Printable View
Anyone who knows even a little about the Bible, knows that they sometimes have long geneologies, like A was the father of B and B was the father of C and C was the father of ...and so on. I sometimes wondered, how could they be so sure? Then I remembered, that in Israel then, women were executed for adultery, just as they are in Iran today.
http://www.lenta.co.il/page/20100701125115
"for the Bible tells me so..." ;-)Quote:
How could they be so sure?
in Israel, known for its' objective and unbiased views on Iran... :mrgreen:Quote:
--
That said, I agree with you that it's disgusting that they are considering executing anyone, particularly for something that shouldn't be a criminal offense in the first place. The method is gruesome. They probably intend it mainly as a deterrent.
I bet there is more to the story though; there must be hundreds of thousands who are unfaithful in their marriages in Iran, and found out! They couldn't possibly kill all of them! Pray for a miracle, she should be let free.
But on the other hand martin, if I came from a country that regularly executed people from the bottom of society in the electrical chair (barely one step up from stoning them...) while millionaire killers such as OJ walk free then I'd focus on that first, before Iran!
But these kinds of stories help build up the case that Iran is so nasty that an invasion is needed to solve the human rights problems, get rid those nukes they may or may not have, [+ of course.... help them with their oil and support the nato military support industry...]
At the end of the day, they actually have a government that took power after a revolution supported by the people. It's what the majority of the people there wanted, however bizarre it may seem. (And who are we to point the finger, really? In Europe, the last person executed for witchcraft was well into the 20th century. And the US has a terrible history with it's black population. At best, we are a few decades ahead of them in that area.)
There is an Iranian guy who started visiting this forum - Mischa Tal; if you are reading this, what do you think about this?
PS - this should probably be in the politics section, there is something else about Iran there too, on a similar theme.
I agree, especially since it seems to be an "official" method of a capital punishment, and not just some mob of people inflicting "justice". Do they have some specially appointed people who throw stones? Bizzare.Quote:
The method is gruesome. They probably intend it mainly as a deterrent.
From what I could gather she was accused in being somehow involved in the death of her husband (and those lovers were the killers). That is the reason for such a cruel punishment, apparently.Quote:
particularly for something that shouldn't be a criminal offense
PS. From what I've heard Iran is one of the freeest countries in its region, especially in the area of women rights (judging by large number of women who are University graduates and have prestigious jobs, like doctors, and some other facts). At least it's the image I had of this country from media coverage. :)
" Иранку могут забить до смерти камнями за измену мужу" - заголовок лживый. Не за измену, а за убийство, как написано в самой заметке.
А заголовок "могут забить камнями за убийство" вызвал бы гораздо меньше эмоций, не так ли?
Thanks, Hanna, for handing over the microphone. :wink:Quote:
There is an Iranian guy who started visiting this forum - Mischa Tal; if you are reading this, what do you think about this?
I've already spent a lifetime engaging in quarrel after quarrel over most trivial things like religion or morality. And I just can't get enough of it! :bad:
Anyway, if you are asking, I'll be obliged to answer. Here's my two cents on it:
1-The whole thing being barbaric.
I absolutely agree. That doesn't mean that I think death penalty is barbaric in general. I do believe that there are particular cases in which execution is the only meaningful measure to take. But killing people for adultery, that goes way beyond reason.
Not a single person among those I know approves of it.
As a matter of incidental interest, what's the difference between this method or that method of execution? Why is stoning so horrible while firing squad is "honorable"? Why should any sane person think that by lethal injection, the victim is "rescued" from the electrical chair? The horror is in death itself. If we are against it, our argument should be directed against execution, rather than it's means.
2-Islam
Many Islamic scholars argue that we should stop these things, so as not to contribute to anti-Islamic feeling in the West. There's much to say about that, maybe some other time...
3-There must be hundreds of thousands who are unfaithful in their marriages in Iran...Pray for a miracle...
Clever point, and absolutely true. This is the rule: there must be eye witness testimony from four individuals who have seen the couple while engaged in the deed. People often prefer to do it privately, so the four-witnesses condition is not satisfied usually.
Iranian human rights activists have been busy for quite a while trying to stop this stupid thing. And not in vain altogether.
4-An invasion is needed
D'ya think? But I thought you're a pacifist! :wink:
Trouble is that it's easier said than done. I'm sure the Americans wouldn't think twice if it was all that simple. Saddam Hussein was backed by the United States, the Soviets, and most European countries. He tried to do it for eight years. Eight years. Those weapons of mass destruction that Americans couldn't find in Iraq were used against Iran.
