I hesitated posting this, as I welcome divergent viewpoints on the Malcontent. But this comment from Chamblee54 is so fraught with moral equivalence and unsubstantiated accusations that I felt compelled to share it, mainly because it illustrates how an (understandable) distrust of Bush has led some to adopt conclusions so irrational -- and so dangerous -- that they must be rebuked.
Here's the comment in question (in response to the post about the pending execution of a gay Iranian):
The headline of this piece is not accurate. Mr. Moloudzaden is 21, not 14. The alleged rape occured in 1999, when both Mr. Moloudzadeh and the reputed victim were 13. Now, this raises all sorts of questions, which go above and beyond the (fairly certain) mistreatment of Gays in Iran...even when Mr. Ahmadinejad's translator said these peeps don't exist. To execute someone eight years after the fact,for a crime committed at age 13, is pretty outrageous. Even for a rowdy regime like the one in charge in Iran. I suspect there is something about this we are not being told. Is Mr. Moloudzadeh a dissident, or the relative of dissidents? Is he accused of something else? Why would a government pull a charge like that out of the archives? If there is more to this story, then it does not speak well for Amnesty International to be publicizing it. Maybe they are the organization that needs a bit of scrutiny. Maybe they are trying to curry favor with the Government in Washington. There is little doubt that some elements of our government would like to see military action against Iran. We are in a pre war phase, where one of the goals is to create ill will against the enemy du jour. While it is true that our government will not nuke Iran to save gays ( We destroyed that village to save it), stories like this will create ill will against the government there, and could, in the long run, contribute to military action against Iran. And yes, this action would kill a lot of civilians. If we really want to help the gays in Iran, maybe we should insure that Amnesty International is not exploiting them for their own purposes.
He's right about one thing: I had bad information about Moloudzadeh's current age. My apologies, though that changes nothing. Certainly it's more abhorrent to see a 14-year-old executed, but the state-sanctioned murder of anyone, just because of their sexual orientation, is beyond disturbing.
Otherwise ...
Amnesty requires scrutiny? Would you be saying that if they publicized a similar incident in, say, Saudi Arabia (one of our alleged alllies)? There are unanswered questions, but that doesn't change the basic premise, nor does it in any way let Iran off the hook.
Of course, you're not entirely convinced of the "fairly certain" mistreatment of gays there. It's certain. We have evidence. See the photograph? Your cynicism is distasteful at best.
And then, your most outrageous charge: "Maybe they are trying to curry favor with the Government in Washington." Amnesty was one of the first organizations to condemn U.S detention facilities in Iraq and elsewhere. Now all the sudden they're auditioning to be a propaganda arm of a lame duck administration?
You argue, in essence, that we should say nothing about human rights abuses in Iran because it might create "ill will against the government there." Good. Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic with visions of grandeur. I agree it's unwise to beat the war drums now, but Iran is not benign. Wouldn't you be at least a little concerned if they acquired nuclear weapons?
Apparently not. Of bigger concern is the alleged exploitation of gays in Iran by Amnesty International, an absurd allegation leveled without any evidence. Someone with such a warped world view need not advise me on how best to help persecuted homosexuals worldwide.
Feel free to rebut.
Comments