Support the right to free speech

David Maschke

17 years ago

Done.

Thanks for sharing, Paul.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[900913].message }}

Paul Myers 17 years ago

David,

Thanks. Even if it doesn't slow them down, it will show them that a lot of people are watching, and care enough to say so.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[900959].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

Also of importance.........if you retweet anything about Iran, do NOT retweet the @username.
RT and the message only --

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903000].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

our right to free speech doesnt mean anything in iran

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903337].message }}

Paul Myers 17 years ago

our right to free speech doesnt mean anything in iran

Did I say anything about "our" or "your?"

Read first. Then respond.
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903411].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

they dont have a right to free speech is my point. you cant support what doesnt exist.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903413].message }}

Paul Myers 17 years ago

they dont have a right to free speech is my point. you cant support what doesnt exist.

It would seem, from long history, that they have that right legally until they cross certain lines. Lines that are defined by authoritarian egos.

That aside, I believe that everyone has the right to peacefully express their opinions. I hold that such a right is natural, and owned by every human being, regardless of the laws of their country of residence. Hence the choice of the word "the" in the subject line.

If you believe that rights exist only as a function of law, I would suggest that you consider the logical flaw in your premise. Under what "right" do people establish and maintain governments?

Paul
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903445].message }}
- Paul Myers 17 years ago
  
  Don't thank me. Thank Sal, who's the one who alerted me to the idea.
  
  BTW, Sal, I think it's an excellent idea to include the original Tweeter's name IF you know they don't live in Iran. Add to the noise that might consume their time, and further show the extent of support for the people there.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903452].message }}
  
  ThomM 17 years ago
  
  Changing your time zone and location on Twitter may or may not have the desired results, but at the very least it shows the Iranian people they have our support.
  Here's a site I found that may be of interest Why We Protest - IRAN
  I also read on Twitter that Google Earth is working on getting updated satellite images of Iran so far they are up to June 18 and are working on newer images with better clarity.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903527].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 17 years ago
  
  Thom,
  
  Changing your time zone and location on Twitter may or may not have the desired results, but at the very least it shows the Iranian people they have our support.
  
  Bingo.
  
  ALL of the Iranian people. If the incumbent actually won a majority, under the rules for elections in Iran, then he is the one who should hold the office. If not, then not. The political preferences of people outside of Iran are irrelevant to that question.
  
  For me, this is about politics only to the extent that politics affect basic human rights. It's certainly not about partisan issues.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903561].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

they dont have a right to free speech is my point. you cant support what doesnt exist.

We founded a country off of Britain based on the idea that all people had inalienable rights. Someone from Iran has the same rights as a human being as I do.

If their government doesn't recognize basic concepts like a person being able to express their opinion, it doesn't mean the right isn't there.

If you were a slave, you would believe in getting back your liberty as YOUR right even if it was never granted to you by the government.

With your attitude something like America, women's movements, abolitionist movements, etc. would never have happened cause no one would ever want more than what their government granted them. I believe I own myself and my words more than a state and believe the same for those oppressed in Iran.

If you enjoy being submitted to a government no matter the abuse, go right ahead.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903498].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

We founded a country off of Britain based on the idea that all people had inalienable rights. Someone from Iran has the same rights as a human being as I do.

If their government doesn't recognize basic concepts like a person being able to express their opinion, it doesn't mean the right isn't there.

Actually, yes it does. Contrary to popular belief, there are no 'god given' rights. 'Rights' are a legal concept. You need to have a government to provide laws. So if the government doesnt give you that 'right', then you dont have it in that country, regardless of what people in the u.s. think. Go to china, bitch about their government then tell them of your right to free speech, see how that works out for ya.

If you were a slave, you would believe in getting back your liberty as YOUR right even if it was never granted to you by the government.

With your attitude something like America, women's movements, abolitionist movements, etc. would never have happened cause no one would ever want more than what their government granted them. I believe I own myself and my words more than a state and believe the same for those oppressed in Iran.

If you enjoy being submitted to a government no matter the abuse, go right ahead.

You can get off that soapbox anytime you want. Iran isnt the u.s., never will be. They are ruled by Islam.

I personally dont give a crap what happens to iranians or their government. These are the same people that held u.s. hostages for over a year in the late 70s, are currently building a nucler weapons facility while telling the un security council that israel and the u.s. need to be wiped off the map. They wouldn't give a crap about the u.s., so i'm really not losing any sleep about their fate.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903571].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Actually, yes it does. Contrary to popular belief, there are no 'god given' rights. 'Rights' are a legal concept. You need to have a government to provide laws. So if the government doesnt give you that 'right', then you dont have it in that country, regardless of what people in the u.s. think. Go to china, bitch about their government then tell them of your right to free speech, see how that works out for ya.

You can get off that soapbox anytime you want. Iran isnt the u.s., never will be. They are ruled by Islam.

I personally dont give a crap what happens to iranians or their government. These are the same people that held u.s. hostages for over a year in the late 70s, are currently building a nucler weapons facility while telling the un security council that israel and the u.s. need to be wiped off the map. They wouldn't give a crap about the u.s., so i'm really not losing any sleep about their fate.

