What a travesty!

What a travesty!

The cartoon is linked to the cox and forkum article, which lists several websites with stories about the two gay teens executed. I must warn everyone; some of the photos of the execution are very graphic, but IMHO they need to be seen.

Incidentally, this wasn't a hanging in the sense of a gallows and trap door, with a quick death from a broken neck (bad enough). They stood them on the back of a truck, put the nooses on very loosely, removed their blindfolds (to make it worse) and drove away, making for a slow death by gradual strangulation.

What makes this exaction unique is not the brutality (it is not especially brutal compared to some of the methods used there for executing gays) but that it was photographed. This is all too common a fate for gay teens in Iran and some other countries as well. In many cases, they add "rape" to the charges (this has been documented my many human-rights organizations) to make the sentences a little less noteworthy, but those are tumped-up charges.

In this case, the teens (about 15 at the time) confessed under torture. They were beaten and tortured repeatedly in the two years before their execution, knowing all along that they would be executed in the end.

I'll say this plainly; any regime that has homosexuality as a capitol offense (remember, the above was an official government trial and execution) should be the avowed enemy of every gay man and woman, as should any group that supports such an outrage.

CJ-

Anybody who has ever been to a big city gay club will tell you that men from the Middle East are world class pervs- even dirtier than the Japanese.

They will proposition you to do things that I've only heard of on Nifty and when you say no, they'll whup out a big roll of bills. They are sickos for that blond hair.

In fact rich Middle Easterners keep the sex slave trade in business. Rumor has it that the reason so many kids go missing in the US and are never heard of again is that they are abducted and end up in some shiek's harem. The FBI is forbidden from blowing the whistle on this because of the sensitive relations with one of the worst offenders: Saudia Arabia.

Having friends like these makes you feel like you need a shower.

You know, it's true in general of Iran. It's also true in a number of countries. I'm not excusing the thing at all: what I'm concerned about is that your attention is being focused on a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States. Please don't fall into the Iraq trap and allow yourself to be caught up in the "Iran-is-the-enemy" fervor that will lead us into yet another disastrous failure.

If you want to work for human rights in other countries, fine, do it, but don't allow the same mainstream media that persecutes you here to dictate your targets and your passion.

James, I can't ever agree with a generalization of an entire group (There are good people from the middle east, too) , but regarding Saudi, I will say that they are, indeed, amongst the worst offenders in a lot of ways; one of which is that they, just like Iran, follow Sharia law in all it's particulars, including the execution of gays. I certainly include them on my list.

While I don't buy the kidnap theory as you describe it, there are indeed many Americans being held against their will in that country, in many cases Children when the non-custodial parent has taken them, and also American women who have been married to Saudis and entered the country. Anyone dealing with a Saudi should be aware; in Saudi, they would be the official "host" of the visiting American, and as such under Saudi law the "guest" cannot leave Saudi without their permission.

You know, it's true in general of Iran. It's also true in a number of countries. I'm not excusing the thing at all: what I'm concerned about is that your attention is being focused on a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States. Please don't fall into the Iraq trap and allow yourself to be caught up in the "Iran-is-the-enemy" fervor that will lead us into yet another disastrous failure.

 

If you want to work for human rights in other countries, fine, do it, but don't allow the same mainstream media that persecutes you here to dictate your targets and your passion.

Lucy,

No, I'm not falling into any trap. The trap here is very well illustrated by your statement that "a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States." Anyone who believes that is soundly in a tarp his or her self.

Let's look at the facts; I mentioned Iran in particular becuase of their president's statements in New York; they are the same as if Hitler had said "We don't have any Jews in Germans" becuase his regime is actively exterminating them. Secondly, though not my reason in this case, Iran has been designated as the #1 terror-supporting nation by five US administrations going back over 20 years. This isn't propaganda, it's a cold, hard fact. For example, they openly fund and manage Hezzbolah, and Hezzbolah has a lot of American blood on its hands.

