Is Windows 10 the new software "Borg"?

Borg, as in "resistance is futile":

Microsoft Makes Windows 10 Upgrades Automatic For Windows 7 And Windows 8

[...] In September Microsoft admitted it is downloading Windows 10 on every Windows 7 and Windows 8 computer. Then in October it claimed an ‘accident’ saw these downloads begin installing without user permission. Well this accident now looks to have been a secret test run because Microsoft has confirmed mass upgrades to Windows 10 from all Windows 7 and Windows 8 computers are about to begin…

In a post to the official Windows blog, Windows and Devices Group executive vice president Terry Myerson announced this will be a two step process:

Step One

Beginning now, Windows 10 has been reclassified as an “Optional” update in Windows Update for Windows 7 and Windows 8 computers. This means users who have set their version of Windows to accept all updates will find the Windows 10 installation process will begin automatically and they will need to actively cancel it.

[...]

Step Two

But in “early” 2016 things will become more aggressive and Microsoft will again reclassify Windows 10 as a “Recommended” update. Given the default setting on Windows 7 and Windows 8 is for all Recommended updates to install automatically this means the vast majority of users will find the Windows 10 install process starts up on their machines.

“Depending upon your Windows Update settings, this may cause the upgrade process to automatically initiate on your device,” admits Myerson.

[...]

For Most, Resistance Is Now Futile

While tech savvy users will find workarounds and hacks, quite frankly avoiding the upgrade process is going to become far too much effort for the average consumer.

Is Windows 10 worth upgrading? From the perspective of most mainstream consumers, I’d say yes. It’s slicker than Windows 7 and more intuitive than Windows 8. But it is also incredibly invasive and controlling, taking an iron grip on what it installs to your PC and tracking everything you do – something options let you minimise, but not stop entirely.

As such my personal objection to Microsoft’s behaviour is not that Windows 10 doesn’t represent a potentially valuable upgrade, it is that the company has forgotten the fundamental right of customers to choose. And dressing ‘choice’ up as ‘you can just keep saying No’ is a facade everyone should see through…

I had blocked it in my updates, but it keeps unblocking itself and adding itself back. This is really pushy, and I resent it.

It just isn't right, because in the end, you have to ask "Whose computer is this, mine or Microsoft's?" I bought it with Windows 7, because that is what I wanted. Offering a free upgrade path to 10 is fine, but I want the freedom to choose it. When I want. If I want. When I decide that I'm ready for it.

Do I actually have to seriously consider moving to a Mac, as my only option? Or moving to Linux Mint on my Windows 7 computer, before it "turns"?

     

Do American's really want a One Party State?

"One party RULE?" File this under "WTF?":

Americans' Preference Shifts Toward One-Party Government
Change in preferences driven mostly by Democrats

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A record-high 38% of Americans prefer that the same party control the presidency and Congress, while a record-low 23% say it would be better if the president and Congress were from different parties and 33% say it doesn't make any difference. While Americans tend to lean toward one-party government over divided government in presidential election years, this year finds the biggest gap in preferences for the former over the latter and is a major shift in views from one year ago.

These findings are based on Gallup's annual Governance survey, conducted Sept. 6-9. The data show an increased level of support for one-party rule amid a currently divided government in which the Democrats control the presidency and the Senate, while the Republicans control the House. This suggests many Americans are experiencing divided-government fatigue.

Opinions on divided government have fluctuated over the years. When one party controlled both Congress and the presidency in 2006 and 2010, Gallup found near-historical lows supporting one-party rule. This suggests Americans may simply tend to prefer what they don't have or see problems in whatever the current situation is. At least one chamber of Congress changed hands in the subsequent elections, and the increase in support for one-party government in 2008 foreshadowed an election that would give the Democrats sole control of the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Just once, in 2005, have a plurality of Americans preferred divided government since Gallup began asking this question, indicating division at the federal level is rarely popular. The "makes no difference" response has generally been the most popular, though support for it fell this year to tie the lowest level Gallup has found. [...]