So when it was legal to rape a bride to be without her consent it was that ok?
So when it was legal to own a slave it was that ok?
So when it was legal to tell people with Black skin they couldn't do this or that it was ok?

So if we as a state decide you personally have no rights, is that ok?
Do you honestly think that a group of people like the government can own you, your liberty, and your property more than you do? You think you have no claims to things like you life or liberty or property regardless of the establishment of government or not?

Did EVERY Iranian hold hostages? Did every Iranian say they wanted to hurt the USA? Are the children in Iran who happened to be born there recently responsible for the sins of the 70s? So these kids are the same people? What did they ever do to you?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903654].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

So when it was legal to rape a bride to be without her consent it was that ok?

It wasnt against the law

So when it was legal to own a slave it was that ok?

It wasnt against the law

So when it was legal to tell people with Black skin they couldn't do this or that it was ok?

It wasnt against the law.

And this makes my point. Those changes and the actions tha followed were due to law. Law is created by the government, therefore everything that comes from the law is dictated by the government. If you have a freedom, its because the government gave it to you in t heir country..dont like it? move out of their country or take it over. But just because you're sucking air doesnt give you a 'right' to anything everywhere.

People in the west and america are stupid. Our laws dont stretch around the globe, and thats why people hate us so much, because we think they do and thats what has us sticking our noses into places that we shouldnt be. Worry about whats going on inside your own borders, then if you have a little free time, you can worry about the people that would just as soon kill you as to look at you.

So if we as a state decide you personally have no rights, is that ok?
Do you honestly think that a group of people like the government can own you, your liberty, and your property more than you do? You think you have no claims to things like you life or liberty or property regardless of the establishment of government or not?

NOT OUTSIDE THE U.S. Is this really that hard to understand? LIfe liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a concept set forth in THIS country, not EVERY country. There's a reason people are killing themselves to get here.

Did EVERY Iranian hold hostages? Did every Iranian say they wanted to hurt the USA? Are the children in Iran who happened to be born there recently responsible for the sins of the 70s? So these kids are the same people? What did they ever do to you?

they havent had the chance to do anything to me...yet. And hopefully wont get it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903694].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

It wasnt against the law

I didn't ask it wasn't against the law. I asked if it was right.

If you want to agree with a system that under the law anything is ok this could include hatred of black people, rape of women, and slavery, that's your choice to agree with it. I think it's sick.

There are many things that are legal that are fairly sick and twisted especially historically. So legality is a poor form of saying that something is acceptable.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903742].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

I didn't ask it wasn't against the law. I asked if it was right.

If you want to agree with a system that under the law anything is ok this could include hatred of black people, rape of women, and slavery, that's your choice to agree with it. I think it's sick.

There are many things that are legal that are fairly sick and twisted especially historically. So legality is a poor form of saying that something is acceptable.

Its easy to sit here, hundreds of years later and say 'it was wrong'.

I wasnt there, neither were you, i really couldnt say if it was right or wrong for the time.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903761].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Its easy to sit here, hundreds of years later and say 'it was wrong'.

I wasnt there, neither were you, i really couldnt say if it was right or wrong for the time.

Well I guess we won't agree.

I think rape is always unacceptable.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903768].message }}

ThomM

17 years ago

I personally dont give a crap what happens to iranians or their government. These are the same people that held u.s. hostages for over a year in the late 70s, are currently building a nucler weapons facility while telling the un security council that israel and the u.s. need to be wiped off the map. They wouldn't give a crap about the u.s., so i'm really not losing any sleep about their fate.

Well we are the same people who helped overthrow their government back then and installed the Shah who was a U.S. puppet, gee can't imagine why they where pissed at us.
There is a reason many people around the world hate us.
When we step into another country and try to dictate to them how they should live and install leaders who then rape their country they should be pissed at us.

Those people who you aren't losing sleep over are no more responsible for what their government is doing then you or I are responsible for what ours does. The big difference is they are willing to lay down their lives to change it, are you?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903677].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Well we are the same people who helped overthrow their government back then and installed the Shah who was a U.S. puppet, gee can't imagine why they where pissed at us.
There is a reason many people around the world hate us.
When we step into another country and try to dictate to them how they should live and install leaders who then rape their country they should be pissed at us.

Those people who you aren't losing sleep over are no more responsible for what their government is doing then you or I are responsible for what ours does. The big difference is they are willing to lay down their lives to change it, are you?

Thats the great thing about living in a country that doesnt reside in the 19th century. We have a democracy (sort of)...i can vote people out of office. Sorry that they cant do the same...not my problem.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903705].message }}

Thomas

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

So if the government doesnt give you that 'right', then you dont have it in that country

That isn't true.

As an Irish citizen, I have many rights that supercede the power of the Irish State. It (the State) doesn't "give" them to me. I acquired them by the simple act of being born as a human being. And the State has no power to ever remove them, a fact acknowledged by the State itself, viz...

