Censorship

Iranian Web Designer Faces Imminent Death After Judicial Swindle

|

Earlier this month, I wrote about Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian-born Canadian resident who was issued a death sentence by the Iranian Supreme Court for creating photo-uploading software that was then used without his knowledge to upload pornography. Despite the enusing uproar, Iranian authorities have continued in their effort to take his life. 

Yesterday, the Saeed Malekpour Campaign, whose aim is to earn the software developer a fair trial in Iranian courts, issued a press release stating that the situation has become dire:

Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian Resident from Iran who has been living with the threat of death in Evin prison since October 2008, can be executed at any moment. When Saeed Malekpour's lawyers visited the Revolutionary Court two days ago to follow up on their client's case file, they discovered that the file containing the death sentence ruling was no longer there, and it was not in the possession of the Supreme Court either. Saeed Malekpour's lawyers were informed that this only meant that the case file was sent to the Circuit Court for Execution of Sentences.

One of the lawyers said: "…Since Saeed Malekpour's sentence is in the possession of the Circuit Court for Execution of Sentences, this means that they are capable of executing Saeed at any moment they wish."

Malekpour's case has been mired in bureaucratic convolution up to this point. After a torturous back and forth between the Iranian Supreme Court and a lower court over the lack of evidence needed to properly evaluate the charges, the Supreme Court finally approved the death sentence by a 3-2 ote. The problem, says Maryam Yazdi, coordinator for the Saeed Malekpour Campaign, is that the three judges who upheld the death sentence had never been seen in the judicial branch of the Iranian government. They are believed to be members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the paramilitary force responsible for terrorizing Iranians in the street and for extracting Malekpour's apocryphal confessions. These confessions are, incidentally, the only evidence against him in the case. How these three men inserted themselves into such a crucial part of the judicial process is anybody's guess. According to Nayeb Yazdi, they "came out of nowhere."

In the normal judicial process in Iran, defense lawyers would have had an opportunity to review the case one last time before it moves on to the Circuit Court for Execution of Sentences, given that "the death penalty is an irreversible punishment," says Nayeb Yazdi. Even if the lawyers saw the file, "they couldn't do much…. With the file open, they would be able to make sure everything is in order, but this case has been illegal and out of order from the start, so obviously they [the authorities] don't want that. The regime has done a very tricky thing." Now that Malekpour can legally be executed as soon as they find the right gallows (for in Iran, public hangings are common), "Saeed's only hope for survival is the international community."

The Canadian Parliament gave a unanimous vote on a motion "expressing concern for Saeed's situation," which was "their strongest move yet." Amnesty International called for Malekpour's release last month. The State Department, European Union, and the Foreign Affairs offices of Britain, Canada, and Italy have issued official statements condemning the death sentences of Malekpour and other people in prison on Internet-related charges.

Nayeb Yazdi emphasizes that "This is a sensitive time in Iran. The political and economic time is tense." The unrest has led to calls to boycott the upcoming parliamentary elections, "yet the government has no protests in the street to crack down on anymore. Everyone has moved online, so they [the regime] are cracking down on the Internet." This has involved increasingly stringent censorship and the creation of a cyber army branch of the IRGC, in addition to increased arrests and death sentences for Internet users. "Executing Saeed would instill the maximum amount of fear in people," Yazdi says. "They would really think twice before plugging in [to the Internet]. If Saeed were executed for these Internet charges, it would set a huge precedent."

Read more about problems in Iran and the Middle East here, here, and here.

NEXT: Russian City Bans Protests Held by Toys

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cases like this are excruciating to read about. On one hand, a person who is obviously innocent of any crime meriting death under any humane system of law is being used as a pawn in an international power struggle. On the other hand, if there were no international power struggle, he would likely already have been executed. On the gripping hand, it is hard to see what can be done beyond registering “strong disapproval” on the international front short of causing a war. The idea of sovereign nations having life and death power over individuals inevitably leads to things like this. Most people would say it’s simply a matter of having the right people in charge of the law. Maybe (as most libertarians understand) the problem is more deeply rooted and can only be solved by limiting the scope of the State.