Iran is kinda tough, if I can put it that way.
5-It's what the majority of people there [i.e. here] wanted.
Look it up in your history books, I prithee, and you'll find out that the Revolution took place some 30 years ago. Things have changed. What the majority of people here want is vivid through what happened last summer.
To get back to the topic, I agree that it's horrible, barbaric, etc. And many other Iranians are like-minded.
Very interesting response from someone who is obviously qualified to have an opinion on Iran :roll: (I am not, really).Quote:
Originally Posted by Misha Tal
The comment about people changing their minds between 1979 and now makes sense. But I suppose there are big differences between city and countryside, religious and non-religious, rich and poor... Perhaps a truly free election would reveal it; but as Russia found in the 1990, that doesn't necessarily solve all problems either, and in general elections are very prone to manipulation by media, financial interests or even foreign powers. Sometimes elections are won on non-political issues, like some details that people are hung up on which really is quite marginal.
Just in case you misunderstood me; I do NOT support any invasion of Iran or any other country by Nato! It was irony/sarcasm.
I was referrring to the media phenomenon that takes place when the US/NATO doesn't like a country...... is that reports of "human rights abuses", corruption and other problems start emerging across Western media. It's on TV news, in papers and everywhere else you look...
This goes on to the point that regular people believe that there is no NORMAL life in that country at all, just endless suffering among the people, decadent corruption in the leadership and evil plots to attack and undermine the West in that country's military. Plus lots of reports about how brainwashed / fanatical the population is, at least those who support the government.
Basically such reports are blown out of all proportions. I am sure you read about Iran in Western press, so you know what I mean. I think it's disgusting that they think they have a right to even consider invading Iran. I might change my mind if Iran attacked Israel, but I don't think it would do that; the anti-Israel stance seems to be mostly about (exaggerated) rhetoric.
The question "Should the US invade Iran" to me is no more justified than: Should Russia invade.... Sri Lanka... or "Should China invade.....Honduras...............?
Should
I just don't see that what happens in Iran is anyones business other than the Iranians' or possibly countries bordering Iran. I admire Persian art and architecture and I would like to see people in Iran have a good life, but other than that I have no opinion about it.
PS - So what's the weather like in the "Axis of Evil" today?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which country should the USA invade next? VERY funny, check when they put a needle on "North Korea" and "Iran"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vatr8AmM2nA
Should the USA attack Iran: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3590
Владимир Высоцкий.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misha Tal
"Лекция о международном положении..."
При власти, при деньгах ли, при короне ли —
Судьба людей швыряет, как котят.
Ну как мы место шаха проворонили?!
Нам этого потомки не простят!
Шах расписался в полном неумении —
Вот тут его возьми и замени!
Где взять? У нас любой второй в Туркмении —
Аятолла, и даже Хомейни.
Всю жизнь мою в ворота бью рогами как баран,
А мне бы взять Коран и — в Тегеран!
:)
Pretty hot!Quote:
PS - So what's the weather like in the "Axis of Evil" today?
One of the hottest summers I remember in Tehran. Temperature was 45 C yesterday. :shock:
You wear T-shirts, you get a farmer's tan. You wear sleeves, you get baked!
I like summer, but I prefer cold weather. In Tehran it never gets colder than -10 C, except in far north of the city. Cold weather is one of the most charming things I like about Russia.:)
Misha, is it possible to wear shorts in Iran?
[quote=Vadim Mo]Владимир Высоцкий.Quote:
Originally Posted by "Misha Tal":l9qt05ek
"Лекция о международном положении..."
При власти, при деньгах ли, при короне ли —
Судьба людей швыряет, как котят.
Ну как мы место шаха проворонили?!
Нам этого потомки не простят!
Шах расписался в полном неумении —
Вот тут его возьми и замени!
Где взять? У нас любой второй в Туркмении —
Аятолла, и даже Хомейни.
Всю жизнь мою в ворота бью рогами как баран,
А мне бы взять Коран и — в Тегеран!
:)[/quote:l9qt05ek]
Oh, yes. Of course it is!Quote:
Originally Posted by deker
...but you gotta wear somethin' over it, too.
Er.. Was it a joke? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Misha Tal
Я думаю, что нет. Шорты можно носить, но... под брюками.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRomoZeka
А что будет, если европеец приедет в Иран и станет разгуливать в шортах? Не под брюками, а так, как он привык это делать дома?
