Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Iran Airs Documentary on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFhn-...layer_embedded

    I can't even say it looks like the same person to me, but never mind the credibility of this video at the moment.

    Assuming all of this is true the only question is - why was she not convicted for murder?

    The Iranian regime seems to completely misunderstand the west's attitude towards this.

    I don't think there would have been as much criticism if she was actually convicted for murder.

    However executing her for adulatory while the convicted murderer is released - this is what caused the outrage in the west.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think they should just release her and let her leave Iran
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think they should just release her and let her leave Iran
    What do you think about the documentary?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm amazed that they were given so much permission by the Iranian authorities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who actually even cares? Its a completely different culture, with different rules, different religion, different morals and values as the west. If their law clearly states such and such a rule, then thats it. Its got nothing to do with us. The west is equally as "bad" with Guantanamo etc. We need to stop policing the world. We wouldnt like it if they used their rules here....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why does the West have to stick their noses where it's not wanted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    Why does the West have to stick their noses where it's not wanted.
    We're allowed to think and express our views.

    Besides, the Iranian regime has made quite a few comments regarding morality in the west, hasn't it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFhn-...layer_embedded


    However executing her for adulatory while the convicted murderer is released - this is what caused the outrage in the west.
    They should execute her for killing. I don't understand why they let her go. Justice is needed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yousif92)
    Who actually even cares? Its a completely different culture, with different rules, different religion, different morals and values as the west. If their law clearly states such and such a rule, then thats it. Its got nothing to do with us. The west is equally as "bad" with Guantanamo etc. We need to stop policing the world. We wouldnt like it if they used their rules here....
    The west isn't a synonymous for the USA. Everybody deserves freedom and liberty, we are in a position of power to help those that can't help themselves. If you saw a child getting beaten up severely by an adult (non-parental), would you help him out or would you just leave him there to continue being abused and possibly killed because it's none of your business?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FaraxZeroIncome)
    They should execute her for killing. I don't understand why they let her go. Justice is needed.
    They don't let her go. She's still scheduled for execution, but not for murder./
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    I'm amazed that they were given so much permission by the Iranian authorities.
    This is PressTV, it IS the authorities. Or at least their English language mouthpiece. No surprises whatsoever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    They don't let her go. She's still scheduled for execution, but not for murder./
    Great news.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    The west isn't a synonymous for the USA. Everybody deserves freedom and liberty, we are in a position of power to help those that can't help themselves. If you saw a child getting beaten up severely by an adult (non-parental), would you help him out or would you just leave him there to continue being abused and possibly killed because it's none of your business?
    That is a good point, but we are in no position to play these "moral" games (as states). A child being beaten is universally accepted as bad. But a woman being executed for a "crime" (in her culture it is viewed as a crime) is not a universally accepted law. My point is that morality IF morality is not absolute, then we cannot ever point the finger to others who have different cultural values.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yousif92)
    That is a good point, but we are in no position to play these "moral" games (as states). A child being beaten is universally accepted as bad. But a woman being executed for a "crime" (in her culture it is viewed as a crime) is not a universally accepted law. My point is that morality IF morality is not absolute, then we cannot ever point the finger to others who have different cultural values.
    This has nothing to do with "culture". Iranian culture abhors this type of barbarity. This is a result of the fundamentalist Islamic laws which have been imposed on the Iranian people for the past 31 years by the unelected Mullah oligarchy.

    Before 1979 you would never have been executed in Iran for the "crime" of adultery, let alone stoned. It wasn't even a crime back then.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    This has nothing to do with "culture". Iranian culture abhors this type of barbarity. This is a result of the fundamentalist Islamic laws which have been imposed on the Iranian people for the past 31 years by the unelected Mullah oligarchy.

    Before 1979 you would never have been executed in Iran for the "crime" of adultery, let alone stoned. It wasn't even a crime back then.
    Before 1979, if you didnt lick the shahs crack, or wore a hijab, or publicly said "i like khomeini" then youd be tortured and then executed.

    Dont play the game that the shah is all well and good. He is worse than saddam.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The whole thing would probably only be a days news if it happened in Saudi Arabia.There would be no campaigns from Carla Bruni.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yousif92)
    Before 1979, if you didnt lick the shahs crack, or wore a hijab, or publicly said "i like khomeini" then youd be tortured and then executed.


    I think you'll find that women had the freedom to wear the hejab before 1979. They also had the freedom not to wear it, a freedom not granted by these feral Mullahs that you're defending.

    You seem to have mistaken me for a monarchist, I am not. The Shah was a political dictator, but he did not interfere in people's personal lives. And that's historical fact, and the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

    Dont play the game that the shah is all well and good. He is worse than saddam.
    Erm. When did the Shah ever use chemical weapons or start attacking his neighbours?

    I'm not getting into the game of "who's the worst dictator" with you, but in terms of body count, both Saddam and the Mullahs have far more blood on their hands.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    The west isn't a synonymous for the USA. Everybody deserves freedom and liberty, we are in a position of power to help those that can't help themselves. If you saw a child getting beaten up severely by an adult (non-parental), would you help him out or would you just leave him there to continue being abused and possibly killed because it's none of your business?

    loooool, help them hahah, funny joke bro, don't act like a dumb american BALEEEEZ, goverments don't care about other people, like they'v got no trouble killing millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet they want to help this one person.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)


    I think you'll find that women had the freedom to wear the hejab before 1979. They also had the freedom not to wear it, a freedom not granted by these feral Mullahs that you're defending.

    You seem to have mistaken me for a monarchist, I am not. The Shah was a political dictator, but he did not interfere in people's personal lives. And that's historical fact, and the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.



    Erm. When did the Shah ever use chemical weapons or start attacking his neighbours?

    I'm not getting into the game of "who's the worst dictator" with you, but in terms of body count, both Saddam and the Mullahs have far more blood on their hands.
    Thats not the point i was trying to make (though admittedly i got distracted). In 1979, the world saw its largest revolution. The sheer size of it meant that when the shah had to flee, he HAD TO FLEE. The people clearly didn't want a secular state. They clearly wanted an islamic state. With a nation of 90% shia muslims, many of whom are predominantly poor, they will choose a shia islamic government over a secular one. That does not mean i condone irans treatment of, say, bahai's or any other group. The point im making is that is pretty much the culture in iran. I was there a few years ago (under Khatami) during a pilgrimage in mashad. From what i saw in Tehran and all the way through the roads to mashad were shia muslims. Naturally, this is going to be reflected in their constitution, rules and government (mind you, i was pretty young when i was there, but i remember it well... Iranians are so nice, how can i not remember their hospitality?)....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS, im iraqi. From the south. I know the iran iraq war as well as anyone. Iran did not begin it. Nor did they use chemical weapons. Saddam begunthe war and he used chemical weapons against iranians. Not the other way round. I dont recall anone mentioning iran and its chemical weapons. Ever. When the vast majority of the western world gave Saddam his chemical weapons and funded him to fight iran, all it was going to do was increase iranian hatred of the western world and its values. Iran is now one of the worlds most afflicted countries of weapons of mass destruction. Much of this is due to the indirect actions of certain western powers. All this is going to do is make irans foreign policy towards those who funded the killing much, much worse....
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 13, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.