    1. If this is about an international power struggle, it isn’t a struggle between Iran and the West. It’s between Iran and the rest of the Muslim world–especially Syria right now.

      They’re scared to death of what’s going on in Syria right now. It isn’t the U.S. or Israel they’re worried about here–they’re scared to death of their own people.

      1. Maybe. It’s clear Iran is concerned about how Syria will turn out. However, there’s a sad track record of people in the U.S. using cases like this to help sway public opinion in favor of military actions.

      2. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. What is happening in Syria, just like in Egypt and Libya, is what happened in Iran in 1979.

        Why would it happen again? They already got their Islamic theocracy.

        1. Can you back this up with links? It’s certainly possible, but most items I’ve read on Syria’s strife seem to have little comment on who the dissenters are and what they stand for other than “not Assad.”

          1. For what it’s worth, most Iranian dissidents in 1979 only wanted “not the Shah.”

            1. This is mostly true. However, Iran had been hemorrhaging people for years from the middle and upper classes. Those who were left got caught up in the Revolutionary fervor. I’m not sure; has something similar been happening in Syria, sapping the strength from any secular opposition to Islamism in a post-Assad Syria?

          2. Links? How about the nature of Islam, the modern Muslim world, and 1,000 years of history? Enfranchise these people, and they’ll swiftly vote to rip out their political liberties. Expect the emergent governments in those countries to be theocratic to at least significant degrees.

            1. Yes, I wrote links. How about some in support of your assertions?

              1. Oh, there’s an ocean of material with which to bury these barbarians and justify despising them and their degenerative mythology.

                Let’s start with the main, simple, but absolutely foundational, fact of this matter — Islam does not distinguish between religious and civil authority.

                If you decide you want to debate certain specifics, be my guest and point them out.

                1. Listen, you’re not going to get me to defend melding religious superstition and civil law, but you have to do a little more than assert that because a revolution happens in a country the majority religion of which is Islam, the revolution is de facto driven by Islamic fundamentalism.

                2. I’m not a fan of Islam or the Arab peoples, but there’s not much reason to believe that Syria will go Islamist (even of they did that would just make them scarier to Iran Mullahs because they would be Sunni jihadists). Morrocco and Tunisia aren’t Islamofascist neither is Turkey or Bosnia.

                  1. This post makes me think it would make a wonderful RPG to game the Middle East under the existing rules. Figuring out the rules might be tough, but thousands of people playing the game might come up with a “right” answer to the conundrum. Facilitating this online could be a lot of fun.

                    1. Sounds like a potential Civilization or Elder Scrolls mod if I’ve ever heard of it (does one really need an excuse to mod Morrowind/Oblivion?).

                    2. sounds like the model UN, but most of the particpants are too limp-dicked to actually be belligerent, like what *actually* happens in the UN from time to time.

                3. Islam does not distinguish between religious and civil authority.

                  Neither does the Catholic Church or many other religious traditions.

                  Strict separation of church and state is mostly a protestant thing.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D….._Authority

                  Plenty of other cultures have developed something like separation of church and state over time, but even with those that haven’t necessarily, surely freedom isn’t so weak a force that it necessarily requires a protestant cultural tradition to work well.

                  It’s worked well in lots of places that aren’t protestant. Personally, I think the separation between the state and the individual is probably more important than the separation between church and state anyway.

                  If it doesn’t really effect me, what do I care what other people believe? I’m not as concerned about what religion the state is as much as I’m concerned that the state recognizes the distinction between what’s its business and what’s my business.

                  There’s no reason why Libya, Egypt and Syria can’t develop that distinction clearly.

                  1. Ricky Scrotum thinks the church should be the state.

                  2. Neither does the Catholic Church or many other religious traditions.

                    Are you a total moron or what? It’s almost like you never heard of Thomas Becket or the lay investiture controversy in the 1000s. About the only thing on this topic that would be stupider to say would be

                    Strict separation of church and state is mostly a protestant thing.

                    Riiiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhtttttt.

                    Lutheranism was largely spread by princes suddenly converting to sola fide because it let them seize monasteries and other church lands…and once they converted, their subjects were forced to convert too.