1. Bunreacht na hEireann (the Irish Constitution) says that the Irish people possess a number of "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law." In fact, it is the authority of the people that gives the State its right to exist in the first place, in that it begins "We, the people of Ireland ... do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

2.The "Proclamation of the Irish Republic", a document that ultimately led to war with the British Empire and the foundation of the Irish State, says "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people."

If you look at most countries, you'll find that even repressive states acknowledge that people do have natural rights that supercede the power of the State.

I'm pretty sure that your own country is no different: similar to my own country, the first 6 words of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the American State, tells you were the power to create the Constitution came from in the first place, viz: "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Tommy.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905002].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas

1. Bunreacht na hEireann (the Irish Constitution) says .

Stopped reading right there, you just proved my point. The Irish constitutioni says

The irish constitution lays out the parameters of law that gives you inalienable rights, just like the u.s. constituion. without that framework, you got nada

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905077].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Stopped reading right there, you just proved my point. The Irish constitutioni says

The irish constitution lays out the parameters of law that gives you inalienable rights, just like the u.s. constituion. without that framework, you got nada

The point is without a government before the Irish constitution was put onto paper and agreed upon these people HAD rights to form a government. This is a right that existed outside of government. Therefore the notion that individuals have rights outside a government or in spite of a government isn't some far fetched idea.

If people don't have rights outside of government, by what right do they form a government?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905121].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

The point is without a government before the Irish constitution was put onto paper and agreed upon these people HAD rights to form a government. This is a right that existed outside of government. Therefore the notion that individuals have rights outside a government or in spite of a government isn't some far fetched idea.

If people don't have rights outside of government, by what right do they form a government?

Nobody inherently has a right to form a government. I believe ireland had to take that right from the U.K.

We had to fight the english. Its not a right that is just given...it has to be earned by more than just being born and breathing

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905177].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Nobody inherently has a right to form a government. I believe ireland had to take that right from the U.K.

We had to fight the english. Its not a right that is just given...it has to be earned by more than just being born and breathing

So by what rights did the first government ever form if an individual does not have right to form a government?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905182].message }}

Paul Myers 17 years ago

I'm curious... How many people reading this can explain the concept of a "social contract" clearly, and does anyone here grok the connection between that, the formation of a government, and the protection of individual rights?

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905199].message }}

Thomas

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Stopped reading right there, you just proved my point. The Irish constitutioni says

The irish constitution lays out the parameters of law that gives you inalienable rights, just like the u.s. constituion. without that framework, you got nada

No, it's an acknowledgement of the rights that existed before the Constitution (and, thus, before the State) did. Note that it states these rights are "antecedent and superior to all positive law". In simpler terms, they existed prior to, and are superior to, all human-made law (which includes the Constitution itself).

Inalienable rights is just another name for natural rights, which are rights not contingent on the laws of a particular society or polity. They exist anyway. If they didn't exist, the Constitution (of Ireland, or the U.S., or anywhere else) wouldn't exist, because they created those Constitutions... not the other way round.

Tommy.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905201].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, it's an acknowledgement of the rights that existed before the Constitution (and, thus, before the State) did. Note that it states these right are "antecedent and superior to all positive law". In simpler terms, they existed prior to, and are superior to, all human-made law (which includes the Constitution itself).

Inalienable rights is just another name for natural rights, which, are rights not contingent on the laws of a particular society or polity. They exist anyway. It is not the Irish, or U.S. (or any other) Constitution that created these rights... it is these rights that created those Constitutions and, thus, created those States.

Tommy.

You didnt know you had inalienable or natural rights until the constitution told you.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905205].message }}

Paul Myers

17 years ago

You didnt know you had inalienable or natural rights until the constitution told you.

You've made some statements here that demonstrate a truly frightening perspective on human beings. This one, however, can be commented on in a purely logical fashion: How did the authors of various documents founding governments, or religious and philosophical figures going back thousands of years, develop the same ideas?

Hint: They didn't get them from Constitutions...

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905239].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

You've made some statements here that demonstrate a truly frightening perspective on human beings. This one, however, can be commented on in a purely logical fashion: How did the authors of various documents founding governments, or religious and philosophical figures going back thousands of years, develop the same ideas?

Hint: They didn't get them from Constitutions...

Paul

And yet going back thousands of years, not every country's people has the same rights given to them.

How could that be if everyone had the same ideas? If everyone had 'equal' rights as a birthright, why is it every country isnt like the u.s.?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905273].message }}

Paul Myers 17 years ago

And yet going back thousands of years, not every country's people has the same rights given to them.

Right.

Go back and re-read the question. There's a Very Big Clue in it to answer that question.

Edit: The relevant question is in my post preceding the one you've quoted here. My mistake.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905283].message }}

Fernando Veloso

17 years ago

Thanks for the heads up Paul. These guys really need help right now, serious issues going on there with lots of oppression on the streets.

Michael, iranian people use twitter to get the truth out. We can help them right now. Thats the whole point.

Thanks

Signature

People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903435].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

but you think that now. You cant say you would think that back then when it was the norm.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[903777].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

You can't support what doesn't exist.

