|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"Britain, U.S. Call on Iran to Halt Execution of Christian Pastor"
On 9/29/2011 at 3:19:37 PM, Trainwreck started the thread:
Story:
The U.K. and the U.S. urged Iran to overturn a death sentence imposed on an Iranian Christian pastor for apostasy.
Youcef Nadarkhani, a member of the Protestant evangelical church in the Islamic republic, faces a death sentence for refusing to recant his faith.
“I deplore reports that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, an Iranian church leader, could be executed imminently after refusing an order by the Supreme Court of Iran to recant his faith,” Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a statement on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.
“This demonstrates the Iranian regime’s continued unwillingness to abide by its constitutional and international obligations to respect religious freedom,” the statement said. “I pay tribute to the courage shown by Pastor Nadarkhani who has no case to answer and call on the Iranian authorities to overturn his sentence.”
In Washington, the Obama administration also condemned the action and called for Nadarkhani’s release.
“A decision to impose the death penalty would further demonstrate the Iranian authorities’ utter disregard for religious freedom, and highlight Iran’s continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
Msg #1: On 9/29/2011 at 8:41:31 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
It's only a matter of time before the Iranian people overthrow this horrible and unpopular theocracy. All it would take is one legitimate election and the whole thing would crumble in under a decade.
Replies: 2
Msg #2: On 9/29/2011 at 8:56:14 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #1, saying:
A matter of time? What about until then? It's been that for thirty years. We had an opportunity in 2009 to show we supported the Iranian people and the administration chose not to.
Also, where is it written that subjugated people will somehow inherently overpower a militarily secured regime?
Msg #3: On 10/7/2011 at 1:21:16 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
It's been two weeks, and I'm still not sure if you're advocating American intervention in Iran.
Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 10/11/2011 at 10:22:57 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #3, saying:
It's been two weeks and I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on a statement like "it's just a matter of time" before a nuclear military theocracy consolidating and purifying power over thirty years going to be booted out of power by their own repressed populous.
Msg #5: On 10/11/2011 at 10:52:32 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I don't know what you want me to elaborate on. I firmly believe this ludicrous government will eventually either collapse of its own incompetence or be ousted by the same sort of revolution (though a less theocratic one) that got it into power in the first place. Judging by what my Iranian friends tell me, the popularity, integrity, and cultural influence of the government is massively exaggerated in American and European media, and that the general consensus among the Iranian people is that the government won't be around for another generation.
Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 10/12/2011 at 11:13:52 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #5, saying:
And yet it remains and has weathered the Arab Spring, and been able to expand its influence in the region as well as project terrorist plots overseas. Iranian students have been saying the government has been unpopular for years; they were the ones getting shot in the street back in 2009 when Obama was touting the clerics as the legitimate government. Hmm...
Msg #7: On 10/13/2011 at 3:25:33 PM, elementry replied, saying:
While the regime itself is a cancer in that area of the world, they also keep many homegrown extremist groups in check within their borders. Full-scale military action, unless accompanied by a full coalition of partner nations, would be a mistake. That entire landmass would disolve into a quagmire of anarchy and power-plays that would rival Iraq on it's worst day.
The best thing we can do is limit their ability to obtain nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, as well as strengthen ties with the other nations in the area so that when the time comes that military action may be needed, then they can do it instead of us.
Replies: 8
Msg #8: On 10/15/2011 at 2:32:39 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #7, saying:
My point was that the inevitability of the internal collapse of the Iranian regime is vastly overstated across the spectrum of American political thought.
I was not calling for full-scale military action against them. If we waged an actual potent, powerful propaganda and destabilization campaign against them with a significant chunk of resources, I think we'd be a lot closer to fomenting that change that doesn't seem to be able to come about on its own.
Unfortunately, we've got commander finger in the wind at the helm and Bush got cowed out of any further aggressive foreign policy stances in his 2nd term, save for the Surge. Props on that one.
Msg #9: On 10/17/2011 at 1:49:02 PM, elementry replied, saying:
I will say that the surge helped further our immediate goals at the time. But it was just a band aid.
The Iranian regime still has a very substantial hold over the people. That's not to say that a significant portion of their people aren't beyond the point of disastisfied.
But the people live in a state very similar to that of the fascists of the early 20th century. They are actively encouraged to spy on their neighbors and report any suspicious activity to the IRGC and Basij forces.
It will be very interesting to see what develops in that nation in the next decade.
|