                    And just look at English history for an immediate refutation of this common, but utterly retarded claim. And I’m not just talking about the Church of England — look at the fucking Puritans. Look at how Irish Catholics were treated by their enlightened Protestant masters.

                    I mean, what the fuck?

                    1. Are you a total moron or what?

                      LOL

                      I mean, what the fuck?

                      HA!

            2. How about the nature of Islam, the modern Muslim world, and 1,000 years of history?

              How was Christian Europe doing on the political freedom thing in, to be generous, 1325 AD?

              1. Which religious group besides protestants have eschewed the power of the state to enforce religious hegomeny?

        2. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. What is happening in Syria, just like in Egypt and Libya, is what happened in Iran in 1979.

          Why would it happen again? They already got their Islamic theocracy.

          You should read this whole article from a couple of weeks ago…

          “Effort to Rebrand Arab Spring Backfires in Iran”

          Nearby, two turbaned clerics from the Iranian holy city of Qum were chatting. One of them, Yahya Jahangiri, conceded that many Iranians disagreed with their government about Syria. “But often that is just for internal reasons, they dislike Ahmadinejad so much,” he said.

          The conference was widely reported in the Iranian news media, and posters bearing the words “Islamic Awakening” were plastered on walls near the conference hall. They were met in some Tehran quarters with dismissive sarcasm. One popular text message, circulated widely on cellphones around the capital, went: “If you’re having trouble sleeping at night, don’t worry: it’s not the high prices, poverty, or unemployment. You are suffering from Islamic Awakening.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02…..-iran.html

        3. What is happening in Syria, just like in Egypt and Libya, is what happened in Iran in 1979.

          What is happening in Egypt and Libya isn’t like what happened in Iran in 1979.

          Just because a lot of Arabs are electing Islamist members to their parliaments doesn’t make it just like Iran in 1979.

          Here’s another article, from yesterday, you should read:

          “Muslim Brotherhood Looks West in Bid to Revive Egyptian Economy”

          Confronted with a badly sinking economy, the [Muslim] Brotherhood doesn’t have the luxury of harping endlessly about Zionist conspiracies, American hypocrisy, or bikini-clad tourists?not if it wants to put Egypt back together again.

          Tourism revenue dropped by at least one-third since the uprising, according to government statistics. And billions of dollars of annual foreign investment?which peaked at $13.7 billion in 2007?were almost entirely choked off.

          “Egypt is running smack into an economic wall,” said Karim Sadek, a managing director at Citadel Capital, a Cairo-based private-equity firm.

          A Gallup poll conducted between April and December of last year showed 54% of Egyptians placed jobs and economic development as their top priority, while less than 1% cited implementation of Islamic law. The results were consistent across all political parties, even Islamist ones.

          “Their supporters want the economy fixed, not religious solutions,” said Dalia Mogahed, head of the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center, which conducted the poll.

          http://online.wsj.com/article/…..69184.html

          Like Iran in 1979? I don’t think so.

          1. Except that in Iran a general broadbased rebellion agaisnt the shah was coopted by the Ayatollah Khomeni and his followers who, using similar methods as Castro had done in the early 50’s systematically eliminated the competition and ended up on top of the power structure.

            1. A Gallup poll conducted between April and December of last year showed 54% of Egyptians placed jobs and economic development as their top priority, while less than 1% cited implementation of Islamic law. The results were consistent across all political parties, even Islamist ones.

              If you have a better indication of what’s going on in the Arab world you can link to, I’d love to read it.

              The fact is that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have been providing social services, medical care and other things to poor people in Egypt, when the government either didn’t or couldn’t.

              The Muslim Brotherhood happened to have an advantage in that they were better organized than any of the secular options–except for the military. It shouldn’t be surprising to see them do well in early elections. They have a reputation for being straight shooters as compared to the corruption in the Mubarak regime, too. And that reputation served them well.

              It’s sort of like, say, in the Bible Belt here in the U.S. You hear people talk about voters supporting certain candidates in North Carolina based on bible-thumping, but most people in North Carolina don’t want bible-thumpers running things anymore than anyone else does. And when you see some creationist get voted off of a school board down there for going a little too far, it’s self-identified fundamentalists who are often voting to kick the fanatic to the curb. I see a poll that says 1% of the people are looking for the implementation of Islamic law. I don’t see why I shouldn’t believe that.

