Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

[Starving Steve]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

I'm still waiting for the evidence that the U.S. and its allies killed 1.3 million people in Iraq. I'm the slow-learner here. Please let me check the arithmetic, the method of counting, and the source(s) making this claim against the Western World.

And finally, the Vatican is engaging the Islamic World. Finally, one of the leaders in the Western World, Pope Benedict, is willing to ask the Islamic World to account for its horrors. And for this diplomatic questioning of the horrific acts now taking place in the Islamic World, the Vatican is to be commended.

Funny how not one word of condemnation against "bloody Islam" came from the liberals on the West Coast of America, nor in Minnesota, nor in Michigan, nor in British Columbia, nor in the British Isles? Witness how the whole world is strangely silent about stonings and whippings, be-headings, and homocide-bombings--- except for the Vatican.

[rabot10]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

Anyone ever watch a women being stoned to death? U may be able to find one on Utube. Animals plain and simple. Sorry but kill them all!!!!!!!!!!

[aaron]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

They say about 100 thousand

[Starving Steve]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

They say about 100 thousand

The 100,000 or so "confirmed deaths" is the total of deaths due to sectarian violence, and this sectarian violence will likely increase as the Allies pull-out of Iraq. These deaths are due to religious intolerance, something that is part of the culture of Islam, at least in Iraq. These deaths would have occurred with or without Western intervention into Iraq.

The accomplishment of the Western intervention into Iraq is that Lebanon is now peaceful, Syria is better and no longer run by Hesbollah, Israel is better, Palestine is likely to become a state and a state at peace with Israel, Egypt is wonderful, Jordan is wonderful, Saudi-Arabia is safe, Libya is improving, Sudan is improving, Somalia is improving, Yemen is improving, the Gulf states are wonderful and safe, Afghanistan is improving, and the cancer in Iran is now isolated....... We will deal with the gang running Iran next. And after that, the narco-trafficers and terrorists running Pakistan will be dealt with. Right now the strategy is to isolate the cesspool in Pakistan.

I am optimistic about the Middle East. Things could not get any worse, so everything from here-on is upward. And Islam will become civilized and brought into the 21st Century so that we all can co-exist with it.

I wish Pope Benedict well in his bold move to confront bloody-Islam for what it is.

[flintlock]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

Don't take this the wrong way, but Americans deal with these things very calmly when these things are not happening in their back yard. What would have been the American reaction if the Mumbai attacks had occurred in New York instead? Not only that, what would happen if there was an attack on the US nearly every two months killing 70 or 80 people?

I completely agree.

I'm not trying to say Pakistan having nukes is a good thing. Only that the world has not seen a bloodletting like WWII since nukes came on to the scene. And I do believe that is a direct result of nuclear weapons. But in the end, when something finally does blow, it will be a disaster to make WWII look minor. How do we get the Genie back into the bottle? Can we?

US support of Pakistan disgusts me in some ways. One of a string of corrupt and dangerous regimes we have supported in the name of seeing "the big picture". But its a complex issue and I'm not really qualified to discuss it.

[oddlots]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

Funny how not one word of condemnation against "bloody Islam" came from the liberals on the West Coast of America, nor in Minnesota, nor in Michigan, nor in British Columbia, nor in the British Isles? Witness how the whole world is strangely silent about stonings and whippings, be-headings, and homocide-bombings--- except for the Vatican.

SS, what are you talking about? The cause is all over the liberal press. Try looking it up on Huffington Post. Avaaz - the same group trying to deny a CRTC license for a basic cable, purportedly "Fox style", news service - has been circulating a petition for at least a month or two.

It may not have registered because they don't attack Muslims as Muslims.

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

What prompted Americans to replace a capable man like Bush Sr with an ignoramus like Clinton I've never understood.

Just to set the record straight, Pakistan constructed it's Nuke program over many years, stretching back to the Carter administration. It's principle suppliers were European and later, N Korean. There is no evidence any American administration was aware of the A.Q Kahn project over these years, no evidence save common sense of course.

