kids in Iran, the people in Sharm el Sheikh, London, the World Trade Center, Luxor, Bali, and yes, Israel, many of whom were muslim and all of whom were innocent.
If you believe force is unnecessary to stop the threat of terrorism and topple regimes such as iran’s, please tell us how you would more peacefully accomplish these objectives.
Of course WW2 was optional, but that depends on your definition of optional. How far back are we going to go? Did the allies have to use their WWI victory to set the stage for WW2? Was it optional for us to vilify Germany and blame them entirely for WWI? Was it necessary to Nuke Japan TWICE in order to end WW2? Nothing is mandatory. There are always options. Saddam, you seem to have such a childish view of world events. Everything is so black and white. I personally would be slow to pronounce the deaths of millions as “necessary” whether that be past, present or future.
Heinrich brought up Israel first. He believes U.S. support for Israel contributes to the problem of terrorism. “Saddam” disagreed, and hid behind Israel to advance his crazy idea that someone must kill a great many “fundamentalists.” I disagreed with “saddam” and wrote that hiding behind Israel to call for massive murder is obscene. I’m sure you agree that no one in Israel wants this.
My English is not good enough: “perfidious”? I will have to go look it up. It doesn’t sound good whatever it means. I will repeat my view: there is no context that justifies Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a criminal act. If saying this is the new definition of “anti-American” then so be it.
So now not only is he known as Saddam but his other alias “history”. That’s very convenient because now he can say things like, “history doesn’t agree with you.” Doesn’t that just sound so smart? As if “history” were some objective science like physics where the facts are plain and their correct interpretation is clearly evident.
WW2 was black and white. The axis were bad. The allies were good. And it wasn’t an optional war once it started.
I agree that WW1 was idiotic and so was much of what led to WW2, but that’s beside the point. On Sept. 1, 1939, there was a war, and there were sides to take, just and evil.
Anyway, Aaron, please tell me what is your non-violent, peaceful resolution to the issue of islamic terrorism.
I must have asked this a thousand times on this thread. Nobody can answer. You can bash israel, you can bash america, you can re-argue WW2, you can put words in my mouth and accuse me of all kinds of craziness I have never endorsed….
but you cannot even credibly provide a non violent, non forceful solution to tyranny and terrorism.
“History does not agree with your assessment of japan’s willingness to surrender. . . .”
History does not “agree” or “disagree” with anything. Individuals *interpret* history. Some of them just skim it to find ways to “justify” their loathsome and destestable calls for mass murder.
Others, too cowardly to put their own names on their loathsome and detestable “ideas,” sign their moronic comments “saddam.”
JR
JR,
You find the concept of killing terrorists and using force to topple terrorist regimes “loathsome and detestable.”
Please share with us your non-violent, peaceful solution to the problem of terrorism and terrorist regimes.
Thanks
Saddam (who doesn’t need to be personally harrassed)
All of you responding to saddam realize he’s just a troll, right? I mean, what a stupid argument to have with someone that believes his superior intellect qualifies him to pronounce death on people he’s never met. Ignore him, it’s the best thing to do with a childish intellect. He’s not worth your time.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about WW2 being black and white and about it not being optional, even though I know “history” (saddam) will probably disagree with me. The whole problem with your argument about no one being able to give a solution to Islamic fundamentalism is that you assume that the necessity of such a “solution” is self-evident and that it’s our responsibility to provide it. How about we let the Iranians come up with their own solutions, and the Iraqis and anyone else who find themselves in a bind. You cannot possibly think that you can wipe out tyranny, or “terrorism” from off the face of the earth. They existed long before you decided you could eradicate them and they will exist long after you are gone. The U.S. military is not the savior of the world and when we try to make it so we only spawn resentment, more terrorism, more murder and we set the stage for further tyranny. Playing superhero and world savior may seem like a noble thing to some, but it is delusional and to the extent that this mentality succeeds in instigating violence, it is dangerous.
Yes, it is so obvious that non-violent means can stop terrorism and tyranny, it is best to ignore questions about such a tactic. And claim that someone who wants to use force against terrorism is endorsing genocide. Just repeate the lie often enough. Oh, and it’s israel’s fault. Whatever it is.
You all should go back to lew rockwell, where every outrageous act in the name of islam is israel’s fault, and any attempt to address the problem of terrorism is morally equivalent to terrorism.
Not to sound too trite, but it isn’t likely that the rest of you are going to make much of an impression on “Saddam.” Either you have a concept of sin or you do not. Some people are willing to defend the incineration of Japanese infants, or the annihilation of Baghdad or Palestinian apartment blocks, as a means to an end. Some of us are not. Civilization is not the result of some cosmic utilitarian calculation. It is the the fruit of love and decency.
Aaron,
Earlier in the thread, I addressed your concerns. Yes, we should probably not endeavor to go about the world eradicating evil. that would be foolish, and i am not a supporter of the war on iraq, which seems to be based on such wilsonian notions.
however, terrorism is a real problem, and so is iran. clearly something has to be done about that. something violent and bloody. not because i like blood and violence, but because there isn’t any other solution. meanwhile we get the tube bombings, the WTC, sharm el sheikh…..
this thread began with dr. palmer’s desire to do something to prevent this latest outrage from repeating itself. I think we should realize that in the case of iran, and islamic terrorism more generally, the problems do come looking for us when we don’t go over there and try to solve them proactively.
What brilliant analysis and intelligent commentary Saddam! If you want to stop terrorism at least come to terms with what it is. Islamic terrorism is a backlash against certain things. In order to be a backlash, there must be some original, perceived violation to lash back at. If you find out what that is and then remove it, you have the solution to terrorism. This is well known by anyone who really understands the terrorist threat, or who has a sound understanding of the history and nature of guerilla movements. Sure there will still be those with a terrorist agenda, but without the ammo given to them by U.S. (and other nation’s) foreign policy, they would be unable to recruit the lemmings necessary to threaten anyone.