Ok, so its talking about One Party dominating government, not a one-party state. In theory, that at least leaves the door open for a change in government. BUT. For many years, I've heard many Democrats complain, that they hate our two party system of government. I've heard them say that they feel we really need only one party in the USA, and that to make any progress politically, the Republican party needs to be destroyed/disbanded. Or at least marginalized to the point where they have no power, and are merely "window dressing" for the pretense of a multiparty state.

Excuse me. There is a word for that. It's called "Fascism". And I'm afraid the Democrats have been flirting with fascism for a long while now, which is one reason why I stopped being a Democrat years ago.

This article by Gallop goes on to explain in detail how this "One Party" trend is being driven mostly by Democrats.  No surprise there.

Combine that, with our current Democrat Administration's penchant for quietly dismantling America, and what do we end up with? What will we end up with, if this Administration get's four more years, years where they will not have to worry about another election, and can just push 100% for what they want?

I don't like the Democrats. But I believe both the Democrats and the Republicans benefit by having a strong political opposition opposing them. It makes them both shape-up, try harder, and makes an incentive to strive to reach for bi-partisan legislation and solutions. When one party dominates too much, we end up with extremes, and the worst aspects of the dominating party. IMO, that is what we have seen in the past.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need BALANCE.


   

Unified Quest 2011 and the Council of Governors

What do these two things have in common. What's going on, and why should we care?

Let's look at each of them separately. First, "Unified Quest 2011":

U.S. Military Prepares for Economic Collapse

Skeptics who continue to assert that the economic plight of the United States has been overstated need not look further than the Pentagon to find out just how wrong they are. CNBC has learned that the Pentagon is currently playing out “war games” pertinent to an American economic meltdown.

According to CNBC, “The Pentagon is planning for real economic threats to America.”

CNBC’s Business News analyst Eamon Javers explains:

Ever since the crash of 2008, the Defense Intelligence establishment has really been paying a lot of attention to global markets and how they could serve as a threat to U.S. National security interests. At one upcoming seminar that we’re going to see here next month, they’re going to be taking a look at a lot of the issues … [including] the use of sovereign wealth funds to manipulate markets, currencies; nation state economic collapse, sovereign default, nation state instability; U.S. Allies’ budgets, deficits, national security infrastructures.

Similarly, the Army has launched an operation called “Unified Quest 2011” in which it studies the “implications of ‘large scale economic breakdown’ inside the United States that would force the Army to keep ‘domestic order amid civil unrest.’” The Quest also trains the Army in how to “deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets.”

[...]

However, the 2011 Unified Quest lends truth to assertions that the United States is indeed not witnessing an upward economic recovery, as so many in our federal government have asserted. Soldiers are being trained in evacuation and detainment as a response to rioting, revealing the possibility that the United States military may resort to martial law in order to maintain order.

[...]

Blacklisted News explains that the Pentagon’s war games are just one of many examples that show the direction in which the world is headed. Others include the decentralization of FEMA from a single distribution facility in Washington to 15 regional facilities across the nation. Blacklisted News also claims, “Anecdotal evidence indicates that the U.S. government has been the leading buyer of freeze dried foods for the last couple of years, and private emergency shelter contractors have reported a shortage in equipment and supplies for building personal-sized bunkers.”

The actual video from the CNBC broadcast sounds less conspiratorial:



It's the military's job to plan for various scenarios. They would be remiss in their duties if they didn't. Yet, if they knew a collapse was imminent, they would also be preparing for it. So which is it: precaution or preparation?

The politicians are telling us there is an economic recovery happening, but there is no denying that the military is practicing for a collapse. Not only that, they've been working on this for the past two years:

Pentagon Has Been ‘War Gaming’ for Economic Disaster Since Early ‘09

Follow both links for more information and links. It can be interpreted either way.

OK, so the military is preparing. It's good to be cautious, right? I've posted previously about What a U.S. currency collapse might look like. The Pentagon says they are looking at it as something triggered by terrorist actions. But many say that terrorism may not enter into it; a collapse could also result from fiscal mismanagement by our own government. Either way, the end result would likely look the same.