Я так и поняла. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
А сами иранцы поддерживают эти традиции в одежде? Не бывает ли разговоров: "Жаль, что нельзя шорты одеть, такая жара..."? Действительно ли мужчина в шортах кажется обычному иранцу легкомысленно одетым?
За неуважение к обычаям и законам в каждой отдельной стране можно загреметь в тюрьму. И не только в Иране, а даже в Мексике.
Вот, например:
http://vivirlatino.com/2009/01/19/kiss- ... mexico.php
http://www.jsyk.com/2010/06/15/kissing- ... ome-teens/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... ou-in-jail
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/36891 Одежды из шёлка и золото мужчинам нельзя носить.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkviluY0G3g
Пусть так. Но тогда и не стоит возмущаться или удивляться запрету на строительство минаретов в Швейцарии или борьбе французского правительства с ношением паранджи.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
В каждой стране свои традиции.
Вообще, безумно интересно читать, что пишет Misha Tal. Ведь мусульманский мир для многих это терра инкогнита. Есть и предрассудки в отношении него и неоправданные страхи.
I think Irans' dress regulations are less strict than Saudi Arabia for example.
Almost all people in most moslem countries cover up a bit!
Saudi Arabia also executes people in gruesome ways, and chops the hands off thieves!
I guess the problem with reforming the system in Iran is that Islam is not an ideology, like Communism for example; so they couldn't have like "perestroika" in Iran.
It's probably all or nothing situation... The nature of religion is that you have to believe, and then if you do, you'll quite voluntarily want to adhere to the rules. I feel a bit like that with certain Christian values.
I got interested in this and searched for pics of "Iranian people fashion" and found:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UbnKT8ruQM...nian+Girls.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/main/files/im...15.preview.jpg
http://focusuk.files.wordpress.com/2...sian-girls.jpg
Compare with Saudis! These ladies are certainly doing the best they can with a "challenging fashion situation."
:mosking: )
I think I've heard that shorts are not allowed in islam but I am not sure.
Personally I had to wear a quite long skirt and longish blouse at school because it happened to be one of the few Christian schools in the country. Guys could not wear shorts or jeans, other than on Saturdays hehe.. But I really did not see any of that as a huge problem...
PS --- I read something saying that Chechnya is practically turning into a moslem country where moslem laws are applied. Does anyone know anything about this?
Mischa ---- I am really curious:
What would you and your friends like to happen, politically in Iran?
This question to Misha makes me nervious. Hanna don't we know that Internet is not such a secure or safe place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
This is a great book: http://www.amazon.com/Reset-Iran-Turkey ... 0805091270
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMex7rgHSVc
Yesterday Stephen Kinzer was on Charlie Rose: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11110
http://www.charlierose.com/view/intervi ... #frame_top
"...
STEPHEN KINZER: First of all I approach it with this idea that we need some new thinking. Second, I believe part of that has to be more cooperative relationships with our friends this that region.
Then you get to the question, who would they be? Who are the logical partners for the U.S. not over next week and next month but over decades in the Middle East?
I think Turkey and Iran are logical long-term partners in the Muslim Middle East for two reasons. I think when you’re looking for partners you’re looking for countries that fulfill two criteria. One is you want countries whose long-term strategic goals are somewhat similar to your own.
But it’s not good enough to just have relations between governments and ruling elites. The peoples of nations have to be involved if you want relations to be stable. And therefore, the other thing you look for is a
partner is a country that has a society something like yours.
Now, I’ve been to Saudi Arabia while I was researching this book. Saudi Arabian society is nothing like our society. Women are not allowed to drive and dating is illegal.
CHARLIE ROSE: That may be changing.
STEPHEN KINZER: Absolute monarchy.
CHARLIE ROSE: Some of that is changing.
STEPHEN KINZER: Now, Turkey is a pretty easy sell despite recent problems as a long-term partner for the U.S. Iran is a little bit more counterintuitive because of everything we’ve been told.
But if you leave your emotions and stereotypes outside the room and shape your foreign policy according to what I think should be our basis which is what’s good for us --
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, but take a look at Iran. They are standing in the way of some kind of settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. That is not in our interest. It is in our national security interest, General Petraeus and everybody else has said, to see that issue settled. Iran doesn’t want to see it settled, and it is supporting other people who have a stake in the game, Hamas being one.
