Women's Rights Activist and Lawyer Violently Arrested in Iran,

dub · July 18, 2009

WASHINGTON - July 17 - Amnesty International fears the wave of arrests of civil society activists in Iran is intensifying after lawyer and human rights activist, Shadi Sadr, was violently arrested in Tehran this morning on her way to Friday prayers.
Shadi Sadr was walking with a group of women's rights activists along a busy road when unidentified plain clothed men pulled her into a car. She lost her headscarf and coat in the ensuing struggle but managed briefly to escape. She was quickly recaptured and beaten with batons before being taken away in the car to an unknown location.

"This was an illegal, arbitrary and violent arrest in which no attempt was made by the authorities to show identification or provide any explanation for their action," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Program."

i wonder if there are iranian regime apologists, like the IDF apologists that we have in here. who will go to any length to try to discredit amnesty international because AI is criticizing and upsetting their patriotism and pride.

Edited July 18, 2009 by dub

KrustyKidd · July 18, 2009

i wonder if there are iranian regime apologists, like the IDF apologists that we have in here. who will go to any length to try to discredit amnesty international because AI is criticizing and upsetting their patriotism and pride.

Iran is run by a repressive regime. AI called it just as every western leader acknowledges. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Bonam · July 18, 2009

i wonder if there are iranian regime apologists, like the IDF apologists that we have in here. who will go to any length to try to discredit amnesty international because AI is criticizing and upsetting their patriotism and pride.

I find it funny that quoting an article about this type of event in Iran, your point is still to criticize Israel and those on this board who try to bring some sanity to counter yours and kuzadd's constant rain of meaningless allegations.

I clicked this thread and was thinking... "wow, did dub really post a thread about something besides how evil Israel is? Maybe he is starting to progress a bit?". But then I read it and was quickly disappointed. Oh well.

DogOnPorch · July 18, 2009

Yes...exactly what I thought as well.

dop thinking to self: oh...here comes the "see, i do create threads other than anti-israeli threads" thread.

dub · July 19, 2009

I find it funny that quoting an article about this type of event in Iran, your point is still to criticize Israel and those on this board who try to bring some sanity to counter yours and kuzadd's constant rain of meaningless allegations.
I clicked this thread and was thinking... "wow, did dub really post a thread about something besides how evil Israel is? Maybe he is starting to progress a bit?". But then I read it and was quickly disappointed. Oh well.

it's to make a point. what this regime is doing cannot be excused and should be condemned by all.

we don't see any apologists for human rights violations in iran. apologists who will go to any desperate length, like try to discredit AI, to show their unconditional love for the regime they're cheering for.

but we do see apologists for israel.

why is that?

DogOnPorch · July 20, 2009

it's to make a point. what this regime is doing cannot be excused and should be condemned by all.
we don't see any apologists for human rights violations in iran. apologists who will go to any desperate length, like try to discredit AI, to show their unconditional love for the regime they're cheering for.

but we do see apologists for israel.

why is that?

Because you're the one making all the Israeli threads. Not us. No thread(s)...no Israeli apologists all of a sudden.

bush_cheney2004 · July 20, 2009

...but we do see apologists for israel.
why is that?

It's a free country....you wanna tell us what to think too?

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

Because you're the one making all the Israeli threads. Not us. No thread(s)...no Israeli apologists all of a sudden.

No doubt. I've never said anything good about israel nor anything bad about Palestinians. I simply try to explain why Israel does things and mention what Hamas does and to Dub, I'm an Israeli apologist. To tell the truth, from the two years i spent over there i liked most Arabs and Palestinians as they were far more friendly and found the Israelis a bit obnoxious.

DogOnPorch · July 20, 2009

I agree with you for the most part. I'm fairly up on the military history of the area so perhaps I see a picture dub and tango do not. If Israel loses the next war (and badness ensues)...so be it. I kind of doubt it will, though. Those Merkavas are tough.

Re: Arabs vs Israelis...I have my reasons for prefering Israel over anything remotely Mufti.

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

Re: Arabs vs Israelis...I have my reasons for prefering Israel over anything remotely Mufti.

Syria, Jordan and Egypt were pretty cool to tell the truth. Not repressive like Saudi Arabia.