              When they have to run on their record in the next election, we’ll see how they fare and whether any legitimate secular competition surfaces. I suspect it will over time. And if the Muslim Brotherhood (and other Islamist parties like that elsewhere) know what’s good for them, they’ll do what they can to make things work.

              So, this isn’t like Iran. We’re not in the middle of the Cold War. Egypt isn’t about to ally itself with our adversary the USSR–during the height of the Cold War. Egypt can’t keep itself going on oil revenue like Iran could. Right now, the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t against Democracy on principle–as being against the will of God and in the way of their prophet leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Things could always go from bad to worse, but this isn’t like Iran in 1979 at all.

              Hell, the Muslim Brotherhood still hasn’t won the upper hand in it’s struggle with the Egyptian army for power.

              1. I was arguing against an implication I saw in your post: that Iran was an islamic revolt as opposed to the modern “spring” that is based on the public rebelling against the totalitarian governments for a variety of economic and social reasons.

                The Iranian revolt started out quite similarly. The theocrats ended up n top not because of popular support (although they did have a sizeable portion of the population that liked them) but because they jailed/killed/intimidated/exiled any potential leader of different factions.

                This phenomenon is of course quite common. It ocured in Russia, Cuba, France, and Turkey for example.

                I expect it will happen in many of the Arab Spring countries – there is a cultural disposition towards despotism that still runs strong.

                1. I was arguing against this statement:

                  What is happening in Syria, just like in Egypt and Libya, is what happened in Iran in 1979.

                  That having been said, I don’t believe in a cultural disposition towards despotism exactly either.

                  In countries in the developing world, they have despotism, but in some ways it can be less oppressive than what we’re used to. Yeah, the cops are predatory, the government can take and squander a ridiculous chunk of the nation’s GDP, you can’t criticize the big man in charge, etc., but I don’t think that’s much different whether you’re talking about cultures in Southwestern Africa, Central America, Central Asia or North Africa and the Middle East. I’m not so sure it’s the culture.

                  And I’ve known Persians who come here to the United States and say, “What do you man the government won’t let us smoke in a restaurant?!”

                  Having lived in a country where ALL the laws are enforced selectively, except the laws of the jungle I mentioned above…

                  If our culture accepts whatever laws our politicians make, and accepts uniform enforcement of those laws ,too, I’m not so sure our culture isn’t accepting of despotism, too. Maybe we just have less extreme versions of it to resist.

                  I certainly don’t look at the brave people of Syria going out and getting sniped at in the streets and think to myself, “Now there’s a culture with a disposition towards despotism”. I think, “Wow, I wonder if I’d have the guts to go out and protest despite the snipers myself!”

                  They must really want to get rid of their despot, right?

                  1. Well, there’s despotism and there’s totalitarianism. They aren’t quite the same thing. 🙂

                    I think you are making some very good points.

                    The point that I am trying to make is that when they’re kicking out one despot, the replacement people are generally envisioning is either another despot or the Jacobinism of the French Revolution.

                    The U.S. Republic is far more totalitarian about stuff that despots wouldn’t give a flying fuck about, such as smoking in restaurants or importing the wrong sort of wood to finish guitars with.

                    But examine the areas the despots *do* care about, and one sees a different story. Barack Obama can’t force people to have 0 carbon footprint, for example.

                    On the other hand, the Internet is changing cultures dramatically. The Mises Institute, for example, is facilitating the translation of large tracts of pro-freedom literature into Arabic. There is a great deal of cultural cross-pollination taking place.

                    Inevitably at some point in the future, the middle-east will move in a libertarian direction. It could be 100 years from now. It could be happening now. Only time will tell.

      3. “they’re scared to death of their own people”

        We need more of that kind of sentiment in our own country.

        And if the Teams keep fucking with us… it’ll happen.