They are attempting to develop nuclear weapons. If allowed to obtain them, they will be untouchable. Given their current genocidal activities, this would be folly of the highest order, and it must be stopped, by any means necessary.

Back during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I was opposed to it, for a very simple reason; I felt Iran was by far the greatest danger. History has proven me correct. I don't favor a ground occupation, I never did, for reasons Iraq has proven. There are, however, better ways to remove that regime, or at least render it toothless.

I also mentioned all regimes and groups that practice and support the systematic execution of gay people. I said those should be our avowed enemy. If you disagree, I'd very much like to know why?

I feel quite ill at ease with the "I don't see why you don't agree" rhetoric. YES, the Iranian government is actively trampling on human rights. In one of the articles that was linked from the cartoon, I read the following.

No, I'm not falling into any trap. The trap here is very well illustrated by your statement that "a particular country which is right now trying to stay out of an unprovoked war with the United States."

"SNAP" said the trap...

 

Let's look at the facts; I mentioned Iran in particular becuase of their president's statements in New York; they are the same as if Hitler had said "We don't have any Jews in Germans" becuase his regime is actively exterminating them. Secondly, though not my reason in this case, Iran has been designated as the #1 terror-supporting nation by five US administrations going back over 20 years. This isn't propaganda, it's a cold, hard fact. For example, they openly fund and manage Hezzbolah, and Hezzbolah has a lot of American blood on its hands.

Alright, let's give a little perspective to this. Look back some years... back to ... well, lets start with the 70ies. Iran was considered a "good country" back then. During the cold war us-government supported every government and every unscrupulous dictator in the world they could find to build bulwarks against communism. The shah of Iran was put into power by a CIA-Operation back in the 1950ies. The Shah was strongly supported and armed by especially the usa and uk up until 1978. During these years, the Shah enslaved, gagged and bled to death his own people so bad 'till Iranians in black despair crowded around a religious leader, Ayatholla Khomeini. Millions of people have been on the streets against the oppressor in 1978/79, it was called the "white revolution". You probably remember the Iran hostage crisis. Anyway, the shahs army retreated, and he had to flee.

(of course these are my own words. For more detailed look in history books or here)

After that, everyone was angry. Iranias were angry because of all the us-support for the shah, usa were angry because now all their weapons have been passed to the hands of islamic fundamentalists and the loss of control over the oil in the middle east. Iran went from "good country" to "evil country".

To regain control, us-government searched out another sympathetic young man in the region, just around the corner: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was not a communist and did good business with a lot of western countries back then. He was very willing to jump at the opportunity to boost the seize of his country and his ego, and so the Iran-Iraq war began. Soon the usa openly supported Hussein. The war continued for 8 years, hundreds of thousands people died on both sides; the only ones who won anything during this war, have been the companies that are producing arms and ammunition. Look up where the worlds biggest arms manufacturers reside (and when you're at it, you can also look up the keyword "Iran-Contra Affair").

I'm quite familiar with Middle Eastern history and politics, and I take issue with some things you claim, but not others.

Was the Shah a corrupt and ruthless dictator? Yes. Was he as bad as the current despots? No. He was at least trying to modernize the country, whereas the current regime seems well-rooted in the dark ages. Dis the Shah har oceans of Iranian blud on his hands via the tactics of SAVIK (his secret police) and others? Sure he did. The problem with all this moralizing and hand-wringing over the Shah is what followed was worse, both for the US and the people in Iran.

Given only that history, do you now understand why these sickos in Iran support organizations like Hezzbolah? Please note, that i am in no way tring to to justify what they do, i just want you to understand why they do it.

I'm afraid there is a very deep logical flaw in your argument; Hezzbolah is primarily dedicated to exterminating Israel. I don't much care what their excuses are; they are funding a terrorist organization that has as its stated goal a new holocaust. Even if they had a legitimate grievance against the US, creating and supporting Hezbollah is inexcusable.

They are attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

How do you know that? Oh wait... is it possible you got that information from the fine people that told you Iraq is threatening us with weapons of mass destruction? A reliable source indeed...