Source: "Deception: Pakistan, The United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons" - Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott Clark, 2007
"Descent Into Chaos", Ahmed Rashid, 2008

[shiny!]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

As of about an hour ago the stoning sentence was suspended. She might still be hanged for murder, though.

Just FYI, a friend of mine who spent a lot of time in the Middle East told me that in villages where stonings occur, everybody is forced to participate. If you refuse to participate you will be stoned to death yourself.

It is not uncommon to falsely accuse women of crimes and they have little legal recourse. For those who think that she chose to have an affair and knew the consequences, it's not like she had options for a happy life. She would have been forced into her marriage and could not get a divorce. Daily beatings are the norm. I have seen a video of a mullah exhorting his congregation to, "Beat your wife every day. If you don't know why, she does."

[Starving Steve]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

Thank you for referring me to The Huffington Post, and yes, finally, liberals are beginning to speak-out against Iran. This is long over-due.

I found the remarks from Fidel Castro about Arminishod, very interesting. Excellent. And Castro's remarks were very good: about condemning Holocaust-denialism, anti-semetism, and appreciating the basic right of the Israeli people to exist. EXCELLENT!

The articles in The Huffington Post about Iran were very interesting. And I think it is time to confront fundamentalist Islam for the mis-deeds that are taking place within the Islamic World in the name of Allah.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

I completely agree.

I'm not trying to say Pakistan having nukes is a good thing. Only that the world has not seen a bloodletting like WWII since nukes came on to the scene. And I do believe that is a direct result of nuclear weapons. But in the end, when something finally does blow, it will be a disaster to make WWII look minor. How do we get the Genie back into the bottle? Can we?

US support of Pakistan disgusts me in some ways. One of a string of corrupt and dangerous regimes we have supported in the name of seeing "the big picture". But its a complex issue and I'm not really qualified to discuss it.

Haven't we?

Nigeria/Biafra
Rwanda
Mozambique
Congo, Congo 2.0, Congo 3.0, you get the point
Former Yugoslavia
Uganda
Cambodia
Indonesia/Timor
Ethiopia/Somalia

Just a few examples of localized/regionalized carnage that ranks up there with pretty much most horror shows.

The oft forgotten Iran/Iraq War of the 80's.......including mass(and largely ignored) use of WMDs...was off the charts in terms of cost in every possible category.

And it certainly didn't stop Pakistan from clearly backing substantial attacks directly on the world's largest democracy...including a NEARLY successful attempt to decapitate India's Parliament, train bombings, and the mass slaughter in Mumbai 18 months ago.

Personally I'm not of the belief we will ever get the "genie back in the bottle".

Nor do I think it's safe to say other nations will act as "rationally" with WMDs as the US/Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

While I think it's somewhat safe to say total KNOWN nuclear(and other WMD) warheads will continue to diminish in numbers as they have over the last 2 decades...they are NOT going away.

Nor is the risk of increased proliferation.

My own personal "doomsday clock" thinks we are at increasing risk of WMD use and/or threat of use.

I believe the only things holding Pakistan together as a nation is it's hatred of India and it's nuclear weapons capability(if we go, everyone goes mentality), funded by it's status as a largely unavoidable logistics hub for efforts in Afghanistan.

With the current global economic/financial mess not ending anytime soon, with western democratic powers unable/unwilling to make the difficult but necessary choices for a sustainable recovery I can see more clinically Machiavellian options being considered.

Would a slow or failed US response to the next(and there will surely be a next) escalation in tension between Pakistan and India(and China by default as Pakistan's ally and India's opposition) be a bad thing for the US in the big picture and long term?

Everyone seems focused on the US starting another war(with Iran as the likely "victim").

What if the US(or at least government/fed/special interests) was able to benefit by omission(failing to STOP a war) rather than commission(participant in war)?

An inter-regional war would certainly provide a convenient excuse and support for significant and painful domestic US reform.

Krugman's latest article comparing the US today with 1938 is invalid because it completely ignores at least one thing......the massive destruction of excess global production capacity.