    2. happy weekend!looking for the bilover?====datebi.c/o’/m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

    3. happy weekend!looking for the bilover?====datebi.c/o’/m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

      1. I’m looking for bi-religious love. Can I find IslamoChristian sexytimes with bilovers?

        1. There are some seriously hot Persian Girls to be found on the Inter-Tubes…

          1. Yeah they’re the ones with a Groucho Marx mustache.

    4. Happy weekend! I found a great dating bisexual site DATEBI*C’O’M. It is a serious& safe dating site for the bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships. I have to say DATEBI*COM the best site I have ever joined so far. They verify all members. Unlike other sites,NO scammers or fake profiles here, and you can meet many rich or mature women as well, including celebs, famous stars.BEST OF LUCK!

    5. An invitation of Datebi*co’m is offered!Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free!

    6. The idea of sovereign nations having life and death power over individuals inevitably leads to things like this.

      Except in the US and many other countries in the world with the death penalty, you mean.

      The problem isn’t the death penalty per se, it’s the horrid Iranian government. Or would you be OK if the Iranians locked him up in prison for the rest of his life for designing that software?

      Waving this guy’s (potentially) bloody shirt to score points in the death penalty debate in the US — where things like this absolutely do not happen — is pretty disgusting IMHO.

  2. Maybe to the Iranian people this guy will be a great martyr. Or perhaps he will serve as just the example the Iranian govt wants him to be. Not our issue either way.

  3. I have no comment.

    Oops.

  4. Iran does not recognize dual citizenship, thus he isn’t Canadian in their eyes.

    The strongest message would be to close their embassy, and consulates

    1. The “strongest message” would be to withdraw entirely, allow Iran to initiate direct military action against the United States (whenever the fuck they gain the capability to do so), and grind it to dust in retaliation.

      1. Good, so instead of one guy dying alone, millions of innocent Iranians will die.

        I do agree about leaving Iran alone, but let’s not hope for “grinding it to dust” to be the outcome.

  5. “This is a sensitive time in Iran. The political and economic time is tense.”

    All the more reason to execute his ass.

  6. We now have 90% libertarian case for bombing the government of this backwards country back into the stone age. The other 10% is $4.07 regular at the local Shell. I say do it. Sooner the better.

    1. How is violating the non-agression principle on an international scale “90% libertarian?”

      1. We’re not the ones violating the NAP.

        1. We are also not responsible for enforcing it.

          1. And a military response on our part, absent a direct attack on our interests (narrowly defined), would be a violation.

            1. DIRECT ATTACKS ON OUR INTERESTS:

              Khobar Towers

              Hizbollah bombing of flight TWA180

              Aid to Taliban and Iraqi insurgents

              Recently ramping up aid to AQ

              444 days

              1. “Our” interests? Who knew that Objectivists were so into collectivism.

                1. That’s not collectivism when ‘our interests’ are understood as pertaining to the maintainence of individual rights and the right of a free(ish) nation to do what it thinks is necessary to defend those rights.

                  Why doesn’t spellchecker work with ‘maintainence’?

                  1. The guys killed in the Khobar towers were there to prop up a monarch who regularly beheads women for the crime of witchcraft.

                    You sure have an odd definition of supporting freedom.

            2. Nonsense. The non-aggression principle does not require that one stand by when someone else is attacked, simply because one’s own interests (however defined) are not threatened.

              One may, as a practical matter, refuse to white-knight all over the place; defense of others is not an obligation. One may also practically choose to overlook aggression that doesn’t exceed a certain threshold. One may reject the right of the United States to raise taxes to provide for its military, and especially then to spend the taxes on protecting others than those from whom the taxes were raised. And one may think that the NAP must be supplemented with a limit of proportionality of the use of force against aggressors, such that the death penalty is not appropriate for shoplifting, and starting a war is not an appropriate reaction to a single execution.

              But, no, there is no violation of the NAP as such in hitting, say, the Council of Guardians with a cruise missile in retaliation for an unjust execution undertaken under their auspices.

              1. I’d like to add that, as Tulpa said, killing a slaver is not initiation of force. Iran’s Mullahs are slavers. We have the right to overthrow them at any time. Right now, I don’t think an invasion is even necessary. Their rule has never looked so brittle.

                1. Shouldn’t we be more worried about overthrowing our own slavers?

                2. I’d like to add that, as Tulpa said, killing a slaver is not initiation of force. Iran’s Mullahs are slavers. We have the right to overthrow them at any time.

