"Scott Long, writing in The Guardian, criticised Galloway's claim that "homosexuals aren't executed in Iran, just rapists", pointing out that current law in the country stipulates that "Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction""
I'm not following. He is clearly disagreeing with the statement. Are you agreeing with Galloway that homosexuals aren't executed in Iran?
There are somewhat conflicting reports on whether or not exceptions to the general principle sometimes occur, and there definitely are a few cases of homosexuals executed where the rape charges were quite dubious. In addition, there are a few cases of people executed on trumped up espionage charges with a charge of sodomy thrown in for good measure.
But as to the general policy... it's just a dumb old fact. Not that the reality is
fine, but then Galloway didn't claim that.
Anyways, back on topic.
I hope we can all agree that this is true - certainly anyone defending Israel's policy of assassinating Hamas leaders would have to. Though they don't bother to make sure to get only their man, of course.
Wait, what? Certainly what Blair did is morally equivalent to 7/7*, and assassinating him, while still not morally acceptable, would not be equivalent? (This is Blair before he left office, obviously.)
*if it is accepted, for the sake of Galloway's argument, that orders known to cause the "deaths of thousands of innocent people" are the exact same as direct orders to kill thousands of innocent people. Which is not something I'd want to accept, but then the whole sentence doesn't really make sense unless you assume that Galloway doesn't really do so either.
Poll
