Iranian schoolgirl ‘beaten to death for refusing to sing’ pro-regime anthem

[Still Waters]

Another schoolgirl has reportedly been killed by the Iranian security services after she was beaten in her classroom for refusing to sing a pro-regime song when her school was raided last week, sparking further protests across the country this weekend.

According to the Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations, 16-year-old Asra Panahi died after security forces raided the Shahed girls high school in Ardabil on 13 October and demanded a group of girls sing an anthem that praises Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

When they refused, security forces beat the pupils, leading to a number of girls being taken to hospital and others arrested. On Friday, Panahi reportedly died in hospital of injuries sustained at the school.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/oct/18/iranian-schoolgirl-beaten-to-death-for-refusing-to-sing-pro-regime-anthem

[+joc]

...and anyone who did not worship the Beast was put to death or imprisoned...

Why are the United States, and Great Britain, and Canada and Australia allies with Iran?  ...oh that's right...we're not...Russia is!  just sayin'

But don't worry about Russia...they are just the newest Democracy.....mmmmm hmmmm

Status Quo...let it go...

 

[Guyver]

This sucks.  Honestly.  What a bunch of backward savages with no respect for human life.  

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, joc said:

Why are the United States

The current administration is bending over backward to get a "deal" with Iran that ends sanctions and paves the way for them to have nukes.  I think that makes them allies...

[+joc]

Iran took hostages and let them go when Reagan became president.  Why?  Because Russia was afraid of Reagan...because Reagan called them out!  

Bush destroyed the military infrastructure in Afghanistan and virtually destroyed the Iraqi army and was poised on the borders of Iran...did nothing about Iran as a terrorist exporter. Why?  Because he didn't want to go to war with Russia.

Iran is protected by Russia just like NATO countries are protected by NATO...going to war with one means going to war with all and the US.  Going to war with Iran means going to war with Russia.  So we sit back and throw money at the Ukraine...

...then the media narrative becomes Russia is weak and losing in Ukraine and  because they are attacking civilians not the military.  But who is really weak and losing the war in Ukraine?  The Ukrainian military...because they cannot  protect their own citizens.  Eventually Ukraine will fall.  And when it does ...nothing to do about it...because the world is afraid of Russia now and Putin's threat of nukes.  This gives a clear signal to Iran to do anything they want because no one wants to go to war with Russia...but what if Iran attacks a NATO country...will Russia defend them?  Or will Russia let them be destroyed?  Who knows what the game is with all of this?  Certainly none of us.

[Gromdor]

Regarding Reagan and Iran.....  Just three words: Iran Contra Affair  Iran-Contra Affair | Definition, History, Oliver North, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

[openozy]

I don't understand why they didn't sing the song just to keep the peace, I'm sure they know their own violent people.

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, openozy said:

I don't understand why they didn't sing the song just to keep the peace, I'm sure they know their own violent people.

Eh, some people are willing to fight and die for their ideals.  

[openozy]

31 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, some people are willing to fight and die for their ideals.  

Looks like none of them value their lives very much or they are idiots.

[+joc]

10 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Regarding Reagan and Iran.....  Just three words: Iran Contra Affair  Iran-Contra Affair | Definition, History, Oliver North, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

None of that has anything to do with the context of what I was talking about.  But your opinion on Reagan is noted.

[Gromdor]

On 10/18/2022 at 10:16 PM, joc said:

Iran took hostages and let them go when Reagan became president.  Why?  Because Russia was afraid of Reagan...because Reagan called them out!  

 

19 hours ago, joc said:

None of that has anything to do with the context of what I was talking about.  But your opinion on Reagan is noted.

The Iran/Contra Affair has everything to do with what you talked about. 

In early 1985 the head of the NSC, Robert C. McFarlane, undertook the sale of antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Iran in the mistaken belief that such a sale would secure the release of the American hostages. This and several subsequent weapons sales to Iran in 1986 directly contradicted the U.S. government’s publicly stated policy of refusing either to bargain with terrorists or to aid Iran in its war with Iraq, a policy based on the belief that Iran was a sponsor of international terrorism.

Reagan didn't get hostages from Iran because Russia feared him.  He placated them.  They released the hostages after Reagan signed the Algier Accords: Algiers Accords - Wikipedia

[spartan max2]

On 10/19/2022 at 1:52 AM, openozy said:

Looks like none of them value their lives very much or they are idiots.

The rights and freedoms people have around the world come from individuals being brave (or stupid enough) to believe in ideas of a better future over their own personal safety. 

Without individuals like that we would all be still in the stone ages.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

 

The Iran/Contra Affair has everything to do with what you talked about. 

In early 1985 the head of the NSC, Robert C. McFarlane, undertook the sale of antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Iran in the mistaken belief that such a sale would secure the release of the American hostages. This and several subsequent weapons sales to Iran in 1986 directly contradicted the U.S. government’s publicly stated policy of refusing either to bargain with terrorists or to aid Iran in its war with Iraq, a policy based on the belief that Iran was a sponsor of international terrorism.

Reagan didn't get hostages from Iran because Russia feared him.  He placated them.  They released the hostages after Reagan signed the Algier Accords: Algiers Accords - Wikipedia

First of all, Ronald Reagan did not sign the Algiers Accords.  Deputy Secretary Christopher Warren of the CARTER administration did that.  

The Algiers Accord guaranteed primarily (among other things) that the United States would not would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs.

They signed the Algiers Accord because they were at war with Iraq who attacked them in September of 1980.  And yes...they were very much afraid that Ronald Reagan would do much, much more than make a failed rescue attempt.  They knew they would be weak from defending against Iraq and didn't want to go up militarily against The United States with a new President.  They had to sign the Algiers Accord...but if Placated is the word you want to use...then it was Carter who placated the Iranians...Not Reagan.

Just wanted to correct the record there!   

Furthermore, The Iran/Contra affair had nothing to do with the hostage crisis of 1979.  How could it, Reagan wasn't even president.

Quote

Joc said: Iran took hostages and let them go when Reagan became president.  Why?  Because Russia was afraid of Reagan...because Reagan called them out! 

Edit:  But I was wrong with my facts as well...The Hostage Crisis had nothing to do with Russia either...so there.

Edited October 20, 2022 by joc

[openozy]

8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

The rights and freedoms people have around the world come from individuals being brave (or stupid enough) to believe in ideas of a better future over their own personal safety. 

Without individuals like that we would all be still in the stone ages.

I know they are brave but I'd rather be a live coward than a dead hero. What % of Ozzie or American kids would have that conviction? They are violent people with little regard for life, even as kids which is sad in the 21st century. I don't think most of these people have advanced much past the stone age way of thinking.

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, openozy said:

I know they are brave but I'd rather be a live coward than a dead hero. What % of Ozzie or American kids would have that conviction? They are violent people with little regard for life, even as kids which is sad in the 21st century. I don't think most of these people have advanced much past the stone age way of thinking.

That's your choice. But it's good to recognize that human progress if because of many individuals who were brave in disregard of their safety 

[openozy]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

That's your choice. But it's good to recognize that human progress if because of many individuals who were brave in disregard of their safety 

Can't see how violence and little care for life is an advancement in humans.