Bonam · July 20, 2009

Syria, Jordan and Egypt were pretty cool to tell the truth. Not repressive like Saudi Arabia.

I dunno about the other two, but Jordan's current king definitely seems to be quite the progressive sort.

dub · July 20, 2009

i still haven't seen an iranian human rights violation apologist come in here and trying to discredit this report by saying Amnesty International is not to be trusted because someone who they don't ever agree with has said Amnesty International is biased.

oh and lol @ krusty as he tries to sell himself as an unbiased, 'call'm as they are' fellow.

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

i still haven't seen an iranian human rights violation apologist come in here and trying to discredit this report by saying Amnesty International is not to be trusted because someone who they don't ever agree with has said Amnesty International is biased.
oh and lol @ krusty as he tries to sell himself as an unbiased, 'call'm as they are' fellow.

Show us where I am not Dub.

dub · July 20, 2009

Show us where I am not Dub.

you're showing your unbiased view of this conflict in another thread right now.

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

you're showing your unbiased view of this conflict in another thread right now.

Yes I am. I don't accept anonymous reports. I do know however that Hamas attacked Israel from the midst of their civilians thus placing every man woman and child in the middle of a war zone subject to the ensuing battle when the Israelis came to protect their people. If there is something wrong with that assessment please let me know.

dub · July 20, 2009

Yes I am. I don't accept anonymous reports. I do know however that Hamas attacked Israel from the midst of their civilians thus placing every man woman and child in the middle of a war zone subject to the ensuing battle when the Israelis came to protect their people. If there is something wrong with that assessment please let me know.

we weren't there and have not done an investigation on it to know what was wrong or what was right, so, both of our opinions have o weight. perhaps expert human rights organizations' reports like, the amnesty report, the red cross report and HRW's report can let you know.

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

we weren't there and have not done an investigation on it to know what was wrong or what was right, so, both of our opinions have o weight. perhaps expert human rights organizations' reports like, the amnesty report, the red cross report and HRW's report can let you know.

You of course mean the organizations that are predisposed to concentrate on established democracies perceived violations as well as the ones who allow their equipment to be used to aid in terror attacks as well far left web sites who grab disgruntled soldiers to 'anonomously' provide testimony.

That's worth gold until you actually have to prove something. Now prove something rather than just bitch about it as we don't run on hersay..

I do have to commend you as you are at least not coming right out and saying that Israel has no intention whatsoever of having peace like your pal Kuzadd. She has invalidated any credibility when she said that thus proving herself to be simply ranting rather than actually attempting to change something.

dub · July 20, 2009

You of course mean the organizations that are predisposed to concentrate on established democracies

who cares what israel calls itself. they killed over 1000 people, with 300 of them children so you bet your biased ass they're going to be concentrated on.

I do have to commend you as you are at least not coming right out and saying that Israel has no intention whatsoever of having peace like your pal Kuzadd. She has invalidated any credibility when she said that thus proving herself to be simply ranting rather than actually attempting to change something.

if kuzadd means that israel doesn't want a just peace, then i'd have to agree. however, i do believe israel does want peace in their terms, where palestinians will have the permission to live in a land with scattered jewish settlements on their land, no control of air or land or borders and no guns and call it a state.

DogOnPorch · July 20, 2009

if kuzadd means that israel doesn't want a just peace, then i'd have to agree. however, i do believe israel does want peace in their terms, where palestinians will have the permission to live in a land with scattered jewish settlements on their land, no control of air or land or borders and no guns and call it a state.

Sucks to lose. It really sucks to lose at war.

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

who cares what israel calls itself. they killed over 1000 people, with 300 of them children so you bet your biased ass they're going to be concentrated on.

So it's just a numbers game to you? Doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Incredible.

if kuzadd means that israel doesn't want a just peace, then i'd have to agree. however, i do believe israel does want peace in their terms, where palestinians will have the permission to live in a land with scattered jewish settlements on their land, no control of air or land or borders and no guns and call it a state.