Humans are here and subject to the laws of biology - we are "real"
Communication is an instinct - it is hardwired right into the brain.

Government is not real - it is an ideaology. It does not exist ABOVE us or WITHOUT us. It cannot exist without our joint consent.

You will never kill a "government" in the woods. You will never run over one in your car - or drink with one in a bar, Michael. You have your sense of reality backwards.

IF we can illegalize an instinct - why stop at that point of biology? Why not just add restrictions on water, oxygen, and food, too - hey, if it's a LAW...................

Do you realize that following your arguments that a logically based valid conclusion would follow that we had no right to fight to stop Hitler because he was not on American soil? Another valid conclusion that can be drawn from your argument is that He and his regime were just fine and justified in rounding up millions and slaughtering them. Don't shoot the messenger - it was you who constructed the argument. Do a bit of reverse quantum engineering on your arguments before you give them and you might be surprised what you are saying sometimes.

The Iranian people are outraged because they believe their laws have been broken by their president to keep a position against the will of the majority of the people. They went into the streets in droves to say so. All they wanted was an investigation and recount. Had this tyrant (Iranian words) legally and rightfully gained his position do you think he'd have a problem with that?

He did have a problem with it......... For insisting on their rights - they are being arrested, beaten, and killed. Their right to communicate - and instinct - was cut off to every extent their questioned leader can muster. He is willing to become a danger to the lives and rights of those who stand to demand justice - justice under their OWN CONSTITUTION for his own selfish whims.

So you don't care - many do. I, for one, do and will help them in any way I can do so. These people want to be heard - I will help them be heard. At this point in time the whole world is hearing - and, thanks to the Interenet we are able to hear straight from them rather than from bought and paid for puppets speaking "oh their behalf". Sure there are trolls, but the real voices are coming through. Because these voices are coming through and the whole world is watching - the investigation on the election is being done. The Guardian Committee has found in a sample of 10% of the votes, 3 million are fake. How many would that be in the whole total?

We are not taking guns and tanks in there and telling them how to run their show. We are witnessing, showing support for, and giving aid to those who fight to remain free themselves - in accordance to their own constitution. As this regime has shown willingness to kill its own people when they speak and evidence is proving the protesters are correct in their accusations of election fraud, the situation may escalate.

I believe, we need to support these people from a government who turned on them just as we supported those in tyranny under Hitler. If we do not do so, if our own Government should turn on us - we will have NO aid, nor right to any.

Sleep tight, don't worry - After all, it could never happen here. We're SPECIAL.

BTW - Paul, yes by all means if you KNOW the person you are RTing use the @ but be careful when doing so. Some people are also running false @ posts just to confuse the regime. One warrior is making posts that she is IN Iran and asking friends to join her places for coffee for example.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904324].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

.

I believe, we need to support these people from a government who turned on them just as we supported those in tyranny under Hitler. If we do not do so, if our own Government should turn on us - we will have NO aid, nor right to any.

.

And we wont get any either, especially not from Iran. Your allegiances are misguided. You want to help people would not do the same for you.

we are not all brothers and sisters around the world. we wont all stand around a campfire and sing kum by yah.

Let them handle their own, if they are strong enough, they will survive, if not, then allah will accept them and give them their virgins or whatever and we'll have that many less people to worry about attacking us. Its a win win for everyone

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904399].message }}

Wakunahum 17 years ago

I think HeySal makes a great point.

We may philosophically debate on rights, where they come from, and what not, but this is a situation where those who are supposed to be executing the laws are being unlawful.

Surely these people have a right to have their laws executed properly and fairly according to the rules set forth. Law has to be lawful else it becomes illegitimate. The government is supposed to obey the laws as well. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to wonder why people are outraged in Iran when the law isn't lawful.

It's not really up for debate that the current administration has been fudging some things. Example: the photoshopped pictures of the large crowd they made up showing support to the president.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904475].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

My allegiances are not misguided - but very different from yours because I am thinking at the level of people, not governments. Governments to me are fictional constructs that only exist by consent.
Unfortunately, sometimes the only consent for it is that of the people who control the governments. Humans are flawed and no matter how great the ideaology of the government is, once it gets into human hands you will find corruption and abuse.

You may or may not be right that Iranians would not aid us - depending on which level you are looking at the situation from.

If you are speaking about governments marching, I think you are correct. Our government officials have chosen not to support the Iranians physcially, but does denounce the actions of their leader against his people, legally elected or not. I believe that you are correct in the assumption that the Iranian representatives would not march on the US either. I can't imagine it ever supporting us in anything that wasn't of direct benefit for itself. However, I think you are wrong that Iranians themselves would not help us keep communication channels open if we as a group found the need for it.

WE, as individuals, are not marching on Iran's government either. We really haven't the means individually to do so. But as Individuals we are coming to the aid of their people by providing communication to them wherever and however we can do so. We are offering camoflage as we can for the people so they won't be brutalized for standing up for their own rights against a government which is taking them against their will. We are doing so because we stand for the same principles for which they fight. I believe, also firmly, that the Iranian people will do the same for us as their ability allows if the situation ever becomes reversed. Whatever Khamani's feelings about the US, his people actually like us.

