Freed Hiker Summoned For February Trial in Iran

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Let's kidnap an Iranian ship or airplane and take the crew and passangers hostage, then exchange their two hostages against our 20 or 200.

I mean the game the Iranians play is a game that can be played by two, right?

Yeah, let's make regular Iranians suffer by committing an act of terrorism. That'll show em.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Yeah, let's make regular Iranians suffer by committing an act of terrorism. That'll show em.

I think somebody in Iran's government went first with thinking: yeah, let'S make regular Americans suffer by committing an act of terrorism. That'll show them.

Sometimes I am a great fan of giving the change in the currency the other has chosen. Currently, 2 regular Americans are suffering. And 30 years ago, it were 53 - for 444 days.

Plus the hijacking of British commandos on the gulf some years ago.

Could it be a pattern I see there? Established becasue everytime they get away with it?

If you get away with it, than the method you have chosen is successful. I hate our enemies being successful. I want to see them failing.

BTW, a woman with Dutch passport who was arrested during the revolt, has been hanged some days ago for staged accusation over drug crimes. So much for the trustworthiness of the Iranian legal system. Stoning women for hilarious charges, and hanging opposition members for demonstrating not mentioned.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think somebody in Iran's government went first with thinking: yeah, let'S make regular Americans suffer by committing an act of terrorism. That'll show them.

It's not terrorism. She didn't have a visa, so she was simply trespassing on Iranian territory. The Iranians are not really being nice, but as far as I'm concerned they are in their right. She committed a criminal act (crossing the border without visa), now she just has to face the consequences.

[Skybird]

Ah, it is being legal then, because their law says so. Well, by their laws the m,urdering of that Dutch women some days ago also was "legal", then. So was the torturing and killing of the Nazis - they did it becaseu they were authorised by laws.

When your laws are arbitrarily designed and used, like in Iran, and when government and RG interfere with justikce system, and the state has a known history of hijacking hostages and absuing them for propaganda - then this is what makes it state terrorism indeed.

It's not terrorism. She didn't have a visa, so she was simply trespassing on Iranian territory. The Iranians are not really being nice, but as far as I'm concerned they are in their right. She committed a criminal act (crossing the border without visa), now she just has to face the consequences.

Yes.
Do you think Sky would be singing a very different tune if it was one of the evil muslims from the despotic cess pit of global muslim land who had violated european civilised territory by entering without the correct paperwork?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ah, it is being legal then, because their law says so. Well, by their laws the m,urdering of that Dutch women some days ago also was "legal", then. So was the torturing and killing of the Nazis - they did it becaseu they were authorised by laws.

When your laws are arbitrarily designed and used, like in Iran, and when government and RG interfere with justikce system, and the state has a known history of hijacking hostages and absuing them for propaganda - then this is what makes it state terrorism indeed.

That may well be, but the right of countries to restrict who may enter them (through the issuing of visas) is commonly accepted. If she didn't have a visa as she crossed the border, the West is obliged to follow the rules it laid down and hand her over.

[Skybird]

We would be stupid to hand her over to a regime that is totally arbitary in implementing its laws. I again remind of the assassination of the Dutch woman just days ago.

No, I do not see at all that obligation you claim. That wopuld be like handing over Jews to the Nazis, because the Third Reich had according laws.

In both cases it is totally unacceptable.

Juristic rules of a legal system basing on injustice, are evil, injust juristic rules. Injutrsice remains injustice, no matter whether legitimated by laws or not. Laws can be explicity tailored to be injust, and to protect the interests of those abusing them. When we rate bureaucracy as ranking higher than basic ethical imperatives and moral values defending human dignity, human rights, human freedoms, than we in fact declare unethical behavior and imorality not only as acceptable, but as a collective duty. And then we are not any different from the fascist regimes of the past indeed.

No, I do not see at all that obligation you claim.

Thats not surprising.

That wopuld be like handing over Jews to the Nazis, because the Third Reich had according laws.

errrrrrrr....no
The comparrison would be handing over Jews to the third reich because the country also had its own version of the nazi laws.
It is quite hard to see the subtle difference, there are border laws and visa laws which lots of countries have in common, then there was the law which said people who had 1 jewish grandparent were sub humans which your country had.
I can see how its confusing to tell the difference as after all immigration laws and nuremburg laws both have the word law.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We would be stupid to hand her over to a regime that is totally arbitary in implementing its laws.

They may be arbitrary in some cases, but in this case, it seems that the woman did break a law, and not some Sharia-specific law but one that Western countries would agree is a violation of sovereignty (entry into state w/o permit). Regardless of what you think about them, to not hand her over in this case says more about YOUR hypocrisy and arbitrariness than theirs.

To use your Jew and Nazi example, if the Jew DID (at least probably) murder someone in Germany and the Nazis demanded his return, the fact he happened to be a Jew or the government happened to be Nazi is no barrier to handing him back.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, I do not see at all that obligation you claim. That wopuld be like handing over Jews to the Nazis, because the Third Reich had according laws.

Nope, it would be more like a Jew sneaking into Germany at the height of Hitler's power, and then being shocked and playing crybaby when the Nazis arrest her. She really should have seen it coming. If you don't want to get arrested, don't trespass into Iranian territory. It's her own damn fault.