                  Please do not twist my words in this manner. We were talking about an extremely different situation, ie slavery taking place within US jurisdiction.

                  If you want to gather a bunch of like minded friends together, and some weapons, and take a plane or a ship to Iran to go fight the mullahs, be my guest. Maybe you can convince me to join you even!

                  However, it is you who are initiating aggression by forcing me to pay for your vicarious Randian adventures in foreign lands. I’m OK with forcing Americans to pay for national defense. Forcing them to pay for spreading freedom, no sir.

              2. Unless the cruise missiles are targeted in a manner that does not kill innocent bystanders, their use is a violation of the NAP.

                1. We cataloged what you just typed, FatDrunkAndStupid. Expect a visit from the Secret Service in the near future.

                  1. Add him to My enemies’ list.

                    1. Get those motherfuckers! Round ’em up and put ’em in prison!

                      Oh, and go Occupy!

                2. The civilian casualties should of course be blamed on the slavers.

                  1. I take it you absolve Hitler of any blame for the people who died in Stalingrad – after all he was liberating them from the Soviets…

                    1. No he wasn’t liberating anybody. Only free nations have rights (insofar as nations can have rights).

                    2. Why don’t you go find one of these “free nations” that don’t systematically violate people’s rights to do your dirty work then.

                      The U.S. government with the millions incarcerated in its prisons for crimes such as possessing drugs and a legal system that means most citizens commit three felonies a day as they go peaceably about their way ain’t it.

                  2. It’s obvious that the ONLY people in America who deserve to be rounded up and put in concentration camps, are those who are even one smidgen to the right-of-center.

                    If only we could do that…

                3. In general I agree with you on this topic, but wtf? So if they build their missile silo between a hospital, a mosque, and an elementary school, we can’t retaliate against a nuclear strike?

                  For a minarchist, the NAP only applies when you’re talking about acts that take place entirely within the jurisdiction of the minarchist govt. For an anarcho-capitalist, you’re already talking gobbledygook when you talk about war (familial blood feuds being the preferred method of dispute resolution) so the question is irrelevant.

      2. We’re not violating it. They are with this silly stunt they pulled with the software developer. And it doesn’t matter whether he intended it for use in uploading porn. It’s none of their f’ing business. He’s not doing that on their soil.

        1. So the UK has cause for war against the US for arresting British online gambling company executives during their layovers in US airports?

  7. Although you could make an argument for it, using “torturous” in this case is wrong. The word for a twisting and convoluted path is “tortuous.” Oh, well.

    1. An editing error, by me! But I think I’ll let it stand.

      1. That’s twisted.

  8. Can it really be called a swindle if the judicial system never worked in the first place? Have there been any similar cases where the accused got a fair deal?

    1. Good point. But it seems that Reason contributors generally spend most of their time trying to catch gnats and elephants with butterfly nets. When they catch a gnat, it’s a big event. When they get squashed by elephants, it isn’t.

  9. AGRICULTURE DID IT!!!!111!

  10. issued a death sentence

    Let me know when he has actually been executed. Thx.

  11. “a fair trial in Iranian courts”

    Haw haw haw. Good one.

    1. The Iranian judiciary will, on occasion, produce surprising results. There were some jews that were accused of spying for Israel who had the charges thrown out by the judges for lack of evidence.

      1. Flip a coin often enough and it’ll eventually land on its edge!

        1. Nah, they actually have principles that occasionally produce enlightened results.

          Their kidney transplant system is free market based, and everyone who needs a kidney gets one – something that a person with renal failure in the U.S. can only dream about.

          They also alone in the middle-east permit sex-change operations. Iranian doctors are considered the best in the region at gender reassignment surgery.

          Persian society and its institutions are far more complex & sophisticated than the picture painted by the relentless propaganda that bathes the U.S.