Kuzadd believes Israel never wants peace at all rather wishes to continue war simply to steal land. I believe that Israel wishes peace and will, as they have proven time and time again, give up land if assured of security. You on the other hand are of the opinion that for some strange reason they wish to continue being attacked and not even be able to justify Kuzadd's fantasy of stealing land nor my idea of having security as they would perpetually be subject to attacks from land they gave back which would be settled by pissed off palestinians.

Strange outlook indeed. Kuzadd actually makes sense compared to you after reflecting on it.

dub · July 20, 2009

So it's just a numbers game to you? Doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Incredible.

what is incredible is that you reply to comments that are not made.

i said, many people including many children were killed, so therefore there will be concentration on the incident. (not by the mainstream media in north america though)

Kuzadd believes Israel never wants peace at all rather wishes to continue war simply to steal land.

let me see. they've continued to violate the UN resolutions and have continued to annex more land while throwing any excuse to negotiate a just peace. it's all on the board.

I believe that Israel wishes peace and will, as they have proven time and time again, give up land if assured of security. You on the other hand are of the opinion that for some strange reason they wish to continue being attacked and not even be able to justify Kuzadd's fantasy of stealing land nor my idea of having security as they would perpetually be subject to attacks from land they gave back which would be settled by pissed off palestinians.
Strange outlook indeed. Kuzadd actually makes sense compared to you after reflecting on it.

looks like you went into one of your babble modes and i'm too tired to try to decipher what you're whining about exactly.

is this babble in the same lines as when you declared that i supported the bush invasion because i think gandhi is a righteous man?

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

what is incredible is that you reply to comments that are not made.
i said, many people including many children were killed, so therefore there will be concentration on the incident. (not by the mainstream media in north america though)

But no concentration on the deaths that prompted the IDF to take action. Strange these deaths are of no consequence to some. That's why I said it was a numbers game to some.

let me see. they've continued to violate the UN resolutions and have continued to annex more land while throwing any excuse to negotiate a just peace. it's all on the board.

They are still at war and have been since 1948. Only two countries have made peace with them and they are still being attacked. Terrorism is not a viable complaint system.

is this babble in the same lines as when you declared that i supported the bush invasion because i think gandhi is a righteous man?

If you had actually done some research you would find he deliberately placed his followers in harms way knowing they would be hurt and killed. In the end, he was sucessful in his persuit of freeing India however, it cost the lives of tens of thousands and displaced millons. Hence, to you, since you view him as a righteous man, the end justifies the means. Just as a free Iraq, being a good thing, to you, Bush's actions were wrong however, the disposal of Saddam being a good thing would also be a case where the end justifies the means.

dub · July 20, 2009

If you had actually done some research you would find he deliberately placed his followers in harms way knowing they would be hurt and killed. In the end, he was sucessful in his persuit of freeing India however, it cost the lives of tens of thousands and displaced millons. Hence, to you, since you view him as a righteous man, the end justifies the means. Just as a free Iraq, being a good thing, to you, Bush's actions were wrong however, the disposal of Saddam being a good thing would also be a case where the end justifies the means.

he advocated non-violence protests. both him and his followers, who had a will of their own, knew what the consequences could be.

not sure what you're getting at. you're blaming the violence by the english on gandhi? no one is going to buy that.

bush attacked iraq with his military and occupied it. gandhi advocated peaceful protests against an occupier. you want to say they're the same thing. this is how ridiculous you can be sometimes.

bush_cheney2004 · July 20, 2009

...bush attacked iraq with his military and occupied it. gandhi advocated peaceful protests against an occupier. you want to say they're the same thing. this is how ridiculous you can be sometimes.

So when are the Palestinians going to embrace Ghandi ?

KrustyKidd · July 20, 2009

he advocated non-violence protests. both him and his followers, who had a will of their own, knew what the consequences could be.
not sure what you're getting at. you're blaming the violence by the english on gandhi? no one is going to buy that.

bush attacked iraq with his military and occupied it. gandhi advocated peaceful protests against an occupier. you want to say they're the same thing. this is how ridiculous you can be sometimes.

Point is, he knew that sending those people to protest would result in violence. KNEW. yet he did it anyhow. Thousands died Dub. His people killed over a thousand as well. If he didn't send people on peaceful protests, knowing that there would be violence, there would be no violence would there?

The end, in this case, justifies the means to some. Just as Bush invading iraq.