I think that in this era of technology people have come to know others around the world personally on individual levels and have much more understanding of the fact that governments don't always act according to their people's wishes. In the instance of Iran, individuals from many countries have the ability to do something for those fighting for the very same thing we want for ourselves and we are, for the first time in history, able to offer individual aid whether our gov decides to participate or not. It is a fascinating development.

I can understand Obama's delema. He is supportive of the people, yet hesitant to put our foot into it because of the possibility the world would see us as policing others wrongly. It's a sticky situation that I would not wish on anyone. Right now any wrong move can cause backlashes world wide. The last thing any citizen of any country wants is a world war. I firmly believe if it is proven that this man stole his election, which looks very likely now, that if the Iranians can't dispose him themselves, that there will be international aid to do so. From statements coming from other governments I think I have support for that belief.

I also think that after his actions of violence against peaceful protesters and against journalists, and his shut down of communications that even if he were to stay in power that someone will either kill him or the violence against his people will just continue to escalate until other countries do step in on their behalf. I have no proof of that statement - just my gut feeling.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904554].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Let someone else step in in their behalf. Its not our job.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904627].message }}

Wakunahum 17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Let someone else step in in their behalf. Its not our job.

There is no OUR here.

HeySal is saying that she as an individual is choosing to get involved while you as an individual are choosing to not get involved. You both can do what you want.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904680].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

keep this in mind...

A wandering dog came upon a swift stream where stood a scorpion that wanted to cross. The scorpion asked the dog if he would swim across the stream with the scorpion on his back.
"But you'll sting me", replied the dog.
"No I won't", said the scorpion. "And I would greatly appreciate the help you have given
me".
"OK", replied the good natured dog. "Crawl up onto my back and I will take you across to
the other side".
So the scorpion crawls up onto the dog's back and the dog swims him safely across. Upon
reaching dry ground on the other side of the stream the scorpion promptly stings the dog.
"Why did you do that?", the dog gasped as he lay dying.
"Hey, I'm a scorpion - what do you expect?", replied the scorpion.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904752].message }}

Kay King 17 years ago

But isn't that what true freedom is?

The right to do what you want - to support causes you choose to support - to help where you choose to help?

When you reach into the past to find arguments to prove your point that your view is the right one and a person disagreeing is wrong - or bad - or heartless....are you exercising your freedom - or stepping on someone else's?

If you want to show support for the people of Iran, this is one good way to do it. If you choose not to, you have that right.

I'm torn on the issue as I do care what happens and have close friends who are Iranian. But I don't want the US to be seen as exerting any influence on the the protests as it could damage the protestor's cause. People helping people is fantastic - govts need to remain quiet.

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
https://www.pawsofwar.org/
2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904796].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

Which is what ours has chosen to do at this time. Our, and other Governments have expressed disgust with Khamani for killing and beating citizens who were protesting peacefully for their rights to have an honest election. But we surely can't be expected to barge in on their behalf when it has yet to even be proven that Khamani indeed rig the elections. The Guardian Council is now investigating the situation. It is looking very solid that the election was rigged and Khamani may not be the rightful leader. But if it does turn out that he is not, it is the Guardian Council's right to remove him. It is not yet anything to do with us at that level.

IF the Guardian Council were to find that Khamani is not the rightful leader or decides that his violence against his people warrants his removal and the guy refuses to be relieved of office, then you may hear the Council call for aid. Until that time it is not something that ANY government has the right to interfer with.

THose of us who are helping Iranians communicate are doing so because we believe in the right of these people to protest when they think an injustice has been done to them without having to risk their lives to do so.

We aren't asking that our troops be hauled in there or war be declared. If these protesters turn out to be wrong, then it is up to them to change their people's minds enough to get someone else elected or to have their Council remove this one. But to see people beaten and killed for asking that a recount be done is just more than many of us can watch without aiding them to make their voices heard.

Michael - yep, a snake will bite and a scorpion will sting -- and an angel will grant mercy. What's your point?

Hey, Michael. Did you know in 79 I was living with a Lebanese man? It was fun - all those rude comments, death threats, rocks thrown at the house. A total little laugh riot all of its own. But then, gee why would it have been different? They all look alike, after all, don't they?

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[904971].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Because it was only a matter of time before someone figured out that if he had enough buddies, or enough rocks to throw, or sticks to beat everyone else down, that hey could make the rules.

Once that gov't was 'formed' any 'right' that people had after that was granted by the govt.

If you want to test your theory that everyone is born with 'rights', take a copy of the constitution and a pistol, go to russia, or china or any of the lovely muslim countries we are currently playing with, and head on over to their country. When they take your pistol, tell them its your right to bear arms. When they tell you to shut up, you can explain your right to free speech, and after a couple months of sitting in jail, explain to them your right to a speedy trial.

let me know how that works out for you.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905203].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Because it was only a matter of time before someone figured out that if he had enough buddies, or enough rocks to throw, or sticks to beat everyone else down, that hey could make the rules.