And if there is an economic collapse and ensuing chaos, we will need the military to maintain law and order, right? But consider this also:

The Council of Governors--an endrun around state sovereignty

[...] Well what’s wrong with that? A nice partnership between the state and federal governments so they can coordinate things and keep us all safe! We’ve gotten so used to this government speak. We should scream just hearing that statist jargon “partnership between the Federal Govt and state governments”. Our founding fathers did not see it that way. The states were sovereign. They gave certain enumerated powers (Art1. sec8) to the federal government, they delegated certain responsibilities to the federal government, but they did NOT make them partners. We were the united (with a small u as written in the Declaration of Independence) States of America.

This executive order does an end run around state sovereignty, creating 10 regions of the country (in line with the regions FEMA and the UN have established) and essentially erasing state lines in the event of the council taking any action. The president having the power to appoint the governors who are then partnered with him and have charge of “the synchronization and integrations of state and federal military ACTIVITIES in the U.S.” becomes the supreme commander and in charge of state militias and ALL the armed forces (county police, state militia and national guard and federal troops, AND removing any checks and balances thereof)--he in effect becomes a dictator.

The approval of the legislative branch of government isn’t even needed if he wants to squash a domestic insurrection. This makes us the United State (SINGULAR!) of America under the control of 1 person who is advised by the elite he has chosen--clearly no longer a republic, no longer united sovereign states. It should give us pause that Hitler did something similar in 1934 when he transferred the sovereign rights of the states--Germany had states similar to ours-- to the Reich central govt and put the state administrations under the control of the Reich administration.

It certainly looks like the executive branch of the govt is conspiring to get all of the military power and all of the forces under its control.

Let me quote from "Martial Law in America: No Longer Just a Possibility!" by Gary D. Barnett, “This executive order was issued for one purpose only, and that is to build a “legal” partnership between the federal government’s national military force and the domestic police state so that they become one and the same. But in reality, this “partnership” would be controlled by the executive branch of the federal government; this being the most dangerous kind of fascism. Nothing could be more treacherous or more of a threat to liberty than for one man, the president of this now “United State,” to have the power to control and use in domestic matters the entire federal military, the National Guard, the Reserves, the Coast Guard and all state police organizations. This would effectively give the president the power to establish Martial Law over the entire country at any given time of his choosing.” [...]

The article goes on to describe how this directly conflicts with the sovereign rights of states. This was done in February of 2010. Nobody seems to be talking about it.

States already had agreements of cooperation between state and federal powers in disaster and times of strife. I don't see the need for this, other than as a power grab to erode and destroy states rights. George Bush opened the door for this, and now the Democrats have walked in and are exploiting it to the max. But in the end, insofar as we allow it, we're to blame. And it will be up to us to reverse it.


Additional information:


What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.

Argentina's Example: Are we heading there?

Glenn Beck – 15 Days of Economic Collapse

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?


     

Iranian cleric's "sermon" urges "strong cruelty"

Here is what a theocratic government "prayer ceremony" looks like in Iran.

If you think that looks nasty, the "sermon" is even better:

Amongst others, a member of the Iranian pro-government Basij militia, center right, chants slogans during a Friday prayer ceremony at the Tehran University campus in Tehran, Iran, Friday, June 26, 2009. Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami, a senior cleric, said during nationally broadcast Muslim sermon on Friday that the government should punish "leaders of the riots, who were supported by Israel and the U.S., strongly and with cruelty." (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

I've posted about Khatami's crimes previously. His words here shouldn't surprise anyone, given his history of torture and repression.

In 1984, as minister of culture and Islamic propagation, he presided over the creation of Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy army of terrorists in Lebanon and elsewhere.

This is a photo of a Hezbollah "Swearing in ceremony" in Iran:



Here are more photos from Hezbollah rallies:





The are historical ties to Nazism with many militant Islamist groups like Hezbollah. Cruelty is a part of that heritage, and we've seen a large dose of cruelty in Iran recently. But apparently, the ruling clerics believe MORE cruelty is needed.

Imagine what a nation that treats it's own citizens with such cruelty would do, with nuclear weapons, to citizen's of other nations?