STEPHEN KINZER: It’s not only that. Iran is interfering --
CHARLIE ROSE: Providing them weapons and everything else.
STEPHEN KINZER: -- Iran’s interference in other places, in Lebanon, in Iraq.
CHARLIE ROSE: Hezbollah, exactly. Therefore, what are you suggesting that the United States ought to do about those issues so that Iran does not practice those policies?
STEPHEN KINZER: When you hook at a map of the Middle East, the first thing that jumps out at you is Iran is the big country right in the middle.
CHARLIE ROSE: Look at its neighbors and what borders it has and you quickly get how important it is.
STEPHEN KINZER: Exactly. So we are seeing by the mischief that Iran is perpetrating in that region how destabilizing it can be. But there’s a flip side to that, which is that if Iran felt it was in its interest, Iran could help resolve those problems.
CHARLIE ROSE: That is my question, though. How do you make it in Iran’s interest? How do we make that case? And why isn’t Iran responsive whatever case we may be making? The president says he wants to engage with Iran.
STEPHEN KINZER: He does. But actually the policy toward Iran has not really changed that much from the last year --
CHARLIE ROSE: What’s wrong with a policy towards Iran that says don’t, don’t develop a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapon capability?
STEPHEN KINZER: That’s a goal that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I share that goal. I’m terrified of that.
CHARLIE ROSE: That’s what the administration’s policy is about.
STEPHEN KINZER: Because it’s not getting us to the result. We’ve had five years of not negotiating with Iran. In those five years the centrifuges have increased tenfold.
CHARLIE ROSE: Agreed. But that’s because when they make agreements, those agreements are not being adhered to and there are all kinds of programs that are taking place that are secretive.
STEPHEN KINZER: You’re right. The lack of transparency in the Iranian nuclear program is the key problem. Meanwhile at the same time they’re testing ballistic missiles. This is very disturbing if not terrifying.
CHARLIE ROSE: What policy could have gotten them not to do that?
STEPHEN KINZER: I still think that the option we have never tried is to say to Iran what we said to China in the 1970s. I’ve gone back to read that Shanghai communique. That was the first document we signed with China. And that was a brilliant idea for how to start a relationship with a country that’s been out in the cold for a long time.
It doesn’t contain any agreements. That came later. All it is, is three sections. The first section was written by the Chinese side, everything we don’t like about America and what America does. Second side we wrote it, what we don’t like about China. And the third section just says we agree to negotiate on all these issues.
If we go to Iran and say we only want to negotiate on the nuclear issue, there’s no incentive for Iran to do that. If we open up the agenda maybe there is a chance.
CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think the agenda has not been opened up?
STEPHEN KINZER: First of all, I don’t think we have gotten to the point where we recognize Iran’s importance.
CHARLIE ROSE: The president said that in his statements.
STEPHEN KINZER: Yes, his policies are not reflecting the fact that none of our strategic goals in the Middle East can be achieved without Iran or over Iran’s objections.
CHARLIE ROSE: I think the administration does recognize it needs to have, or it will be well served by a positive relationship with Iran, because it wants Iran to stop doing the things it’s doing. ..."
Second page of the transcript:
"STEPHEN KINZER: But how do we get there? Of course that’s the question we’re trying to figure out. My idea is that unless Iran feels that it’s getting something from around the table, then it’s not going to enter into negotiations.
CHARLIE ROSE: That’s a good point. So what is it that we ought to give Iran in terms of negotiations?
STEPHEN KINZER: The big problem we have to get over is if we’re going to deal with Iran we’re going to have to compromise. We won’t get everything we want. I think that’s what’s holding us back.
CHARLIE ROSE: Compromise on what?
STEPHEN KINZER: Here’s what I think they would bring to the table. We want an end to threats against us. We want to be invited into the World Trade Organization and into regional security mechanisms.
CHARLIE ROSE: Without preconditions? That’s what we’d like.
STEPHEN KINZER: The preconditions would be you’ve got to accept international control of your nuclear program and cool your support for militant groups in the Middle East.
But Iran also wants to see the U.S. out of that region. And we’re desperate to get out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan. Iran can help us because Iran not only has the ability to be destabilize Iraq but it has great ability to stabilize Iraq.
CHARLIE ROSE: What does one mean when it says we want to get out of the region?
STEPHEN KINZER: We want to get out of our military engagements in those two countries.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right. The military is one thing. We want to be a player in the region the same way we want to be a player in Asia where China is the dominant power.
