Iran

[Gzdvtz]

Iran moves to ban stoning
Iran has issued major reforms to its penal code that ban death by stoning and forbid the execution of minors.

Local Iranian media reports that the changes were approved by the guardian council, a body tasked with ensuring that the country's judicial laws do not contravene Islamic law.

The legislation now requires only the signature of the president to be enshrined into law.

Prior to the reforms, Iran has the record for executing more juveniles than any other country in the world. A report published human rights group Human Rights Watch earlier this year stated that more than a hundred children are currently on death row. Most are not executed until they turn 18.

Stoning is usually reserved for men and women found guilty of adultery. At least 99 people have been stoned to death in Iran since 1980.

Drewery Dyke, an expert on Iran at Amnesty International, warns that due to quirks of the Iranian legal system, the reforms are not as clear cut as they appear.

"Execution is a specific legal concept in Iran. Punishment for murder in Iran under Islamic law is termed 'retribution of the soul'," Mr Dyke explains, adding that children may still be killed if charged with murder.

"Similarly with stoning, they have removed the punishment of stoning for adultery but we still don't know what manner of punishment will be proscribed in the new law. There is more to his than meets the eye – the reforms do allow for a backdoor application of stoning."
[...]

Lauer meer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-stoning.html

[Medi73#!]

Iran is not enriching uranium to build a weapon and the President's attendance today at a scientific breakthrough in which he blessed the rods with a passage from the Koran was not meant to send a message out to the world.

[Awayo]

Originally Posted by Medi73#!

Iran is not enriching uranium to build a weapon

Well, that's what US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta thinks. Glad that you guys are on the same page.

[Medi73#!]

Originally Posted by Awayo

Well, that's what US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta thinks. Glad that you guys are on the same page.

Well if Iran develops a nuclear capability, it is in effect able to develop a weapon and therefore the threat remains. Why would the President of Iran be playing brinkmanship games if he had honest intentions? Iran is a pretty prosperous country, nuclear capability simply for energy would not be such an issue for this society. On the other hand if Israel strikes first it will be a disaster.

[Awayo]

Everything you have written is nonsense except for the final sentence.

[Medi73#!]

Have you become George Galloway?

[Awayo]

Erm, no? Do I have to go at it sentence by sentence?

Here's one, and that's all you're getting (I'm off to the gym). Why, given what you've said, was Iran's nuclear programme started by the Shah?

[Medi73#!]

Originally Posted by Gzdvtz

Iran moves to ban stoning
Iran has issued major reforms to its penal code that ban death by stoning and forbid the execution of minors.

Local Iranian media reports that the changes were approved by the guardian council, a body tasked with ensuring that the country's judicial laws do not contravene Islamic law.

The legislation now requires only the signature of the president to be enshrined into law.

Prior to the reforms, Iran has the record for executing more juveniles than any other country in the world. A report published human rights group Human Rights Watch earlier this year stated that more than a hundred children are currently on death row. Most are not executed until they turn 18.

Stoning is usually reserved for men and women found guilty of adultery. At least 99 people have been stoned to death in Iran since 1980.

Drewery Dyke, an expert on Iran at Amnesty International, warns that due to quirks of the Iranian legal system, the reforms are not as clear cut as they appear.

"Execution is a specific legal concept in Iran. Punishment for murder in Iran under Islamic law is termed 'retribution of the soul'," Mr Dyke explains, adding that children may still be killed if charged with murder.

"Similarly with stoning, they have removed the punishment of stoning for adultery but we still don't know what manner of punishment will be proscribed in the new law. There is more to his than meets the eye – the reforms do allow for a backdoor application of stoning."
[...]

Lauer meer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-stoning.html

A progressive move by Iran

[Core Rising]

Why does Iran, with one of the largest oil reserves in the world, need nuclear power? Most of the country is desert, if they are desperate for an alternative power source, why not solar farms?

[Awayo]

Why did the Shah? Was he after nuclear weapons? Why does Britain with its oil reserves and huge wind power potential? Why does the US with its sun-baked deserts and vast oil resources and mighty dammable rivers. Etc, etc. Repeat the same excercise for almost every country in the world.