Iran's president Amadinejad has harsh words for the USA and our president:

Iran pledges 'crushing' response to US critiques

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Saturday to make the U.S. regret its criticism of Iran's postelection crackdown and said the "mask has been removed" from the Obama administration's efforts to improve relations.

Ahmadinejad — with his internal opponents virtually silenced — all but dared Obama to keep calling for an end to repression of demonstrators who claim the hardline leader stole re-election through massive fraud.

"You should know that if you continue the response of the Iranian nation will be strong," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to members of Iran's judiciary, which is directly controlled by the ruling clerics. "The response of the Iranian nation will be crushing. The response will cause remorse."

Ahmadinejad has no authority to direct major policy decisions on his own — a power that rests with the non-elected theocracy. But his comments often reflect the thinking of the ruling establishment.

The cleric-led regime now appears to have quashed a protest movement that brought hundreds of thousands to the streets of Tehran and other cities in the greatest challenge to its authority in 30 years. There have been no significant demonstrations in days, and the most significant signs of dissent are the cries of "God is great!" echoing from the rooftops, a technique dating to the days of protest against the U.S.-backed shah before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. [...]

Amadinejad literally kisses up to the ruling Mullahs, whose bidding he does.



Iran's president lashes out at Obama

Iran's hardline president lashed out anew at the United States and President Barack Obama on Saturday, accusing him of interference and suggesting that Washington's stance on Iran's postelection turmoil could imperil Obama's aim of improving relations.

"We are surprised at Mr. Obama," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in remarks to judiciary officials broadcast on state television. "Didn't he say that he was after change? Why did he interfere?"


"They keep saying that they want to hold talks with Iran ... but is this the correct way? Definitely, they have made a mistake," Ahmadinejad said. [...]

President Obama has been criticized here at home from the left and right, for saying to little about the Iranian situation, and for saying too much. But lets face it folks. No matter what Obama says (or doesn't say) about Iran's current government, they have never had any intention of "talking" with us about anything. The Mullahs would have us shut up, listen and obey. THEIR will is DIVINE. And if you disagree with them, you deserve to be cruelly crushed.

Democrats too often assume that leaders of other governments are always reasonable and rational; it's one of the Democrats biggest weaknesses. Their Foreign policy blind spot.

How do you "reason" with Nazis? How do you "talk" to cruel monsters who have no interest whatsoever in listening to YOU? It's not as if nobody has ever tried talking to the theocratic government of unelected mullahs since they took power in 1979. How do you "talk" with crazy people?

This protester in Sweden knows a Nazi when she sees one:



Do we?






There may be signs that the Regime is weakening from within. We can only hope. I wish the Iranians glastnost. I wish them a velvet revolution.


Related Links:

Evil Words of the Evil Cleric

German Neo Nazis: Hail Ahmadinejad!

Has Iran's Theocracy suffered a Fatal Wound?
     

The Young Iranian's are Fighting Back...

The students actually capture this policeman. Follow the links for many more dramatic photos and commentary. I got the photo's from here:

Its Time to Fight Back

This is Street Justice!

The above links are from the blog of an Iranian expatriate, Azarmehr. I will be checking his blog for updates, the link to the main page of his blog is here:

For a democratic secular Iran. For peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

I expect the Iranian Theocracy is going to crack down on this rebellion and try to squash it, the same way the Chinese crushed the Tiananmen Square rebellion.

I wouldn't feel too sorry for the captured policeman in the photos. Look at what the police goons did to students in June of 2007:

The can's this guy is being forced to suck on are used in toilets. His crime? Wearing Western style hair and clothes.

Note the Iranian News logo on the photos. The government wanted these photos to be seen in the local press, to intimidate the populace.



And remember the Iranian Police publicly bludgeoning women:







All of this, with high unemployment, a rampant illegal drug problem, a housing shortage, shortages of gas and essential goods, and the much talked about marriage crisis in Iran. Is it any wonder the current Iranian government has a rebellion on their hands? There is a large majority of youth in Iran (35% of the population) with no future prospects. No matter how hard the government cracks down, the demographics are working against them. Their economic problems are so severe they make our own look like nothing. They keep hanging more and more people just to silence the dissent.

