Prager claims Iran regime kills 6000 people for being homosexual

[Darryl1958]

nationalreview.com/article/421414/iran-deal-1938-repeat?target=author&tid=900932

iranhrdc.org/english/publications/reports/1000000398-denied-identity-human-rights-abuses-against-irans-lgbt-community.html#5.1.2

I find it rather interesting, outlandishly so even, that the left can be so blase about this.
On the one hand, Catholics and Christians are demonized for their homophobia over the SSM issue in the US, and then the same people consider Iran to be a legitimate partner to negotiate with, and to encourage to be a regional power in the ME.

There are of course those usually on the right hand side of politics who approve of countries like Russia and Iran for the apparent or real strong stands that the leaders of these countries take against homosexuality. There position in giving Iran support are consistent enough.

However, there is an inconsistency for those who take a strong stand against the religious right in America for the moral stance that they take, but give Iran a completely free pass and see Iran as a legitimate partner to negotiate with.

 

[JurisPrudens]

nationalreview.com/article/421414/iran-deal-1938-repeat?target=author&tid=900932

iranhrdc.org/english/publications/reports/1000000398-denied-identity-human-rights-abuses-against-irans-lgbt-community.html#5.1.2

I find it rather interesting, outlandishly so even, that the left can be so blase about this.
On the one hand, Catholics and Christians are demonized for their homophobia over the SSM issue in the US, and then the same people consider Iran to be a legitimate partner to negotiate with, and to encourage to be a regional power in the ME.

There are of course those usually on the right hand side of politics who approve of countries like Russia and Iran for the apparent or real strong stands that the leaders of these countries take against homosexuality. There position in giving Iran support are consistent enough.

However, there is an inconsistency for those, like Obama, who take a strong stand against the religious right in America for the moral stance that they take, but give Iran a completely free pass and see Iran as a legitimate partner to negotiate with.

I think 6000 is an exaggeration .

I heard they’re secretly gay clubs in Iran.

They’ve got strict rules, but I heard that, unlike Russia, there is no general media-infused gay hatred in Iran.

 

[Darryl1958]

I think 6000 is an exaggeration .

I heard they’re secretly gay clubs in Iran.

They’ve got strict rules, but I heard that, unlike Russia, there is no general media-infused gay hatred in Iran.

I don’t know if it is an exaggeration or not. He never provided a source for his information, as far as I know.
Nevertheless, the cases of homosexuals being executed in Iran for being homosexual is well enough documented, including the videos of their hung corpses.

So any dispute would be over the numbers, and not the fact that those on the American left who rage against wedding cakes are more than willing to give Iran, who indisputably execute homosexuals, a totally free pass and aid and abet in establishing that theocracy as a legitimate government in the ME.

 

[JurisPrudens]

I don’t know if it is an exaggeration or not. He never provided a source for his information, as far as I know.
Nevertheless, the cases of homosexuals being executed in Iran for being homosexual is well enough documented, including the videos of their hung corpses.

So any dispute would be over the numbers, and not the fact that those on the American left who rage against wedding cakes are more than willing to give Iran, who indisputably execute homosexuals, a totally free pass and aid and abet in establishing that theocracy as a legitimate government in the ME.

Yes, the liberals are hypocrites, I agree.

Honestly (I’m not American), I think the world would still be much safer, if Iran became part of international community.

Hanging people for smth, however a bad thing, is still their internal affair.
In China people are shot at stadiums in much larger numbers, but no one cares.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes, the liberals are hypocrites, I agree.

Honestly (I’m not American), I think the world would still be much safer, if Iran became part of international community.

Hanging people for smth, however a bad thing, is still their internal affair.
In China people are shot at stadiums in much larger numbers, but no one cares.

Iran has always been a member of the international community. That is not at issue.
They are a member of the UN, and have even decided what is and isn’t women’s rights as a part of the UN.

Chicoms kill a lot of people for a lot of reasons to be sure.

 

[Latias]

What about Saudi Arabia?

I support Iran because I am anti-imperialist.

 

[Darryl1958]

What about Saudi Arabia?

I support Iran because I am anti-imperialist.

Saudi Arabia is a state whose domestic affairs are run by Wahabbi Islamist religious police.
It is good that you don’t support that and take a strong stand against the Islamist tendencies that are the rising star of Islam today, and have been since the 1979 Iranian and Saudi revolutions that gave these theocratic killers power. That is something that is lacking for many outside of conservative circles in the West today.
Rather the relative support that non-conservatives give to any ME state revolves around how much it is in a cooperative venture with America.

Suffice it to say that the main difference between you and I is that you can offer your support to a state that can kill homosexuals for being homosexual, and I cannot.
Justify that as you please, and please do show how you can do that, but that is not the kind of political entity that I will support…

 

[Latias]

Saudi Arabia is a state whose domestic affairs are run by Wahabbi Islamist religious police.
It is good that you don’t support that and take a strong stand against the Islamist tendencies that are the rising star of Islam today, and have been since the 1979 Iranian and Saudi revolutions that gave these theocratic killers power. That is something that is lacking for many outside of conservative circles in the West today.
Rather the relative support that non-conservatives give to any ME state revolves around how much it is in a cooperative venture with America.