Once that gov't was 'formed' any 'right' that people had after that was granted by the govt.

If you want to test your theory that everyone is born with 'rights', take a copy of the constitution and a pistol, go to russia, or china or any of the lovely muslim countries we are currently playing with, and head on over to their country. When they take your pistol, tell them its your right to bear arms. When they tell you to shut up, you can explain your right to free speech, and after a couple months of sitting in jail, explain to them your right to a speedy trial.

let me know how that works out for you.

So might makes right no matter the circumstances as long as we have bigger sticks and larger stones to throw and use against the weaker?

So if someone from another nation with more force (more sticks and stones) hurt you or your family, then that's acceptable since might makes right?

If I voluntarily under my own free will enter a country, I am entering under the agreement I'm following their rules. Therefore I am using my RIGHTS as an individual to agree to enter their country and obey the laws. This is something I am doing myself as my own choice and is not imposed on me. I have submitted my rights to their state as long as I'm there. As someone with ethics, I am going to honor my agreement that I made when going into their country therefore if I break the rules, it's my fault as I did this to myself if I'm stuck in prison for years and years.

On the other hand if a country kidnaps me and forces me to be in their country and detain me, I would argue that they are violating my rights regardless if I'm part of a state or not as I didn't enter into an agreement to go there and obey it's laws.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905250].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

So might makes right no matter the circumstances as long as we have bigger sticks and larger stones to throw and use against the weaker?

Yes. You live by that very premise even in this day and age, you just don't realize it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905281].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Yes. You live by that very premise even in this day and age, you just don't realize it.

So if I'm out in international waters with a child and kill them outside the borders of any government, that's ok?

Might really makes right?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905284].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

So if I'm out in international waters with a child and kill them outside the borders of any government, that's ok?

Might really makes right?

stretching pretty far aren't ya hoss?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905308].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

stretching pretty far aren't ya hoss?

Please answer the question. Is it right for me to kill this child?

edit: You were the one that agreed that might made right regardless of the circumstances.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905315].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

Please answer the question. Is it right for me to kill this child?

edit: You were the one that agreed that might made right regardless of the circumstances.

Legally..no, morally...for most, no.

But when it comes right down to the abstract 'argument' between you, who says the child will die, and the child, that likely holds the opposite view, your physical strength (read:might) says your point of view will win out over the child's.

so yeah..might makes right.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905340].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Legally..no, morally...for most, no.

But when it comes right down to the abstract 'argument' between you, who says the child will die, and the child, that likely holds the opposite view, your physical strength (read:might) says your point of view will win out over the child's.

so yeah..might makes right.

So for most it's immoral which would mean for some it's moral.

So for some it's moral? Killing children through the use of force is for some moral?

Are you trolling me by advocating that for some killing this child is moral???

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905354].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

So for most it's immoral which would mean for some it's moral.

So for some it's moral? Killing children through the use of force is for some moral?

Are you trolling me by advocating that for some killing this child is moral???

No, i'm just casually being amused by the paths you go off on during this little conversation.

Ok, i'll play along.

Well obviously some people in the world don't have an issue with it, or children wouldnt get killed, but they do.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905377].message }}

Wakunahum

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

No, i'm just casually being amused by the paths you go off on during this little conversation.

Ok, i'll play along.

Well obviously some people in the world don't have an issue with it, or children wouldnt get killed, but they do.

If you want to believe in systems where might makes right, go right ahead.

If you want to say that since some people in the world don't have a problem killing children then that's a justification to kill children, go right ahead.

I think it's sick.

How is it not universally wrong every single time a child is murdered? How is it sometimes right to murder a child and sometimes wrong?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905393].message }}

Michael Motley 17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

If you want to believe in systems where might makes right, go right ahead.

its just nature. sort of similar to law of the jungle

If you want to say that since some people in the world don't have a problem killing children then that's a justification to kill children, go right ahead.

I didnt say that, you're pulling that out of your own mind

I think it's sick.

How is it not universally wrong every single time a child is murdered? How is it sometimes right to murder a child and sometimes wrong?

It is universally wrong, to most people.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905429].message }}
- Wakunahum 17 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Motley
  
  It is universally wrong, to most people.
  
  With a statement like this there really is no point in debating you since it's a total contradiction.
  
  Thanks
  
  3 replies
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905432].message }}
  
  Michael Motley 17 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Wakunahum
  
  With a statement like this there really is no point in debating you since it's a total contradiction.
  
  Its not a contradiction, its just the truth. Maybe in your myopic view of the world there is only black and white, but thats not the way everyone looks at the world.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905437].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 17 years ago
  
  With a statement like this there really is no point in debating you since it's a total contradiction.
  
  No, it's not. He's saying that most people consider it universally wrong. That's true. It's also true that some people do not consider it wrong to kill a child. Some people don't consider it wrong to kill anyone. (These people usually don't consider anything "wrong.")
  