STEPHEN KINZER: Absolutely. That’s true. America cannot walk away from the Middle East. That’s what makes this problem so important. We can’t continue trying to get new results with old policies.
Now, let me just say this. Is Iran now governed by a regime that is really eager to make compromises and looks like a good negotiating partner? Of course not. Whether we can get anywhere with this regime is still, as
you say, a very open question.
But I would say this. Let’s look forward to the longer term future. The political development in Iran is not over yet. I’m just back from Iran, and I got a clear sense that this regime will be in power for some time, but not forever.
Here’s what people in Iran told me. We went out in the streets. We tried, but it didn’t work. So we’re going to get the change we want but it’s not going to come soon. I would sail it will be a period of some years, and what this tells me if we want to deal with Iran in that period, this is the regime we’re going to have to deal with.
CHARLIE ROSE: That’s also the recommendation of --
STEPHEN KINZER: Yes, it is. I think it doesn’t mean there’s an obvious solution out there. It means that Turkey and Iran over long run have a lot in common with our long-term interests.
And I think as I was just reminded in my recent visit to Iran recently that Iran is definitely the most pro-American country in the whole Middle East if you look at the will of the people, the opinion of ordinary Iranians. I stood on street corners, and as soon as I said I was an American, people gather around me and shout out things like, as one girl told me, "We love America so much."
CHARLIE ROSE: That’s clearly, I mean, there are all kinds of people who testify to that point. How do we do that? There’s a dilemma. Do those people who love America, what did they want America to do?
STEPHEN KINZER: That’s the key question. I agree 100 percent. That’s just what I asked them. What can we do to help you?
And everyone told me the same thing, which is leave us alone. We cannot be seen as lackeys or pawns of some foreign power. In Iran that delegitimizes anybody.
So please -- and the other thing they told me was don’t isolate our regime. I think if those people were to tell us the opposite, don’t talk to our leaders, isolate them, we would have to listen to what they’re
saying.
CHARLIE ROSE: So you’re saying that the people in the street would want this U.S. administration to talk to the people in power in Iran.
STEPHEN KINZER: Absolutely. There’s no doubt in my mind that the democratic movement in Iran realizes it’s in a very bad position, it has no good options, and the best of the bad options would be for the regime somehow to be drawn out of its fear and paranoia.
If the people in Iran tell us to isolate the regime, maybe we should. But the ordinary people and the democratic leaders in the opposition eagerly want U.S. engagement with their regime, and we should be listening to them.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, so we reset our relationship with Iran and with Turkey. What else do we need to do for our future?
STEPHEN KINZER: I’ve got two other suggestions. One has to do with the Arab world.
CHARLIE ROSE: Why am I not surprised by that?
(LAUGHTER)
STEPHEN KINZER: I think we’ve become a little bit too suffocating close to Saudi Arabia and some of their Arab countries. What I’d like to see is a realization by the U.S. that allowing democracy in the Middle East and in the Arab world, which we’re very afraid of, is actually not a bad thing.
We fear that it will produce an Islamist alternative, and I think that fear is justified in some countries. But that’s something these countries have to go through, and the longer you postpone that, the more radical that
explosion is going to be.
The other country of course that you have to deal with Israel, and I believe it is in America’s interest to be the long-term friend afternoon ally and supporter of Israel.
When I was in Israel doing research for this book, one thing that I noticed in the public opinion in Iran, and I think you’re seeing a little of this in Israel too, is that there are many Israelis who are start to go ask whether the policies of their government that are taken to resolve immediate urgent security problems are actually creating larger problems for the long-term future. I truly --
CHARLIE ROSE: The long-term future of Israel?
STEPHEN KINZER: Of Israel. I believe Israel will not be able to defend itself forever by only military deeds. The best long-term guarantee for Israel is a stable neighborhood. And therefore anything that the U.S.
or others can do to calm the Middle East is actually good for Israel.
CHARLIE ROSE: Do you believe that’s exactly what the Israelis want, a stable neighborhood?
STEPHEN KINZER: Yes, I do. I really think that they feel they have a position to defend, but Israel feels very besieged. The world needs security concessions both Iran and Israel, but countries only make security concessions when they feel safe. And it should be in our interest to try to do to make Israel and Iran feel safe.
CHARLIE ROSE: How do people make Israel safe when their borders are so close, when they have had the experience they’ve had?
