Stoning Season: Iran Set to Stone Eight Women and One Man to Death for Adultery

Despite an international outcry over its medieval legal system, Iran has announced a real crowd pleaser: eight women and one man will be stoned to death for adultery. Iran applies Sharia law and will execute them in the name of Islamic justice.


There remain a few unstoned women who are fighting against such outrages. One is Shadi Sadr. Her colleague, Mohammad Mostafai represents one woman, Malak Qorbani, whom he insisted plead guilty to adultery even though she did not know the meaning of the charge. That would seem likely since the penalty is stoning.

Stoning remains the rage among Islamic countries who continue to mete out religious codes through their court systems, click here and here .

For the full story, click here and here.

90 thoughts on “Stoning Season: Iran Set to Stone Eight Women and One Man to Death for Adultery”

  1. Either just watch any of the above and look for the Jews – from Abrams and Blitzer to Wallace and Walters, or do a little research, and find out that not only does Murdoch own more than 175 media outlets, but everyone of them has managers and editors that have the same point of view – his. And BTW, 75% Jew owned/operated is a conservative figure.

    I don’t blame you for preferring ignorance though, doin’ reserch and lernin is hard.

  2. zakimar
    1, July 24, 2008 at 2:25 am

    I woder why when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the 24% Christian, Jews

    I’m afraid that’s a statistic there yassar, that you’re going to have to provide some supporting reference too.

    Otherwise admit you just made that up.

  3. Of course a lot of these stories are false to drum up support for an attack on Iran. Remember the story of the Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators before Bush Sr. attacked Iraq?

    I woder why when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the 24% Christian, Jews and Christians feel the need to voice their negative opinions on other religions especially Islam on sites like this too?

    Isn’t CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New York Times, everything from Murdoch, everything from Bloomberg (all owned, run or edited by Jews) enough?

    BTW, wasn’t it Bush Jr. that executed a retarded man with the mind of a child (both the prisoner and the Governor) in Texas?

  4. But like I said, feel free to send in another attorney, or legal professional, who wants to likewise publicly flush their credibility down the drain by insisting that “CITZENS OVERSIGHT”, or “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT”, equals oversight by “STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT”, as you have here this evening.

    In writing.

    On the World Wide Web, lol.

    πŸ˜€

    I mean ones fun….but if there were say….two of you….

  5. At least when you got busted pretending I said Civilian, instead of proclaiming that you “knew what I meant”, you should have at least claimed you were just paraphrasing me.

    Not that that would have flown much farther, given the context of your reply, but at least it would have kept that turd afloat a few minutes longer before I flushed it.

    But you folded like a cab driver in Atlantic City, and that tells me you must not be a trial lawyer.

    😐

    Least I hope not.

  6. Come on spooogie.

    You know this happens to you every time.

    πŸ˜€

    You come in, you start sh$t with me, completely unprovoked as always, then get your legal briefs handed back to you cleaned and pressed.

    You must be a glutton for punishment.

    And you know you’re not getting off the hook on your attempts at deception.

    Dude, you CHANGED someones words, to try and make YOUR point!

    lol

    πŸ˜€

    I mean, do you get it?

    Do you see the problem with that?

    Do you understand how that removes any credibility you may have had, when you stoop to changing your opponents words to try and create a straw argument, using words you KNEW they didn’t say?

    Do you see the problem with that?

    πŸ˜€

    And whats worse, even AFTER changing their words, you failed to prove your point.

    After all, I am 100 percent confident Professor Turely, or any attorney or legal professional for that matter, will want to concur with your absurd assertation, that a “CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT” body would comprise STATE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT, lol.

    But feel free to solicit their opinions in support of that floater.

    In fact I encourage it.

  7. Or you can keep sending in your pet mascot, patty, to run interference with her mindless taunts, because she’s too stupid to actually refute anything on the board.

Comments are closed.