          1. I’ll bet they have a good source of fresh kidneys…

            1. In Iran people are allowed to sell their kidneys. Ron Bailey had a nice write up about it.

              1. I just figured they kinda just took ’em, mostly from political prisoners.

                1. I just figured they kinda just took ’em, mostly from political prisoners.

                  And you would be 100% wrong. 🙂

                  1. Well, I’ll bet life there still isn’t all that peachy.

                    1. They are executing people for the “crime” of homosexuality.

                      The government is printing money like crazy resulting in massive inflation to finance verious schemes including massive weapons spending, weird national greatness projects and intercenine fighting that makes the Taiwan legislature look like paragons of parliamentary order.

                      If you ever want to get depresses, read “Reading Lolita in Tehran” to get a sense of the hell people are being put through.

          2. Most people don’t have a very in-depth understanding of foreign countries. That isn’t ‘propaganda’. It’s just recognizing that while these nuances are interesting all in all Iran’s government is a bunch of evil medieval assholes.

            1. I dunno, our progressive and democratic government, act like a bunch of medieval assholes too.

            2. When people come out and say that the Iranians will “end the world” with a nuke, Cyto, that is pure 100% propaganda. Official government lies that you are sucking up like some kind of masochistic vampire

              1. Go easy on Cyto; the mullahs of the Ayn Rand institute are not to be questioned since they are the handpicked successors of the prophet Ayn Rand (PBUH) herself, charged with bringing the whole world into the Dar Al Rand, and if they don’t accept the word of Ayn (PBUH) then it is permissible to use the sword to bring the unbelievers into submission.

  12. ok. ok. obliterating Iran with a nuke would not be the worst thing in the world. But I just don’t want to do it. Can’t you just leave me alone?

  13. yet the government has no protests in the street to crack down on anymore. Everyone has moved online, so they [the regime] are cracking down on the Internet.” This has involved increasingly stringent censorship and the creation of a cyber army branch of the IRGC, in addition to increased arrests and death sentences for Internet users.

    Let me be clear, this sounds fucking awesome!

  14. one muhammedan less is always a good thing.

    1. One less asshole on the internet would be better.

  15. If they execute him, what’s the plan then?

  16. “Earlier this month, I wrote about Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian-born Canadian resident who was issued a death sentence by the Iranian Supreme Court for creating photo-uploading software that was then used without his knowledge to upload pornography.”
    The fucked up fundies in this country would do the same if they could get away with it.

    1. Maybe, but as long as the United States has existed they haven’t.

      1. Don’t put anything past Team Blue, though. They’re like the fundies, minus the fundie.

        1. This is what I see too. 😉

      2. Maybe, but as long as the United States has existed they haven’t.

        Hmmmmmmm.

        Abortion clinic bombings? The KKK?

        Fundies have gotten away with a lot of terrorist stuff. They used the government to enforce a lot of their religiously grounded beliefs, as well.

        The fundies were denied direct control of the federal government, but they’ve definitely used local government and the local police to inflict their religious beliefs on the rest of us, that’s for sure.

        There are still lots of places in this country where you can’t buy a six pack on Sunday.

        1. Abortion clinics are leftist fundie terrorism.

        2. We aren’t talking about terrorism or not being able to buy a six-pack though; we are talking about the state legally executing someone based on creating software that helps with downloading porn.

          Fundamentalists in the United States have never gotten a state to do such a thing ever.

        3. The extremely few abortion clinic bombings that have happened since 1973 in the US are certainly not comparable to constant, ubiquitous state oppression such as that in Iran.

          The KKK and Jim Crow laws etc. were somewhat comparable, but you’re having to dig deeeeeep into the past for those. And plenty of free marketeers were involved in those, too.

        4. Also note that even before Lawrence v Texas there was not a single instance of execution for being homosexual in any part of the US.

        5. The fucked up fundies in this country would do the same if they could get away with it.

          —-Realist

          Maybe, but as long as the United States has existed they haven’t.

          —-Lyle

          Uh, yes they have.

          —-Ken Shultz

          Y’all followin’ the same conversation?

          More than 3,000 black people lynched?

          I’m usually the guy defending everyday fundamentalists around here–but just because the violent radical American fundamentalists haven’t gained power at the federal level here in the U.S.? Doesn’t make our violent fundies qualitatively better than their violent fundies…

          Realist is right, i.e.