  As far as the question of whether it's legal or not, you'd need to check maritime law. I believe that murder on the high seas is covered.
  
  It's okay to disagree with the guy (I do, and pretty strongly), but we should be careful to try and make sure we understand his positions accurately before doing so.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905493].message }}
  
  Kay King 17 years ago
  
  There are basic human rights many of us accept without any instruction from any government.
  
  This is a ridiculous argument to me - people are so busy proving they're right they aren't listening to what the other person is saying or attempting to understand another point of view.
  
  kay
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  https://www.pawsofwar.org/
  2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905512].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 17 years ago
  
  You are right. It is a total contradiction.
  
  Originally Posted by Wakunahum
  
  With a statement like this there really is no point in debating you since it's a total contradiction.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905581].message }}
  
  pcalvert 17 years ago
  
  I was going to jump into the "discussion," but then I remembered this quote:
  
  "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
  administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
  
  Phil
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "If a cat sits on a hot stove, that cat won't sit on a hot stove again.
  That cat won't sit on a cold stove either." - Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[906104].message }}

Thomas 17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Nobody inherently has a right to form a government. I believe ireland had to take that right from the U.K.

Ireland didn't "take" that right from the British. They (the Irish people) already had it; the war was to end the usurpation of that right, not to acquire it. That's specifically what was being referred to in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic when it said: "The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people."

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

If everyone had 'equal' rights as a birthright, why is it every country isnt like the u.s.?

Most countries are, in that, while they might not say it in the same way, they acknowledge the same thing those who drafted the American Declaration of Independence did when they said that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Tommy.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905472].message }}

CDarklock

17 years ago

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

Are you trolling me by advocating that for some killing this child is moral???

In some situations, some people would consider killing some children moral. It depends on the situation, the person, and the child.

Imagine that you are without sufficient food. Some people would choose to die of starvation themselves so the child could eat. Others would let the child starve, so they could eat. And still others would spare the child the pain of death by starvation.

I do not personally find any of those choices more or less moral than the others.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[906198].message }}

Ken Strong

17 years ago

Well, since we've wandered way off topic into the finer points of child-killing, let's at least use plausible real-life examples instead of extreme hypothetical examples.

When is it moral to kill children by bombing their homes?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[907217].message }}

David Maschke

17 years ago

Originally Posted by KenStrong

Well, since we've wandered way off topic into the finer points of child-killing, let's at least use plausible real-life examples instead of extreme hypothetical examples.

When is it moral to kill children by bombing their homes?

There are two reasons in war when this happens

Collateral Damage (a play on words that attempts to take out all emotion when the accidental death of innocent men, women and children occurs. Usually only used by the nation doing the bombing and killing)
The killing of women and children is sometimes an attempt to demoralize the enemy army to remove their will to fight, making them a softer target. (this probably will backfire and enrage the enemy even more, thus escalating the violence)

As for the morality of killing children, I find it too sick to try and rationalize that kind of atrocity.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[908802].message }}

Thomas

17 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I've always wondered at the propensity for people to see a young woman in fatigues with a gun lying dead on a battlefield so much more tragic than a young man in fatigues with a gun lying dead on one, too. Why is it seen that a soldier of any sex that is slaughtered more tragic than any other?

Most likely, it has to do with the fact most people believe that, in general, women aren't capable of the same level of violence and aggression as men. Or, perhaps, more accurately, they are but they need something more to switch it on. Usually that "something more" is a direct threat to their family or other loved ones. So, when you see women involved in organised violence outside of the armed forces then, as David said, you know something is very wrong.

As for women in the armed forces, almost no military in the world will permit women to serve on the front line. Usually the reasons centre around physical capabilities but a big, usually unexpressed, concern is that, in combat, male soldiers' priorities would switch from completing their mission to saving the women. In other words, it's relatively easy to program men to kill, but not as easy to program them to neglect women. I know that probably seems like a very sexist viewpoint but it is supported to some extent by the experience of Israel: The IDF banned women from front-line combat decades ago when female casualties collapsed the command structure after their male counterparts experienced what was described as "uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression". Such was the impact of the incident that the IDF has taken more than 50 years to re-introduce women to roles that are closer to combat, albeit on an experimental basis.

Tommy.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[910123].message }}

Thomas 17 years ago

Originally Posted by KenStrong

When is it moral to kill children by bombing their homes?

Well, Ken, as long as you label it "defending freedom", you can kill anyone you want. Besides, you know how dangerously sneaky kids can be... always blowing people up and such. Better to wipe 'em out from a distance.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[910128].message }}

David Maschke

17 years ago

Change your twitter settings or don't. Jimminy freakin' christmas.

Thanks

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[905513].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Is there some kind of secret moralality concerning children that doesnt apply to adults?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[907241].message }}

ThomM 17 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Is there some kind of secret moralality concerning children that doesnt apply to adults?