Ummm, do bear in mind that the Clinton administration warned about Saddam's WMD's. That said, I was opposed to going into Iraq, becuase Saddam was a minor irritant compared to Iran. I also felt, at the time, that the focus on WMD's was foolish in the extreme; not only did it set us up for one hell of a "gotcha" if Iraq removed the WMD's to Syria (there is strong evidence that they did exactly this) but chemical weapons just aren't that big a threat and Biologicals are helaciously hard to use effectively. I felt that *if* there was a geostrategic case for Iraq, it should have been laid out instead of putting all our eggs into the sound-byte-oriented overly simplistic WMD claim.

Regardless, as for Iran's nuclear program. Look at the facts; They have a nuclear program that is enriching Uranium. There is no dispute on this; they claim it often. Second point; they are building and/or have built cascading cernterfuge arrays, which by their design are not optimized at low-level enrichment (the few percent needed for reactor fuel) but for higher enrichment, which has but ONE purpose, and that's inside a bomb case.

Secondly, ask yourself this; WHY are they persuing a nuclear program? They sit atop a sea of oil, yet they want nuclear power, for what exactly? They claim they seek "energy independence" yet they can't even be bothered to build enough refining capacity to refine their domestic gasoline; they, one of the world's leading petroleum exporters, have to import over half their gasoline. (From as far away as Venezuela)

Another proof of their lie; they claim they want to enrich their own uranium so they can control the entire nuclear fuel loop, ignoring the fact that they don't have a domestic source of uranium; they import it. They have to; there are no known uranium ore deposits in Iran.

No, I don't need the Bush admin to tell me that Iran is after nuclear weapons; the evidence is out there in plain sight if you look and use common sense.

Iran stated on several occasions that they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons. What reason is there not to trust them? In contrast to others, Iran is not known to ambush their neighbouring countries.

Oh come on! A regime of genocidal fanatics, and you think we should take them at their word? I'd suggest taking a look at another genocidal regime, and it's protestations of peaceful intent, and their denial of the concentration camps, etc, etc, etc. But, why shouldn't we have trusted Hitler? Surely he wouldn't lie?

genocidal activities - I think you're a bit out of line. The incident you called attention to is more than 2 years old (but hence not less abominable). In last years ai-report you find a couple of horrible things but nothing gay-related. Your exagerration and the usage of this 2 year old incident at this current time is simple propaganda.

Yes, Genocidal activities, because as i said the first time; the only unique thing about that execution was that it was photographed. In Iran, homosexuality is a capitol offense, and their regemes' mouthpiece said that they don't have homosexuality in Iran (Should we trust them on that, too?) There have been at least hundreds of others in recent years. Don't take my word for it, check with the human rights organizations, which are hardly friends of the current US administration.

Also, they have repeatedly pledged to wipe out Israel. That would be genocide, and if you don't believe me, check a dictionary. So too is trying to exterminate gays as a group, which is exactly what they are doing.

Here's why: the us-government has no right to punish other countries for felt or real errors or disobedience. It has also no right to install regimes in other countries, that are friendly to their business matters. History has proven the world, that no good comes from that.

Think about his: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

To make this unmistakingly clear: I do not care the least bit about Iranian government or Islamic fundamentalists whatsoever. Ahmadinejad is an antisemitic idiot.

There are horrible violations of human rights in Iran, but you will not stop these things or change the way people think with bombing them.

Oh come on, "do unto others", that's absurd. That only works (and often not even then) if you are dealing with rational and decent people, which that regime clearly is not.

I'm also not overly concerned about some spurious notion of "rights" regarding a genocidal fanatical dictatorship.

The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Ooooo Hot Topic!

I wish I were atending Columbia.

I wish I were part of the presentation team at Columbia.

I would have loved to show a few choice pictures as the biggot said "We dont have homosexuals in Iran."