From a strictly clinical standpoint...wouldn't a conflict between Pakistan and India( and ultimately China ) where the US can selectively recuse itself with it's globally dominant military capability be a good thing?

Bar the many possible unintended consequences, wouldn't it potentially leave the US much as it was post WWII?

Predicting small wars, civil wars, etc occurring is easy....they're always happening.....but I do think the risk of a larger regional or inter-regional conflict has potential to rise from here.

And I base that largely on the fact there may be less to lose and maybe a good bit to win for some powerful nations/interests if one DOES occur....and I don't thing being focused like a laser on Iran is a good idea...as we may risk missing something in our peripheral vision.

Just my 0.02c

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

I completely agree.

I'm not trying to say Pakistan having nukes is a good thing. Only that the world has not seen a bloodletting like WWII since nukes came on to the scene. And I do believe that is a direct result of nuclear weapons. But in the end, when something finally does blow, it will be a disaster to make WWII look minor. How do we get the Genie back into the bottle? Can we?

US support of Pakistan disgusts me in some ways. One of a string of corrupt and dangerous regimes we have supported in the name of seeing "the big picture". But its a complex issue and I'm not really qualified to discuss it.

Haven't we?

Nigeria/Biafra
Rwanda
Mozambique
Congo, Congo 2.0, Congo 3.0, you get the point
Former Yugoslavia
Uganda
Cambodia
Indonesia/Timor
Ethiopia/Somalia

Just a few examples of localized/regionalized carnage that ranks up there with pretty much most horror shows.

The oft forgotten Iran/Iraq War of the 80's.......including mass(and largely ignored) use of WMDs...was off the charts in terms of cost in every possible category.

And it certainly didn't stop Pakistan from clearly backing substantial attacks directly on the world's largest democracy...including a NEARLY successful attempt to decapitate India's Parliament, train bombings, and the mass slaughter in Mumbai 18 months ago.

Personally I'm not of the belief we will ever get the "genie back in the bottle".

Nor do I think it's safe to say other nations will act as "rationally" with WMDs as the US/Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

While I think it's somewhat safe to say total KNOWN nuclear(and other WMD) warheads will continue to diminish in numbers as they have over the last 2 decades...they are NOT going away.

Nor is the risk of increased proliferation.

My own personal "doomsday clock" thinks we are at increasing risk of WMD use and/or threat of use.

I believe the only things holding Pakistan together as a nation is it's hatred of India and it's nuclear weapons capability(if we go, everyone goes mentality), funded by it's status as a largely unavoidable logistics hub for efforts in Afghanistan.

With the current global economic/financial mess not ending anytime soon, with western democratic powers unable/unwilling to make the difficult but necessary choices for a sustainable recovery I can see more clinically Machiavellian options being considered.

Would a slow or failed US response to the next(and there will surely be a next) escalation in tension between Pakistan and India(and China by default as Pakistan's ally and India's opposition) be a bad thing for the US in the big picture and long term?

Everyone seems focused on the US starting another war(with Iran as the likely "victim").

What if the US(or at least government/fed/special interests) was able to benefit by omission(failing to STOP a war) rather than commission(participant in war)?

An inter-regional war would certainly provide a convenient excuse and support for significant and painful domestic US reform.

Krugman's latest article comparing the US today with 1938 is invalid because it completely ignores at least one thing......the massive destruction of excess global production capacity.

From a strictly clinical standpoint...wouldn't a conflict between Pakistan and India( and ultimately China ) where the US can selectively recuse itself with it's globally dominant military capability be a good thing?

Bar the many possible unintended consequences, wouldn't it potentially leave the US much as it was post WWII?

Predicting small wars, civil wars, etc occurring is easy....they're always happening.....but I do think the risk of a larger regional or inter-regional conflict has potential to rise from here.

And I base that largely on the fact there may be less to lose and maybe a good bit to win for some powerful nations/interests if one DOES occur....and I don't thing being focused like a laser on Iran is a good idea...as we may risk missing something in our peripheral vision.