Yep pretty much. Children are considered innocent and defenseless.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[907368].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

I've always wondered at the propensity for people to see a young woman in fatigues with a gun lying dead on a battlefield so much more tragic than a young man in fatigues with a gun lying dead on one, too. Why is it seen that a soldier of any sex that is slaughtered more tragic than any other?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[908581].message }}

David Maschke

17 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I've always wondered at the propensity for people to see a young woman in fatigues with a gun lying dead on a battlefield so much more tragic than a young man in fatigues with a gun lying dead on one, too. Why is it seen that a soldier of any sex that is slaughtered more tragic than any other?

Good question. In my mind I find it tragic for two reasons:

What social or political or economic conditions exist that are frustrating enough to turn a woman violent and willing to kill?
Who would allow a woman to go into harms way? Most would consider women and children a national treasure.

Most women I know would fight ferociously to the death in defense of their kids, family and friends, but to fight for a cause? The situation would have to be extreme. Red flags should be going up in the minds of everyone with that kind of picture, it means the water is really about to boil over. And no, I don't like the idea of women in the armed forces, but then again I never was politically correct in my thinking.

Thanks

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[908754].message }}

Patrician

17 years ago

I agree, Sal. I see them as equally tragic. I guess it is part of the 'weaker sex' concept. I believe if women want 'equal rights' then they should have equal 'consequences'.

In this case both the videos, man and woman, neither was a 'freedom fighter' or even political. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and we don't even know if it was government, militia or your local crazies that use any excuse to act up who killed them. The other 15 killed who knows what the situation was.

Happens all the time in drive-bys in LA. I can't believe the big deal people are making about this.

This is not to say I am not fiercely proud of the Iranian protesters - they have guts and they deserve to live in a free country. I hope nobody else gets massacred.

(you all know I have a little perverse sense of humor sometimes, (punk) but I still get the biggest laugh out of when they dropped the Shah off the gurney at his funeral on international TV.)

Hopefully they will do that to Akmenejad while he is still alive, (or not).

freespeech....

Originally Posted by HeySal

I've always wondered at the propensity for people to see a young woman in fatigues with a gun lying dead on a battlefield so much more tragic than a young man in fatigues with a gun lying dead on one, too. Why is it seen that a soldier of any sex that is slaughtered more tragic than any other?

Thanks

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[908808].message }}

Michael Motley

17 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I've always wondered at the propensity for people to see a young woman in fatigues with a gun lying dead on a battlefield so much more tragic than a young man in fatigues with a gun lying dead on one, too. Why is it seen that a soldier of any sex that is slaughtered more tragic than any other?

I think it comes from how men percieve women. Thats one of the main reasons that women arent allowed in battle. When women were allowed in combat for a brief time in some armies, more men got killed than women. Everytime a female soldier would be shot and killed, male soldiers would mill around the body for too long, and end up getting killed as well.

Killing is what men do. We kill spiders, we kill rats, we kill other people. Its in our dna. We do it for various reasons, but a lot of those reasons revolve around women. Men take lives to protect home (read wife/mom/gf/sister), to protect future (read:wife/child), to protect heart (read:lover or loss of lover). Its practically our job as given to us by nature to protect the female of the species, and its also an expectation of most societies. After thats been beaten into your head siince you were old enough to understand language, its sort of hard to dismiss that idea because the female is wearing camoflage or holding a rifle.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[910773].message }}

ThomM 17 years ago

Most likely, it has to do with the fact most people believe that, in general, women aren't capable of the same level of violence and aggression as men.

Most people never met either of my 2 wive's:rolleyes:
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[911374].message }}
- Ken Strong 17 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Most people never met either of my 2 wive's:rolleyes:
  
  Well, no wonder, Thom -- you're only supposed to have one at a time.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  The RETURN of OBI:
  Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!
  
  "Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[911558].message }}
  
  ThomM 17 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by KenStrong
  
  Well, no wonder, Thom -- you're only supposed to have one at a time.
  
  Really?? Damn that explains a lot of things.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[911902].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[912510].message }}

Paul Myers 17 years ago

Sal,

May I ask that you move that to another thread? Different topic, ma'am.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[912604].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

Just deleted it all out, Paul -- very political actually. Tried to slip it in because I think that our Admin is doing a lot of crap while we are paying attention to something else that is going to put our own people out on the streets soon, too - and I'm wondering if our admin will be as gentle with us as they want the world to believe. And I have a very bad feeling we will soon find out.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[912995].message }}

HeySal

17 years ago

Hi Sarge - good to see ya.

In answer to your question.........as much as we all wish people felt like we do (no matter what the subject is) apparently there are no universal taboos......otherwise
we wouldn't NEED constitutions.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[915785].message }}

R Hagel

17 years ago

A senior Iranian cleric just kicked it up a notch:

A senior Iranian cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of election protests be punished harshly, with some "worthy of execution." The country's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in the demonstrations, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies.

Full story here: Iranian cleric: Some in unrest should be executed - Yahoo! News

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[918284].message }}

Support the right to free speech

Trending Topics

Lightening strikes :(

If you had to start over today -- what would you do ?

" It is what it is" ... overused way too much imo

Are you into the Stock Market??

What would you do without the Internet ??