I fear this is why they are working so hard to quickly acquire nuclear weapons; they have not the means to solve their internal problems and retain power, so they need nuclear weapons so they can acquire other resources from their neighbors, by force. (See "Iran's pressing needs and Iraq's vulnerability")

The great irony in all this is that the current Iranian Theocracy was swept to power in a student revolution. Now students are revolting against them. Will these students have any help from the West?


Related Links:

Ahmadinejad brushes off Iran election violence

The Power Behind Ahmadinejad's Disputed Win: Ayatullah Khamenei

Reformist Azeri Couple Challenge Iran's Amadinejad in Upcoming June Elections
     

Are We All Fascists Now? I'm talking about Economically, not Politically

And if we are, just what does that mean? Pat has done an excellent post about this: "We're all Facists now"

He has some excerpts from Michael Ledeen's two part article, where Ledeen comments on a piece published by Newsweek with the headline "We Are All Socialist's Now". Ledeen maintains we're not, and says that even the Newsweek article shows us that something else is going on:

[...] Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property. I haven’t heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing. What is happening now–and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article–is an expansion of the state’s role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it’s very “European,” and some of the Europeans even call it “social democracy,” but it isn’t.

It’s fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name, for two basic reasons: first, because “fascism” has long since lost its actual, historical, content; it’s been a pure epithet for many decades. Lots of the people writing about current events like what Obama et. al. are doing, and wouldn’t want to stigmatize it with that “f” epithet.

Second, not one person in a thousand knows what fascist political economy was. Yet during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a “third way” between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded. This was necessary because the Great Depression was defined as a crisis “of the system,” not just a glitch “in the system.” And so Mussolini created the “Corporate State,” in which, in theory at least, the big national enterprises were entrusted to state ownership (or substantial state ownership) and of course state management. [...]

Fascism is such a loaded word. But what we are talking about here is fascist economics, not fascist politics. It's an important distinction. However, such a situation contains unique dangers of it's own:

[...] The economics of the current expansion of state power in America are, as I said, “fascist,” but the politics are not. We are not witnessing “American Fascism on the march.” Fascism was a war ideology and grew out of the terrible slaughter of the First World War. Fascism hailed the men who fought and prevailed on the battlefield, and wrapped itself in the well-established rhetoric of European nationalism, which does not exist in America and never has. Our liberties are indeed threatened, but by a tyranny of a very different sort.

Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it. [...]

It often seems like we take freedom so for granted, that we don't even recognize it anymore, and therefore don't value it. So it's easily sacrificed in the name of security. But are we destined to find out that those who sacrifice freedom for security end up with neither? Must we rediscover what freedom is by losing it?

Ledeen goes on to compare Roosevelt’s New Deal and Mussolini’s Third Way, and the failures of both. We can learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of repeating them. Read the whole thing, it's your "must read" for the day.
     

What's so non-divisive about Democrats?

Nothing I can see. I keep hearing them accusing Republicans of being "divisive" whenever they disagree with Democrats on any issue. Yet it's Republicans like John McCain and Sarah Palin that I see consistently reaching across the isle and working with Democrats. But what is the Democrat party leadership doing? Claiming that anyone who doesn't vote for their candidate is a racist? Constantly bringing race into the debate, claiming that the Republicans are the ones trying to make race an issue?

How is that going to "unite" the country? How is the Democrat party, which divides everyone up into aggrieved special interest "victim" groups, whips up their discontent and then feeds off the anger, going to "unite" our country? They actually have an investment in keeping their members angry and discontented, because that is the driving force behind the party. How can that create national unity?

I think most Republicans and many Democrats truly love America. But unfortunately there is ample evidence that many Democrat Leftists hate America as we know it, and want to replace it with something else. Follow the link. If these folks love America, is certainly isn't the same America I know and love, regardless of what Senator Biden says.