Just my 0.02c

[hayekvindicated]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

Just to set the record straight, Pakistan constructed it's Nuke program over many years, stretching back to the Carter administration. It's principle suppliers were European and later, N Korean. There is no evidence any American administration was aware of the A.Q Kahn project over these years, no evidence save common sense of course.

Source: "Deception: Pakistan, The United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons" - Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott Clark, 2007
"Descent Into Chaos", Ahmed Rashid, 2008

I doubt that no American Administration ever knew about the project. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as Prime Minister of Pakistan openly said, "we will eat grass but we will build the bomb". So it was hardly a secret. And then in 1981, the Israelis offered to attack Pakistan if the Indian Government were willing to provide bases for Israeli aircraft - all this on the basis that Pakistan had an active nuclear weapons program.

I am not making a case for military action now or suggesting that the US launch an attack on Pakistan or anything along those lines. I think there was a time when something could have been done but those days are gone now. However, I don't think the US can withdraw from Pakistan completely. If it does so, it risks a leak of nuclear technology to the most ruthless terrorists on earth - who, incidentally, would have no compunctions about attacking an American city. Regardless of what is the cause of such hatred (and I find it particularly strange that any Pakistani whether religious or not should hate America after the hundreds of billions in aid that America has given Pakistan and without which half the population would be starving given that Pakistan has no economy worth a name), the hatred exists and it is vicious and virulent.

I think we can safely say that if a nuclear device is ever exploded by terrorists anywhere in the world, it will probably come from Pakistan.

[flintlock]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

Thanks for that cheery news!

[Starving Steve]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

I doubt that no American Administration ever knew about the project. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as Prime Minister of Pakistan openly said, "we will eat grass but we will build the bomb". So it was hardly a secret. And then in 1981, the Israelis offered to attack Pakistan if the Indian Government were willing to provide bases for Israeli aircraft - all this on the basis that Pakistan had an active nuclear weapons program.

I am not making a case for military action now or suggesting that the US launch an attack on Pakistan or anything along those lines. I think there was a time when something could have been done but those days are gone now. However, I don't think the US can withdraw from Pakistan completely. If it does so, it risks a leak of nuclear technology to the most ruthless terrorists on earth - who, incidentally, would have no compunctions about attacking an American city. Regardless of what is the cause of such hatred (and I find it particularly strange that any Pakistani whether religious or not should hate America after the hundreds of billions in aid that America has given Pakistan and without which half the population would be starving given that Pakistan has no economy worth a name), the hatred exists and it is vicious and virulent.

I think we can safely say that if a nuclear device is ever exploded by terrorists anywhere in the world, it will probably come from Pakistan.

Does anyone need any more evidence that appeasement does not work? We can not prevent a WWIII, a nuclear showdown with the Islamic World, by "understanding" our way out of the crisis.

How much aid has the U.S. poured into Pakistan? And no dams built, no flood control, no water management of any kind. Just prayers and locusts, floods and droughts, disease and the A-bomb, hatred and revenge killings, narco-trafficing and shelter for Bin Laden, population growth and starvation, and no-one knows anything, just excuses........ I see a pattern here: with 9/11, with the parade of sectarian killings in Iraq, with the clerics in Iran, with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with Al Qaide in Pakistan, with Hamas in Gaza, with the mysterious bombing in Mumbai City, etc.

We should have acted much earlier, but no-one did anything at all. It is the same mistake, as in 1938 in dealing with the nazis and fascists in Europe.

Finally, the Pope is speaking-out on Islamic tortures and executions. And finally, Andrea Merkel is speaking-out and drawing the line on the limit of tolerance in making threats against people for their cartoon or writing in a newspaper. Sarkozi in France is drawing the line on face-coverings. Even Fidel Castro to-day sent a message to Iran about the historical fact of the Holocaust in WWII and Isreal's basic right to exist.... Obama needs to send a clear message to the Islamic World now too.

[flintlock]

Re: Pope monitoring Iranian woman sentenced to stoning death, Vatican says

America has one hand on the shoulder of the Muslim world, and one hand in their pocket. Hard to "lay down the law" when both sides know full well this is the case.