Feminist activist in Iran sentenced to 24 years in prison for removing hijab.

"Public executions?" What the hell are you on about?

 

When has that happened? Any examples?

So no matter WHAT rules are introduced regarding how to dress, you would be okay with them?

 

I admit: reading the charges against the US which you are responding to is, whether intended as such or not, a great parody of what is often printed or broadcast in the US about Iran!! All of them have a little truth but they certainly don't give any requisite context and are ultimately clearly misleading. For instance, many jurisdictions in the US have '3 strikes and you are out' type legislation. And under such legislation, you have had cases were petty crimes have ended up seeing someone send away for life. But, obviously, it is no more accurate to pretend that anyone can be sent to 24 (or 15) years in prison (never mind no final sentence has even been issued and the) for not wearing the head scarf (that is not the charge, but merely a fact to describe the overall context of the charge at issue) in a case that involved someone who has had prior convictions and is facing aggravation of charges against her on that basis; than to pretend the US penalizes petty theft with life imprisonment!

 

Well what's the longest sentence in Iran that a woman can get for a dress violation?

 

2 months.

 

And the NY Times is so much better?

 

"Butchered" implies murder, no?

 

They are more sophisticated in their lies and propaganda.

 

NY Times or Post?

 

The NY Times is more sophisticated. Their lies typically would require a lot more effort to prove wrong. The Post and such publications basically write only for the already converted. Folks who won't be looking to see if the reports are true, because they sound true and seem to advance the "cause".

 

You think that the NY Times isn't just as left wing as the NY Post is right wing?

 

Right and left have lost their meaning, each spectrum under the wings of different special interest groups and their agendas. The NY Times is basically part of what in "Trumpian terms" would be the "globalist international" network, while the right wing is taken over by the neocon coalition (pro Israel lobby + military industrial lobby, with Christian evangelicals used as their foot soldiers). While both sides appeal to certain ideologies that might have greater resonance among the "left" or "right", they are ultimately simply trying to pave the way for the folks who underwrite their activities to succeed.

That said, generalizations about any large organization are never truly accurate. They are simply short-hand to describe the dominant forces in each.

 

"Underwrite their activities to succeed?"

 

Well?

 

NY SLimes is pro Israel and anti-Palestinian, just like the Post.

 

I don't follow you and what you are asking. I am also having a fun time watching, albeit from a distance, the pro Israel lobby and its agents in Washington, trying to convince their best friend, Trump, to override US military leaders who feel war with Iran would be a disaster for American interests and costly in lives and material, while also trying to convince their secret whores in Riyadh to go along with what they want despite knowing they will be the first to pay the price for any such war!

 

And pro-Democrat and anti-Republican.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...removing-hijab.561260/page-21#post-1070976398

 

You need to be clearer since you have just quoted something I had said. What part of what I said you want me to expand or explain.

 

Nobody supported traitor Bush's war of imperialistic terrorism in Iraq more than did the pro war NY SLimes.

 

Politics sure makes strange bedfellows. One would think that a Liberal would believe a Human Rights group like Amnesty
International - which provided most of the material in my original post - rather than a right wing, theocratic, police state like
Iran. But some lefties hate the USA so much that they pretend to believe anything, no matter how unreliable or prejudiced
the source, as long as it is anti-American. I don't think any objective person would accuse Amnesty International of perpetuating
hoaxes.

 

Mebbe you should do a bit more homework on the subject which has been criticized by folks from all sides of the political aisle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

 

Okay, so they were previously a bit less anti-Republican. Today however they are RADICALLY pro-Democrat and RADICALLY anti-Republican. Democrats largely supported the war too you know, so the NY Times supporting the war hardly made them anti-Democrat!

 

I think that you're Iranian, so English may not be your first language and this might be a silly aspect to the English language, but normally when something is quoted, and it is followed by a question mark, it means that the person doesn't know what is meant by what is quoted. So I don't know what you mean by, ""underwrite their activities to succeed."

 

Sorry, but I thought, given that English is your first language, the phrase would have been self-explanatory. But in case it wasn't, it was meant as short-hand for groups that fund and sponsor various media outlets -- and do so to advance their agendas. Those agendas, to be sure, don't always need to be understood or recognized as being political. If you are a 'cog' in a wheel that turns and makes money for someone, you won't be concerned with what is going on above you but fulfilling your part of the operation.

p.s.
The division I am alluding to between 'global economic interests' and the 'neocon coalition' involves ultimately a whole set of issues that are either familiar enough for short-hand to be sufficient, or else will require a huge exposition on economic and political forces and alignments in the US which would be more a treatise than a post that can fit in a message here.
p.s.s.
For those who might understand what I am talking about, let me be clear: unlike those who have been overly exposed and indoctrinated in Marxist ideology and a materialistic view of society, I am actually someone who finds the interaction between the material world and the intellectual or ideological one to be more dynamic. The materialistic forces broadly set out by Marx do influence the superstructure, and define its contours and the limits of ideology that can succeed and those which will fail, but there will still be sufficient competition between various ideologies that won't be entirely determined by simple materialistic determinism. In a way, I believe in both Hegelian dialectic and Marxian dialectic as both being important in understanding the forces that govern history and society.