THis news just makes me even sadder =(

The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Following the links you offered, I got to read several testimonies of gay men in Iran. Of course, their situation is far from being fun. It didn't read as they were systematically hunted or murdered, though of course they belong to a minority that is oppressed. As are any people who enjoy life, arts, freedom, etc.

As for genocidal activities: here is the legal definition, found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So, deliberate murder. Breaks of basic Human Rights. Not genocide. But I agree with 97a, and you didn't reply to this: this is a 2-year-old news. Should we then all wholeheartedly agree that the next set of bombings is meant to defend our "race"?

The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Following the links you offered, I got to read several testimonies of gay men in Iran. Of course, their situation is far from being fun. It didn't read as they were systematically hunted or murdered, though of course they belong to a minority that is oppressed. As are any people who enjoy life, arts, freedom, etc.

 

As for genocidal activities: here is the legal definition, found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

 

So, deliberate murder. Breaks of basic Human Rights. Not genocide. But I agree with 97a, and you didn't reply to this: this is a 2-year-old news. Should we then all wholeheartedly agree that the next set of bombings is meant to defend our "race"?

Hrmmm, I thought most any gay person would support the concept that making homosexuality a capitol offence and acting on it would be considered genocide? We decry often enough the fact that we aren't granted the same legal protections against discrimination as race or age, so do we really want to sign on to a definition that does not

happen to list sexual orientation when it clealry should? I don't think so, but, its a moot point anyway; National groups are listed, and I think wanting to exterminate a nation would count? They've pledged to destroy Isriel, to "Drive them into the sea", and its not mere rhetoric; they founded, manage, and supply and support Hezzbolah, which has the same stated aim and acts on it often. Trying to exterminate a country is genocide, so my claim of "Genocidal Regime" stands, regardless of the semantics regarding whether gays should be considered a group under the definition for genocide.

And yes, I did answer that part of 97A's post; I said that the execution was unique only becuase it was photographed; there have been at least hundreds more. One quick peek at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Right's commission's page gives us this excerpt;

Iran is national sponser of terror. The war in Iraq is a proxy war with Iran. (for those of you too slow to follow this... American Soldiers are being killed by weapons and people from Iran. This is what they refer to as Casus belli. Act of War)

 

I'm assuming that you antiwar for any reason types would be the ones that also denied that Hitler was exterminating Jews. You probably also think President Bush was the one who flew the airplanes into these buildings:

 

We are in a global war against Islamic Fundamentalism. Or Islamic Facism, if you prefer the proper term.

 

These facists, like the Nazis, want to exterminate Jews, Gays, and Americans. They will do everything they can to do so.

 

It sickens me that the first targets of these people are the ones playing Neville Chamberlain demanding that we surrender to them because they are oh so nice.

 

Myr

It sems you didn't read my post. If at some point a military intervention is needed, I won't cry over Islamic soldiers falling under bombs. I do remember history. I won't give in the other cheek, as I won't follow blindly people who are so eager to spend tax-payers money in hopeless wars that are not planned in any sensible way that would make them worthwhile, since they're meant to promote good VS. evil. I also know the US record of foreign intervention since WWII. And my country's for that matter. They're not too brilliant.

Can I ask primarily of CJ and 97a as well as Bondwriter one question: If we all agree that Iran is wrong in their treatment of Homosexuals, what can the average person do to try and change this?

What we've done in democracies for ages: write letters through Amnesty International, petition to our representatives and the local embassies, and vote for the candidates whom you deem the most able to handle the situation and a possible conflict when time comes. I personally have lost on the last point ever since I voted in presidential elections, but I'll keep on going to the polls and fighting the dimwit who was elected last May through my vote and the other democratic ways.

These are also keeping informed, trying to get news from various points of views and discussing it whenever possible. As long as the people I talk to are willing to listen to what I say and are willing to be pragmatic and see facts, that are often more complicated than what appears. After a while, with any bigot, you're better off giving up. In my time, I quit discussing with royalists, far-right wingers, Born Again Christians, Islamic fundamentalists and trotskyites.