What brilliant analysis and intelligent commentary Saddam! If you want to stop terrorism at least come to terms with what it is. Islamic terrorism is a backlash against certain things. In order to be a backlash, there must be some original, perceived violation to lash back at. If you find out what that is and then remove it, you have the solution to terrorism. This is well known by anyone who really understands the terrorist threat, or who has a sound understanding of the history and nature of guerilla movements. Sure there will still be those with a terrorist agenda, but without the ammo given to them by U.S. (and other nation’s) foreign policy, they would be unable to recruit the lemmings necessary to threaten anyone.
Aaron,
Osama Bin Laden, in justifying his terrorism, referred to the “tragedy of Andalusia.” He is upset about the loss of Spain in 1492. Are you suggesting we hand over Spain to islamic fundamentaliist rule (which, by the way, is not exactly how the moors had it, but that’s another quibble)?
In response to the London bombings, one of the crazy islamic clerics said he wanted to see the flag of islam on 10 downing street. Should we give them that, too?
You are advocating appeasment, appeasment of crazy demands. It didn’t work with the suedetnland and it isn’t going to work with Spain or England (or Israel, for that matter).
I agree with you that the things you mentioned are problems, but I sharply disagree with your solutions. Why be selecive? What about the gross human rights violations going on in China, Myanmar, Vietnam, or any number of African countries? A “proactive” approach as you mentioned is just imperialism disguised and it would have the opposite effect from what you intend (just as is occurring in Iraq right now.) People do not want to be occupied or invaded regardless of how pure their invaders motives appear to be. Doing so would increase terrorist attacks and worsen the problem, not solve it.
when the burmese regime slams jetliners into our office buildings, we’ll have to think about it.
the WTC terrorists, by the way, just like the london terrorists, were educated and middle class. They were motivated by ideology and religious fanaticism — not poverty or lack of education. their actions are not some sort of rational, if extreme, reaction within our system of logic. you cannot reason with them or attempt to satisfy them in the hopes they won’t bug you. that’s just naive.
i don’t know anything about the iranian executioners in this case, but it is hard to believe there is anything the west can do to convince them to stop killing innocent kids for being gay.
“I don’t know anything about the iranian executioners in this case, but it is hard to believe there is anything the west can do to convince them to stop killing innocent kids for being gay.”
Exactly
“I don’t know anything about the iranian executioners in this case, but it is hard to believe there is anything the west can do to convince them to stop killing innocent kids for being gay.”
Exactly
….which is why, given Iran’s active subversion of other nations and their support for global terrorism, we should work to topple its regime, even if the humanitarian impulse to interve is insufficient (and I’m not saying it is, but that’s another debate altogether).
Islamic fundamentalists are people who believe in following the Koran literally.
Some Islamic fundamentalists are involved in terrorist attacks on civilians.
Some of the terrorist attacks on civilians are “suicide attacks.”
Didn’t anyone read the story about the Yemeni cleric who convinced a who bunch of terrorists that they were wrong–and they changed their ways? He used the Koran. He, and they, were all Islamic fundamentalists.
Now, I am pretty sure that Islamic fundamentalists do believe that men convicted of having sex with one another are supposed to be executed. That is, the Koran calls for that punishment for that crime.
Check Sistani’s website. Maybe he gives his line on executing gay people.
Anyone read Sistani’s line on the Palestian issue? According to Sistani, Palestians have a right to return to every bit of their private property that they evacuated as refugees. I guess Islamic law just doesn’t have room for the spoils of war (for nonMuslims) or else some notion that there is plenty of Muslim land, let them live there.
Israel, and U.S. support of Israel, will always be a sore point with Islamic fundamentalists.
If the U.S. stopped supporting Israel, Islamic fundamentalists would not stop favoring the persecution of gay people. What they would do, is have less reason to care about the U.S.
We have plenty of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. Most of them don’t advocate suicide terrorist attacks on civilians. Most of them don’t advocate executing men who have sex with one another (though the Bible does order that punishment.)
Some, oddly enough, do advocate terror bombings on civilians. Not suicide bombings, but rather using missles and planes. Say, for example, Muslims. You know, on the ground that some claiming to be devout Muslims have committed suicide terrorist attacks on civilians, so terror bombing attacks against cities that are mostly Muslim are justified.
While I don’t believe that most people in Charleston are fundamentalist Christians, there are plenty. I would hate to have my city bombed to get at the fundamentalist Christians. You know, for all their errors, they aren’t all bad people.
“JR,
“You find the concept of killing terrorists and using force to topple terrorist regimes ‘loathsome and detestable.’
“Please share with us your non-violent, peaceful solution to the problem of terrorism and terrorist regimes.
“Thanks
“Saddam (who doesn’t need to be personally harrassed)”
Dear Moron:
There is no “solution” to the problem of terrorism. Grow up and get a life.
JR
jews returning to israel is not “spoils of war.” and the arabs aren’t interested in recovering lost property. why didn’t the palestinians get the west bank when jordan had it? why didn’t they get gaza when egypt had it?
If you want to talk about spoils of war, let’s have a conversation with the cherokee, sioux, aztecs….
mr. woolsey, i also gave a very different definition of islamic fundamentalists than you are giving. I have no problem with moslems, no matter how devout. The word fundamentalists refers to those who wage holy war.
Oh, you crazy Americans …
Germany, sweet land of the judges and hangmen
Everybody has condemned the execution of two teenagers in Iran. Everybody? No, there’s one exception: Europe’s biggest newspaper, the German tabloid “BILD“. On July 27 it featured the following story:
Translation:
Here two…