But, duh, because they, like any other major country want (1) a diverse range of energy sources and (2) to sell their oil. And if they won't ever want the option of militarisation, not that there seems to be any sign of that at the moment.

[WatcherZero]

Well that idea of selling their oil to have fallen by the wayside since theirs a growing global boycott of Iranian oil and their about to be thrown out of the international payment clearing house.

[AXISPAW]

Originally Posted by Awayo

Why did the Shah? Was he after nuclear weapons? Why does Britain with its oil reserves and huge wind power potential? Why does the US with its sun-baked deserts and vast oil resources and mighty dammable rivers. Etc, etc. Repeat the same excercise for almost every country in the world.

But, duh, because they, like any other major country want (1) a diverse range of energy sources and (2) to sell their oil. And if they won't ever want the option of militarisation, not that there seems to be any sign of that at the moment.

The difference is that Britain is a small island with little room. Apart from the highlands and other mountain ranges all country is dedicated to farming etc. Iran on the other hand has plenty of desert. If you actually bother to look you'll find that Britain is at the forefront of renewable technology and erecting dozens of windfarms. Not to mention the huge push by the public to invest in solar panels for their homes. i can't go anywhere in my city now without seeing solar panels. So your argument holds no water.

[Awayo]

You appear not have understood my post.

[Core Rising]

But why diversify to Nuclear when Solar would be cheaper, is already available, and would cause no conflict? They can still sell their oil. Nuclear is one of the most expensive ways of producing electricity. They could only have decided to do something more insane if they decided to drill into the earth’s crust for geothermal! I doubt anyone did a cost/ benefit analysis when they started up their program

[Awayo]

Ask the Shah. Well, he's dead. Ask anyone else associated with the iran civil nuclear programme for the last few decades, pre- and post-revolution, in that case. And also ask why every other major industrialised country wishes to have nuclear in the mix.

The IAEA encourages NPT-signatory states like Iran to develop civil programmes, so long as they are inspected, as Iran's is, to ensure that weapons programmes are not developed from them.

Of course, a weapons programme, which is not currently present in Iran as stated by the IAEA, and the US!, could in theory develop from a civil programme, although not without being immediately obvious by needing to have all of the IAEA inspectors ejected. The same could be said of every country's civil nuclear programme of course. But because the US is agitating against Iran, this possiblity, unfairly and hypocritically, is one they will not tolerate even is Iran is doing nothing illegal atm and has a perfect right under international law to continue with its civil programme. Which is exactly what their government is saying it has a perfect right to do.

[Cue idiots screaming about Iran refusing to give up its nuclear missiles plans which it promises to use to exerminate world jewry, or whatever. An indication of how the media (and black propaganda, curiously the credulous believe things that loony journalists may allege but the US itself does not) frame the debate for those not interested in finding out even the elements of a controversy.]

[Core Rising]

The problem isn't them having nuclear as part of their energy portfolio, it is that they refuse to buy off the shelf nuclear. Instead they are spending ridiculous amounts of money on a nuclear program so they can claim the tech is their own. This has upset the west because we have no idea whether their program is entirely for civilian use or not. Add in all the secrecy and there is a huge degree of mistrust. Western nations would have no problem with Iran buying civilian nuclear reactors because there is no way those could be used to make weapons. But they didn't do that, they started up their own program which will cost them so much more just in R&D. From a cost point of view what they decided to do is just silly. There has to have been an alterior motive for them to want to keep it all in-house. You can of course site nationalism and pride, but those are dangerous words.

[alphaxion]

You could just as easily cite wanting to have their own designs so they could sell them into the wider market too, carving out their own niche and building up a new industry.

Do we have any evidence either way as to what they are doing?

[Awayo]

Nope.

It should be borne in mind however that any civil nuclear programme, could be diverted into military purposes. Even if there is no evidence to think so right now and Iran's nuclear programme is closely monitored by the IAEA.

I will tell you what would end the inspections, force an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT and help push the Iranians into thinking, well fugg it, maybe we should get a nuclear deterrent, and that's if its civil programme is attacked.

[Core Rising]

Well they might want to sell their own designs, but there is no way they would be anywhere near as efficient as modern Western designs. The only people who they could sell them too are the countries the West refuses to sell to. Fairly limited market.

[wjfox]