As a citizen of a country which declared himself to be neutral (at least politically) about 300 years ago, I followed all the comments above and understood very well the positions of both sides. I also find at least odious the actual policy of Iran in human rights and I quite support the position of the western world against its government.

But on the other side, even a State like USA has its limits. An old sentence in policy says:

Oh come on, "do unto others", that's absurd. That only works (and often not even then) if you are dealing with rational and decent people, which that regime clearly is not.

I'm also not overly concerned about some spurious notion of "rights" regarding a genocidal fanatical dictatorship.

I am disappointed that you think so. It implies, that you are simply dismissing everyone who is not your opinion, has a different set of rules, or a different cultural background.

That is a rather gross mischaracterization, to put it mildly. I am dismissing the so-called "rights" of a tyrannical dictatorship, just as I dismiss the "rights" of, say, a serial killer to practice what he does.

The entire focus of my post is that, as a gay man, I take serious exception (understatement alert) to a regime that systematically executes people for being gay, and that I feel any such regime (and Iran isn't the only one) ought to be the avowed enemy of gay people. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it. What bought Iran into this is the mouthpiece of the regeme, in a speech at Columbia University, denied that there were any homosexuals in Iran, while at the same time being part of a regime that executes them.

Believe me, i am as offended by this ahmadineshit as you are. I am in no way trying to defend any crimes that he or his mediavel fundamentalist friends are commiting.

I am nonetheless trying to point out, why i think your obviously prefered politics are wrong and will cause more harm than good to everybody.

I've said at least once, earlier in this thread, that I am opposed to a US invasion of Iran, yet that bumper sticker you linked to clearly indicates the opposite. It would be preposterous for me to support such a move; Looked at solely as a matter of practicality, the US could not invade and occupy Iran; we don't have the uncommitted forces to do so. (for every deployed soldier, you need two on rest and retraining). This would be true even without Iraq;

Iran is a far larger country in both population and area.

And yes, I was preoccupied with other things in the 70;s too, like Kindergarten, which for some reason dimmed my political awareness at that time.

I've been quietly reading this with interest.

 

I see a lot of good points being made, but I also see misinterpretation of others comments to back their point.

 

Can I ask primarily of CJ and 97a as well as Bondwriter one question: If we all agree that Iran is wrong in their treatment of Homosexuals, what can the average person do to try and change this?

 

I know this is a big question, but it has been on my mind the past week since the president of Iran was in New York.

 

Thanks,

Steve

I'm with Bondwriter on this one; vote for whom you believe is best able to handle the situation (though it is quite possible that my opinion differs from his as to whom).

Old Bob has a good point on the practical limitations of what can be done, and also about giving the mouthpiece (I'm too lazy to look up the spelling of his name) a podium at Columbia university.

As to the latter, I have very mixed feelings. One one hand, I'm disgusted. On the other, it allowed the lunatic the opportunity to further expose himself for what he is, including that "we have no homosexuals in Iran" line, bringing needed public awareness to the issue.

I'd like to clarify my remarks here: I am condemning the regime in Iran, not Iranians in general, nor any religion.

My sole point was, as I've said, to decry what that regime is doing.

Ok, sorry for coming in late. I didn't read all comments.

But there's one question tormenting me! What can we do? I mean, all of us are affected by this news. The most we will do is to talk here and say a few things about some persons! That's it? How will it help those who are living in fear? Those who can do something are far more interested in their money and who want to do can't do anything...

BTW, what I don

Ok, sorry for coming in late. I didn't read all comments.

 

But there's one question tormenting me! What can we do? I mean, all of us are affected by this news. The most we will do is to talk here and say a few things about some persons! That's it? How will it help those who are living in fear? Those who can do something are far more interested in their money and who want to do can't do anything...

I think the best thing any of us can do is watch Iran closely. Personally, I think the US should launch an air strike against Iran, but as long as Bush/Cheney/Clinton are in power, that's not going to happen for purely political reasons. Myr's right about the fact that Iranians are killing our soldiers, but it's rarely talked about in the news media here in the US.