          1. Lynching blacks had nothing to do with religious fundamentalism. It was also extrajudicial.

            White supremacy wasn’t crazy fundamentalism, it was the the very essence of the United States for a good part of its history. Thomas Jefferson was an atheist, you know?

            1. White supremacy wasn’t crazy fundamentalism, it was the the very essence of the United States for a good part of its history.

              “The Second Klan saw threats from every direction. A religious tone was apparent in all of its activities; indeed, ‘two-thirds of the national Klan lecturers were Protestant ministers’….The second Klan arose during the nadir of American race relations, in response to urbanization and industrialization. Massive immigration of Catholics and Jews from eastern and southern Europe led to fears among Protestants.”

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K…..al_factors

              emphasis added.

        6. We were discussing government action. If a religious zealot commits murderous bombings, against the law of the land how is this the same? Murder is certainly worse than prohibition on its face.

          1. The question was about whether our violent fundies would do here what the violent fundies in Iran do to their own people–if they had the same opportunity.

            The correct answer is “prolly”.

            Again, their violent fundies may seem scarier to us because we’re used to our own violent fundies–and ours don’t have a nuclear program.

            But I don’t think there’s anything qualitatively superior about our violent fundies compared to theirs. Our violent fundies historically lynched people for very little.

  17. The West is afraid that Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they would use it because, eschatelogically, they do not care to live in this world, but the Iranian government believes by executing this man it can strike fear into the Iranian public. Is it me or does anyone else see a cognitive dissonance?

    1. Hugo,

      The reason countries (it’s not just the West but the Arab Gulf States too) are trying to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, is less because we think they’ll use, but because it will mean a nuclear arms race in that part of the world. Saudi Arabia will need nukes or nukes placed on their soil to leverage against Iran.

      We’ll also be stuck with the current Iranian regime because with nukes we surely won’t be attacking them. People will have to put up with them like they put up with North Korea and Pakistan.

      1. The Iranians were able to boot the Shah out without significant outside support.

        They could do it again.

        1. This is what I hope for. However, the current regime is not as weak as the Shah.

          1. The Shah had massive amounts of arms, money and personnel from the U.S. helping him brutalize Iranians. The current regime does not get anywhere near that level of external support.

            1. Maybe, but the regime in Iran survived the “Green Revolution” from a couple of years ago.

              Lets hope the Iranian people will sacrifice themselves again and again for something better though.

      2. And what have North Korea or Pakistan done to harm you, your family, or friends, Lyle?

        Nothing? Then quit bitching

        1. North Korea has attacked our allies.

      3. You’re aware there is already a Middle Eastern country with nukes and lots of enemies?

        Oh wait, they don’t count. Because they’re the good guys; they only destroy civilian housing and then refuse to allow “fortification materials” like styrofoam and drywall into that territory.

        1. Tulpa, don’t forget the existential threat posed by madmen wielding jam, sesame seeds, shoes and feminine hygiene products.

          1. You could make a hell of a squirrel trap with that stuff.

        2. Oh no, I didn’t know Israel was such a problem for us or the region. Oh no a democratic state with a successful, wealthy economy. Frightening!!!

          Jews… eeeeeekkk!!!

          1. Classic bait and switch. Your claim I was responding to was that one Middle Eastern country getting nukes sets off an arms race. You explicitly claimed that Iran’s likelihood of attacking the US had nothing to do with it.

            I’m not sure if you can call “democratic” a country that doesn’t allow non-Jewish residents of certain regions a vote, but that’s another topic.

      4. We’ll also be stuck with the current Iranian regime because with nukes we surely won’t be attacking them.

        Feature, not bug.

  18. What a bunch of animals, totally barbaric society! Big middle finger salute to them and their stupid Allah, Mohammed or whatever cow it is they now bow to!

    http://www.totally-anon.tk

    1. I know it’s anonobot, but still, what is it about these threads that brings out the ignorant bigoted jerk-offs?

      1. Because it’s there

  19. “The Canadian Parliament gave a unanimous vote on a motion “expressing concern for Saeed’s situation,” which was “their strongest move yet.” ”

    And not a single fuck was given.

  20. and and other witnesses claimed that the elbowing-in-the-head pr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.