Kenjitsuka said:
vansau said:
Now, it's going to execute a man because he made videogames.
Where do you get that idea?
If you'd source your news better you'd know he was in the US army and is slated to be executed not for anything game related, but because the Iranians claim he was paid by the CIA to infiltrate their Intelligence agency, and then after three weeks report information for money.
Now if that is true we can't assert (nor if that's false), but what it *does* tell us is that the guy was charged with -and convicted for- infiltration and attempting to sell important Intelligence data to an arch enemy.
Video games don't factor into this at all, unless you need to write some news for a videogame website and discover this seemingly random fact afterwards... then make a baseless assumption to make these two facts somehow combine into something spectacular to report.
THANK YOU!
I would have hoped that this site would restrict itself to what it knows---that is,
videogames. Sadly, however, it would appear that they are not above mimickiung the mainstream media's proclivity for hijacking a non-sequiter or red herring and using that as the main lede into coverage of an issue that calls for much less kneejerk howls for bombing each other.
So what if they criminalize homosexuality? The West can't just wish the rest of world to be as enlightened as they are overnight, at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, it has no bearing on matters of intelligence, which this clearly is; this is not the first time a CIA ring has been busted within their borders.
It's perfectly reasonable to morally object to this sentence (which the Iranians will, in all likelihood, mitigate in the future), but to extrapolate that into a generalized judgment on the Iranian government, its policies, and its people as a whole is just wildly irresponsible. It's the kind of mindset that rationalizes war (which, in this case, would be a regional and humanitarian crisis far beyond Iraq).
Clearly, we can support Saddam against Iran (with chemical weapons no less); we can talk openly of bombing their nuclear facilities; we can hold Iran to a nuclear double standard from which Israel is exempt; we can wage cyberwarfare against them; we can assassinate their scientists within their borders; we can supplement its regional rivals with advanced weaponry; we can direct CIA activity within their borders; we can talk of "regime change" in its regional ally Syria (and perhaps already be covertly actuating that); we can make common cause with a terrorist group that still operates against the iranian regime; we can fly drones in their airspace we can rebuff every single gesture of negotiation or goodwill or posture simply that it is insufficient.
Not a peep.
But Iran can't wipe its metaphorical ass without the New York Times, Fox News, and the Washington Post (not to mention our policymakers) speculating on its aggressive/expansionist/genocidal tendencies.
Greenwald explains it better than anyone else I know of:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/04/george_orwell_on_the_evil_iranians/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_media_and_iran_familiar_mindlessness/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/the_la_times_notices_the_double_standard_on_iran/singleton/
P.S. Sorry for the rant; I kind of went off on a tangent. I just had to get it out, because I've been following this for a long time, and the rampant jingoism infuriates me to no end.