They also hate ordinary Americans. Look at what they are doing to "Joe the Plumber", an ordinary American who had the audacity to question The Chosen One when the Messiah approached him in his front yard:

Operation Destroy Joe the Plumber

Obamugabe's Brownshirts vs Joe the Plumber

Here is an interesting solution:

Obamugabe's attack on Joe the Plumber was the last straw

Is it time to start dealing with the Media the same way they deal with us? I think what they are doing to Joe gives us the answer to that question.

We have people in both the Republican and Democrat parties who can work together and find agreement on those things we can agree on. Many of us understand what bi-partisanship means; we "get it". We know it's not possible to have 100% agreement on everything, nor is it even desirable. In a healthy free and democratic Republic dissent is tolerated and encouraged. People who claim that disagreeing with them is always "divisive" simply have no tolerance for disagreement. That's called Fascism.

Joe Wurzelbacher the plumber is not running for office. He's an ordinary American who asked a question when he was offered the opportunity by a candidate. I can only hope that the Brownshirt tactics being deployed by the Democrats against Joe backfire on them bigtime. The far Left often have no sense of propriety or limitations, and just unleash themselves and their hatred until they go too far.
     

When is Fascism not Fascism?

When Democrats do it:


From Tammy Bruce:

Obama's Fascist Heart: Tries to Censor Ayers Ad

[...] Barry, you see, doesn't like the American Issues Project ad reminding Americans of his documented and admitted-to relationship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And how does a leftist respond to painful truth? Calls for "criminal" investigations, mass email harassment, FCC threats to stations who dare to run the ad, and threats to sponsors and advertisers of stations that also do what they are legally, and constitutionally, allowed to do.

[...]

Just one more sign of just how Marxist the Obama campaign really is. If you're a Classical Liberal and a Dem, you should begin to look very carefully at this rather ominous sign. Time to wake up, folks, if you haven't done so already. [...]

Bold emphasis mine. Read the whole thing for some links and quotes. Our nation's political parties can and should have strong differences of opinion. Obama can explain his ties with terrorists and hatemongers in any way he wishes. But the American public doesn't have to put up with demonstrable lies about his associations, and aggressive attempts to cover those lies up. Are the Obamas just black Clintons? So much for "change".

More from Nealz Nuze:

AYERS AD BROUHAHA

[...] Now might be a good time to remind you how Obama won his first run for the Illinois State Senate. He didn't win by convincing the voters that he was the better candidate. He won by sending workers to the elections office to pour over petitions until he managed to get his opposition removed from the ballot. Now he's trying to use the U.S. legal system to keep people from running perfectly legitimate advertisements opposing his candidacy. There's really not much evidence that Obama is a fan of the electoral process. He would rather use a legal process to gain power.

Bold emphasis mine. Read the whole thing for details about the methods being used to achieve this. I guess that's what they call "Chicago Style" politics? It might work in Chicago, but I hope it doesn't in the national arena. We deserve better.

None of this will matter much to Obama's fans, who believe anything he does is ok. But this election will be decided by swing voters. Hopefully they aren't blinded by adoration.


Related Links:

Does Obama have fleas?

Obama's illegal campaign contributions

Barack Obama; the larger, complete picture

What has happened to the Democrat Party?
     

Hanging in Iran

Not hanging around or hanging out, but actually being hanged...


Hanging is the most common form of execution in Iran. Group hangings are prefered in urban areas, where they can get the most visibility. Can you imagine being out on your lunch break one day, or commuting to work, or on your way to do shopping or anything, and passing by this scene? How would you feel? Imagine living in a culture where this is "normal"...


Too often I have marveled at the new uses Muslims find for the everyday technologies many of us use daily. Muslims turn passenger planes into flying suicide bombs, cell phones into remote controls for detonating bombs, and here, they use the simple construction crane as an execution device.

But why not use a gallows? The cranes have special advantages over a gallows or trap door drop, that many other countries use. A sudden drop like is used with a trap door, breaks the neck of the person being executed, and they loose consciousness immediately.

By using a crane, the loss of consciousness in avoided. The crane allows the person to be lifted up slowly, so they strangle as they dangle. The hands are tied behind their backs, but the feet are left free to kick, as the person slowly strangles and suffocates. The strangulation part takes about 3 minutes. The whole execution from beginning to end takes about 25 minutes.