Suffice it to say that the main difference between you and I is that you can offer your support to a state that can kill homosexuals for being homosexual, and I cannot.
Justify that as you please, and please do show how you can do that, but that is not the kind of political entity that I will support…

Non-isolationist conservatives support Saudi Arabia and Egypt due to their alignment with perceived “American interests”.

There is no moral high ground; the US supported other autocratic regimes throughout history such as the Apartheid regime. Indeed, Iran is fundamentally a “reactionary” country, but I respect its sovereignty. Similarly, my support for Iran can be seen as isolationism.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Hanging people for smth, however a bad thing, is still their internal affair.
In China people are shot at stadiums in much larger numbers, but no one cares.

Doesn’t mean you can’t, or shouldn’t, condemn such things, right? Excusing this stuff simply because it may constitute “internal affairs” makes you seem very apathetic to suffering.

 

[Latias]

Doesn’t mean you can’t, or shouldn’t, condemn such things, right? Excusing this stuff simply because it may constitute “internal affairs” makes you seem very apathetic to suffering.

I cannot be accused of “excusing” Iran for this because I called them a “reactionary” regime, but would I be accused of “excusing” them for not wanting exogenous regime change or wishing that Israel would not attack their nuclear facilities.

I don’t know what is going on in China, but I think the 6000 figure is likely an exaggeration.

Anti-communism is a geopolitical perspective thank makes people desensitized to human suffering and apathetic, so long as the victims are communist. Not many US conservatives or even the Vatican condemned US foreign policy in Latin America in the 1980, nor they expressed much concern about Suharto’s invasion of East Timor or the politicide of the communists in Indonesia (as the CIA provided Suharto’s supporters with names of people to the eliminated.)

“Human rights” is only a credible concept if it is applicability is universal, not something that is selectively applied to condemn opposing governments while exempting allied autocratic governments from criticism.

 

[Darryl1958]

The way that leftists have tended to sell their message is that they, and not conservatives, are motivated by humanitarian concerns.

What we are noting in this thread is that the reason that leftists can support Iran, in spite of the egregious human’s rights abused, including the killing of untold numbers of homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual, is that political concerns take precedence.

This is to say that anti-(American) imperialism takes precedence. Isolating America takes precedence.

And yes, it would be anti-American imperialism only that takes precedence for through Hezbollah and support for the Yemeni rebels, Iran is an imperialist country in its own right.

 

[Latias]

The way that leftists have tended to sell their message is that they, and not conservatives, are motivated by humanitarian concerns.

What we are noting in this thread is that the reason that leftists can support Iran, in spite of the egregious human’s rights abused, including the killing of untold numbers of homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual, is that political concerns take precedence.

This is to say that anti-(American) imperialism takes precedence. Isolating America takes precedence.

And yes, it would be anti-American imperialism only that takes precedence for through Hezbollah and support for the Yemeni rebels, Iran is an imperialist country in its own right.
And that is okay for those driving leftist policy, for Obama is explicit that he desires Iran to be a regional power in the ME.

Please tell me how Iran is imperialist? Are you going to say something about sponsoring “terrorism”? Then that is begging the question because you are assuming that the parties it is sponsoring are “terrorists”, and they do not have any legitimate grievances or interests to justify their struggle and resistance.

What does it mean to support Iran? I just respect its sovereignty, its right not to be attacked by the Israeli Air Force, or be undermined by a CIA-sponsored coup. And if that includes supporting Iran for possessing a nuclear deterrent for its self-defense, even then I will refuse to condemn Iran.

So would you support Pinochet’s policies against dissidents such as holding them in futbol stadiums and torturing them? He was an ally of the US, and Kissinger said that certain matters are too important for the Chilean people to decide and would justify interfering with their affairs, even those affecting matters decided through the conventions of liberal democracy.

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

So where was the indignation of the conservatives regarding the Apartheid, the human rights abuses by the government of El Salvador or the Contras? One could see that the concern for human rights by American neoconservatives for Iranians is not authentic. I am not swinging on this transparent attempt to divide the “left” by exploiting its usual concern for homosexuals and anti-Imperialist foreign policy. Also please note that this does not work, since the anti-imperialist left is not composed of mainstream leftists who watch MSNBC or read the New York Times or Paul Krugman’s columns, thus they share different concerns than the conventional left and do not devote much of their attention on cultural issues.

I will reiterate this again for emphasis:

“Human rights” is only a credible concept if it is applicability is universal, not something that is selectively applied to condemn opposing governments while exempting allied autocratic governments from criticism.