STEPHEN KINZER: If we had a clear answer to that I guess we would have done it by now. I think the one thing we can do is try to calm down the countries that terrify the Israel the most. At the top of that list is Iran.
In a way in an odd sense Iran and Israel are in one way a comparable position. There are countries in the Middle East that a lot of their neighbors don’t like, and they’re the countries in the Middle East that a lot of countries in the world don’t like. There’s a lot of anti-Israel and anti-Iran emotion in the world now.
But forcing these countries into corners and denouncing them and sanctioning them and making them feel alone and friendless doesn’t serve the long-term cause of peace.
CHARLIE ROSE: So where is Syria in all of this?
STEPHEN KINZER: I think Syria can be a much bigger player than it is now. But Syria faces a problem that the whole Arab world faces. It’s actually one of the reasons why Turkey has been able to emerge. The
countries that should be the leaders in the Muslim Middle East like Egypt, possibly Syria, Iraq, even Pakistan, are decomposing and are isolated and are in dictatorial political situations.
That has left a vacuum for Turkey. If the Arab world can get the democracy train that’s been going all over the world to stop there, then I think Syria could become a great partner for the west.
And Turkey has just abolished restrictions for Syrians. Turkey is becoming a kind of a big brother for Syria. Turkey can be our bridge into Syria too as it can be to many countries in the Middle East. I see Syria as a country if we can play a more positive role there can develop a good relationship.
CHARLIE ROSE: If you talk to many parties in the same way that Turkey is.
STEPHEN KINZER: It is.
CHARLIE ROSE: And the Syrians like the Turks a lot.
STEPHEN KINZER: A lot of people like the Turks. When you go to a country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, it’s amazing how many different factions want to talk to the Turks.
CHARLIE ROSE: Iraq -- how do people perceive this country, which has enormous economic potential, which is making its way towards some kind of new democracy, some kind of a democracy, has sectarian conflict? How do people seal its future in the region?
STEPHEN KINZER: I think there is a combination of hope and fear. Of course there are outside actors that are meddling in Iraq very deeply. Of course, we’re one of them, but there are also others on the other side.
CHARLIE ROSE: How are we meddling? Haven’t we made a commitment to lead or not?
STEPHEN KINZER: We’ve made the commitment. I think we’ll still keep soldiers there. And I can see once we’re there we don’t want to leave and create chaos.
CHARLIE ROSE: Doesn’t the president want to get out of Iraq?
STEPHEN KINZER: Absolutely. But we cannot get out of Iraq and we cannot get out of Afghanistan without the cooperation of other countries in the region. You’ll never be able to do it alone. And like it or not, Iran
is a big player in that region, and they can make life miserable for us in Iraq, or if they want to, they can be our ticket out of Iraq.
CHARLIE ROSE: But it used to be said that who won the Iraq war was Iran. That was the short answer. But at the same time there is this notion that seems to be proving true as well. Iraq is not prepared to march in lock step because of fellow Shiites with Iran. It clearly is not. They’re not a satellite of Iran.
STEPHEN KINZER: I think that is great.
CHARLIE ROSE: Is it true?
STEPHEN KINZER: It is true, I think. There are prominent leaders in Iraq who are very tied to Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr is living in Iran. Many of those Shiite leaders in Iraq spent years during the Saddam dictatorship
living in Iran. So Iran has great contacts with the Shiite factions. But Turkey is very well tied in with the Sunni faction.
CHARLIE ROSE: And so are the Saudis.
STEPHEN KINZER: There they are. The potential in Iraq is for the countries in the region to strike some balance among themselves in order to calm this country.
CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you very much.
STEPHEN KINZER: Great to be with you.
CHARLIE ROSE: "Reset -- Iran, Turkey and America’s Future."
It's nice that you look out for forum members! :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
But is Iran really like USSR under Stalin? I mean, that people can't even express an opinion? :unknown:
Plus: It's quite hard work to trace people online. You need a lot of resources and incentive. The person would have to be suspected of something quite major for it to be worth it. Ideally it needs cooperation from the site owner.
It's really only reasonably feasible if the both the site and the person are in the same country.
Alternatively the ISP can usually see what sites you visit but not precisely what you did there.
Using a separate proxy, or a VPN tunnel more or less solves that problem. I have read that people in China do that when they want to be sure to have online privacy.
I think it's a very good idea for most people to use a proxy when surfing the internet.
I2P and TOR offer completely anonymous and very safe internet browsing, but it's quite slow.