This group was four men and one woman. I read that this young woman (age 23?) was lashed 80 times first.

Why were they being hanged? They were alleged to be drug traffickers. But do we know that for certain? There are many claims that dissidents are often falsely accused of crimes and executed, without a fair trial. What passes for a trial is sometimes nothing more than two minutes of questioning by a Mullah. No defense attorney, no jury.

I read that over the past several years, the amount of public hangings has been rising, and may even be in the hundreds per year. You can only wonder at how such spectacles affect people, the society as a whole.

Do they get used to it? Do they become desensitized? Here are pictures from another hanging of three men. Here are the onlookers:


It's quite a crowd. All men. What are they thinking?

Not everyone is so stoical. This guy seems upset:



Is he watching a friend or family member about to be hanged?





The other men are noosed...



And the deed is done...



One of the most notorious executions in Iran occurred in 2004, with the hanging of 16 year old Ateqeh Rajabi. She was hanged for "engaging in acts incompatible with chastity".

The details of her personal story are tragic. She was abused by men from an early age, and had no one to defend her.

She had no defense attorney. In court she took off her headscarf and addressed the judge, hurling insults at him and telling him he should be DEFENDING her, not attacking her. This so infuriated the local judge, Haji Reza, that he personally saw to it that she received the death sentence.

I read that she publicly repented, crying for her life, right before being hanged; and that under Islamic law, her repentance should have led to a postponement of her execution and a reconsideration of her sentence. But the judge would have none of that. He personally placed the noose around her neck, and gave the order for the crane to be lifted.

After the execution, "judge" Reza boasted that the girl was not put to death for her crime, but for her "sharp tongue". The court published the girls age as 22, even though her birth certificate and her national I.D. card show that she was only 16. Her hanging has caused a shockwave in Iran, as almost no one believes she deserved the sentence she received.

The Mullah's are a law unto themselves. Can you imagine what whey would do with nuclear weapons?

Sources/Related links:

The Most Wanted Mullahs In Response To 16 Year Old Girl

The Public Hanging of a Sixteen Year Old Girl in Iran

Why the Mullahs Murdered Atefeh Rajabi

American Barbarian: Iran hangs a girl from a crane, world yawns...

Public hanging: a street show in Iran

holycrime.com


UPDATE 8-03-07:

As mass public hangings in Iran continue to increase, so do videos of them that have been smuggled out of the country:

Hangings in Iran increase, to silence dissent


UPDATE 2-15-11:

Years later, the hangings still continue, with a vengeance:

Sadistic Mullahcracy in action - a mass hanging in Iran

Iran Hanging One Person Every 12 Hours

The Teheran regime has hanged 66 individuals since the end of 2010, according to France 24 International News.

Among them was a 46-year-old Iranian-born, Dutch national Sahra Bahrami, who was hung on January 29 on drug-smuggling charges.

Holland’s Foreign Ministry said it was “shocked, shattered by this act by a barbaric regime,” according to Agence France Presse.

Bahrami’s sister dismissed the Iranian charges, which she contended were fabricated.

“She doesn’t even smoke cigarettes, let alone possessing drugs. How could someone who participates in election gatherings and endangers her life, engage in such actions against her country?” she is quoted as telling the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

“I am bewildered as to how my client’s death sentence was issued while her security charges had not yet been reviewed,” Bahrami’s attorney said after her death.

The Hague froze relations with Iran in the wake of the killing.

Iranian officials arrested Bahrami during anti-government protests in 2009, and held her on “security charges.” She had been visiting Iran to see her relatives.

Catherine Ashton, The European Union’s representative in talks with Iran over their nuclear program, said “Executions are taking place at an alarming rate.” [...]

Read the rest. They are hanging political dissidents, on trumped up charges, without trial. Why didn't the White House support the Iranian Uprising, the way they recently did with Egypt? That was a missed opportunity. The Iranian protesters are now being killed for it.

Radio Netherlands will begin broadcasting news bulletins to Iran in the Farsi language, in response to Sahra Bahrami's execution.