Forget about the famous crime dog McGruff - Iran really knows how to take a bite out of crime.
According to a story in the New York Times, the ISNA reported that a public hanging of seven men convicted of rape took place on Wednesday August 1st, 2007 in the northeastern city of Mashad. Five of the men were hanged in one part of town, and the remaining two in a different part of town.
On the same day two other men convicted of armed smuggling of narcotics were hanged in prison in the southeastern city of Zahedan.
The state-run television news also showed the five men hanging from the gallows under a banner that said, “Carrying out justice equals increasing security.”
The Mashad chief prosecutor, Gholam Hossein Emaili, said that all seven men had been charged with abduction of women, theft and rape.
And executing predators is quite common in Iran. Last week 12 people were hanged at Evin Prison in Tehran for “rape, criminal acts, abduction and selling drugs,” said Tehran’s prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi. Iran increased the number of executions in recent weeks since announcing a crackdown on so-called thugs and arrested nearly 1,000 people in May.
Amnesty International complained that Iran executed 177 people in 2006 and 143 people this year. Read the rest of this story HERE.
Commentary: There are advantages to executing dangerous predators. First, your taxes don't pay for their "three hots, a cot, and cable T.V." for 30 years. Second, you avoid prison overcrowding and give the remaining prisoners incarcerated for less serious offenses a little breathing room.
Furthermore, does a society which executes rapists need elaborate sexual harassment codes? I think not - if you know you risk the scaffold, you're more likely to keep it in your pants. And forget Bong Hits 4 Jesus - they won't even let you take Bong Hits 4 Allah. LOL!
Does George W. Bush really want to go to war with these guys? Very few nations have been more misrepresented or demonized than Iran. Because they refused to subjugate themselves to the New World Order and consistently assert their right to energy self-sufficiency and self-defense, including nuclear capability if necessary (just like the far-more unstable Pakistan, which is allowed to have nukes), they've had a psychological gun cocked to their head since George W. Bush first became President in 2001.
However, the most egregious and dangerous misrepresentation has been the famous phrase attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about "wiping Israel off the map". Actually, President Ahamdinejad never said that.
From the Truthseeker website comes this account by Arash Norouzi, a co-founder of the Mossadegh Project:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:
While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
And to think we've been on the brink of war with Iran over what we thought Ahmadinejad said. If we can make progress with previously-intractable North Korea, surely we can reach some accomodation with Iran. Their political system is a bit harsh, but it's their system, and it's up to the Iranian people to change it without our interference if they so desire. There is dissension within the country already - if we invade, we will merely drive the people back together again. And who knows what the impact on Israel will be. Remember the first time we attacked Iraq in 1991. Guess what Saddam did? He launched Scuds...at Israel. All you "CUFI-holics" out there might want to consider the possibility that Iran might fire missiles at Israel in response to an American attack on Iran.
Besides, I think people up in Minneapolis have a higher priority right now than yet another war for "democracy", Halliburton, or Israel.