 

[Darryl1958]

Oh, I am not going to get into a big discussion of whether Iran is imperialist or not. The record of the role that Iran has played in the region since the ayatollah revolution is clear enough for anyone who wants to see.

It was sufficient enough to note how the left in the West are motivated by purely political considerations in their support of Iran, and that in the hierarchy of values, humanitarian values and social justice are of a secondary or tertiary order relative to the political ones.

 

[Latias]

Oh, I am not going to get into a big discussion of whether Iran is imperialist or not. The record of the role that Iran has played in the region since the ayatollah revolution is clear enough for anyone who wants to see.

It was sufficient enough to note how the left in the West are motivated by purely political considerations in their support of Iran, and that in the hierarchy of values, humanitarian values and social justice are of a secondary or tertiary order relative to the political ones.

So you did not address any of my claims that US foreign policy largely flouts a rudimentary respect for human rights and foreign democratic institutions. It is natural for those who are perceptive about US foreign policy to be cynical and dismissive about the concept of “human rights”, at least when it is invoked in mainstream political discourse, since it is often utilized as a rhetorical tool to pillory non-complaint or resistant countries and to portray one’s own intentions and values as magnanimous even though one’s interests are completely illegitimate. I may have to concede that the US foreign policy show an occasional concern for “human rights”, but it often an ancillary concern because some of the countries that the US targeted for regime for regime change as fundamentally reactionary since globalization often alienates various (often reactionary) elements who flourished in a political and economic system that was unaffected by modern globalization.

How is Iran imperialist? How is Iran’s foreign policy aspirations in the Middle East any different from the Monroe Doctrine and Theodore Roosevelt’s interpretation of it concerning the realm of North and South America? How could one not construe the Carter Doctrine (pertaining the the US’ interests in the Middle East) as not imperialist and a justification for American belligerence?

Also who cares about “social justice”? It is not even in my personal lexicon, and many people on this forum similarly dismiss secular formulations of it as “government redistribution”.

Although I am not an envoy for all “leftists”, I am most certainly not a liberal; I was largely indifferent about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and recent precedent on marriage equality. Furthermore, I demonstrated my disgust with the hypocrisy of the stereotypical liberal by posting something on my Facebook page saying that the same type of people who applaud are Bruce Jenner for “being himself” are those who condemned Tim Tebow for not keeping his beliefs “to himself”. (I would actually prefer him to behave more like Clayton Kershaw who is not ashamed of his Christian faith while I considered Tim Tebow to be more ostentatious and gauche, but Tim Tebow has a heart of gold as he tried to keep Aaron Hernandez out of trouble while they were in University of Florida.)

But because I “support” Iran, a country that admittedly has reactionary and repressive domestic policies, should that preclude me from supporting even the most rudimentary progressive policies domestically, such as wishing that people with same-sex attraction would not be stigmatized or that creationism would not be presented with a patina of scientific credibility for public school students?

Also note that the US secured $60 billion in arms for Saudi Arabia, and the US is a country that imposes sanctions on other countries, such as freezing Iranian assets, included additional provisions in the PATRIOT act to prevent money laundering, and fined BNP Paribas $8.9 billion for violating sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. Moreover, Egypt, an autocratic regime under al-Sisi, is the second largest recipient of US military aid before Israel.

Why don’t I hear any conservatives condemn that?

What should I do to expiate my sin of “hypocrisy” supporting that people with same-sex attraction should be treated with dignity and respecting Iran sovereignty? Should I advocate for the re-imposition of sanctions against the Iranian people, US strikes against its nuclear facilities with nuclear bunker busters, support a potential military invasion?

 

[Darryl1958]

“There are of course those usually on the right hand side of politics who approve of countries like Russia and Iran for the apparent or real strong stands that the leaders of these countries take against homosexuality. There position in giving Iran support are consistent enough.”

It was people who identified on the left, and consider themselves in some way to be liberals that I was more interested in hearing from.
For social conservatives, indifference to Iranian killing homosexuals for being homosexual is a little harsh, but there is no inconsistency.
These are the kind of non-liberals that the left broad brush all conservatives as being in the first place.

 

[Latias]

“There are of course those usually on the right hand side of politics who approve of countries like Russia and Iran for the apparent or real strong stands that the leaders of these countries take against homosexuality. There position in giving Iran support are consistent enough.”

It was people who identified on the left, and consider themselves in some way to be liberals that I was more interested in hearing from.
For social conservatives, indifference to Iranian killing homosexuals for being homosexual is a little harsh, but there is no inconsistency.
These are the kind of non-liberals that the left broad brush all conservatives as being in the first place.

It is also inconsistent for an anti-imperialist who condemns CIA and other Western-sponsored coups, to support exogenous regime change on Iran because of policy on homosexuals.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is also inconsistent for an anti-imperialist who condemns CIA and other Western-sponsored coups, to support exogenous regime change on Iran because of policy on homosexuals.

Nobody was mentioning regime change through western coup.

You are throwing in a red herring there.