The reason rape wasn't prevalent in the Iran-Iraq war by Iranian forces isn't because of some supposed moral superiority, but because of the basic fact that Iran didn't really operate into Iraqi occupied territory in any real capacity. They might have on the tactical level, but never strategically. They weren't exposes to any of the stimulai
Iranian forces entered Iraqi territory on several occasions, advanced as far as the gates of Basra and held the Fao Peninsula for a considerable period of time. Plus, numerous border towns and villages came under Iranian control again and again. Therefore we are perfectly entitled to compare.
Also, my guess is that the war veterans on this board, would surely neither be pleased by, nor concur with the suggestion that they would have resorted to large-scale rape of Iraqi civilians, had they just staid there a bit longer.
Moreover, the fact that rape has been prevalent in many different conflicts including Muslims prove it doesn't come down to individual piety or morality, but rather, the forces of war including what Grossman terms the wind of hate, depersonalization and dehumanization, etc.
Being nominally a Muslim does not imply piety. I would suggest to acquaint yourself a little more with the sociology and mindset of Iranian soldiers during the Sacred Defence, whose conduct has pretty much to do with their cultural-societal habits and with their beliefs.
I didn't want to bring it up because of the firestorm it would create, but now that you're specifically referencing the IRI's behavior, I feel I have to. The allegations of widespread systemic rape in Iranian prisons as a form of punishment proves Iran isn't a unique entity, but just as vulnerable as the rest of humanity to the allure of atrocity.
Allegations made by groups supported by none other than the US... However, we are going off topic, my point about Iranian forces during the Sacred Defence stands.
This was even admitted by Iranian authorities, this isn't debate at all, this is established fact.
Actually, a parliamentary commission tasked with investigating the allegations reached the conclusion that they were fabricated.
Japanese forces started to systematically terrorize Chinese civilians almost as soon as they set foot there. Contrary to Iran with regards to Iraqi civilians. The behaviours of these two armies were clearly not the same.
Actually it did happen all over, look at the "War Rape" page on wikipedia i posted, it lists plenty of examples of all nations from WWII engaging in rape.
And how does that adress my comparative analysis? That it happened in different conflicts and involving different armies, does not mean that there do not exist serious qualititative and quantitative variations, nor that it certain instances, it did not occur at all. As shown in my previous post, US forces have often ranked among the major offenders in this area.
Occupation = wartime
If it were not the case one would argue that any rapes comitted in Iraq since 2003 don't "count" since it wasn't wartime.
US troops in Okinawa have not faced the least armed opposition since the end of World War II. Nor is the Japanese society in a state of armed conflict, while violent crime is much less widespread than in the US. To suggest that "war" has been going on in Japan since 1945, is simply absurd.
This is in total contrast with Iraq, where armed conflict has been a daily reality since 2003, and has involved US forces on a permanent basis.
Maybe because Iran didn't have the need to because they never has the equivelent, because they already accepted anyone into the frontlines so long as they could carry a rifle. Was this justified in a wartime environment that was literally a question of survival to the Islamic Republic, of course, but trying to compare the two is ridiculous.
As a matter of fact, you will find no individuals convicted of serious crimes in the ranks of Iran's armed forces, nor would you have found any during the Sacred Defence. It is simply that Iran does not recruit criminals, contrary to the USA.
In Iran, the miltary HAS to take them because of universal conscription.
That too, would be incorrect.
In Iran, convicted sex offenders and child abusers will rather be found at the morgues, after being hung to death for their crimes - and certainly not in the armed forces.
Actually it doesn't, Grossman indicates that the US military actually has a lower rate of sociopaths, psychopaths, and people who are otherwise inclined toward non-state violence for the reason that these people tend not to function under authority and as such, don't fit in well with a well-disciplined army.
The links I provided state that in 2008, one out of eight US soldiers required a "moral waiver". Since then, this number doubled. Which brings us to something like one out of four, or 25%. It seems to me that this is quite an important rate.
Iran, and the middle east as a whole has a long history of violence against women. I'll preface this with saying that Iran is extremely liberal when compared to it's neighbours with regard to women's rights, and i really do applaud them for that, but that doesn't mean they're perfect by a long shot.
The topic is the recurrence of rape committed by US troops, as opposed to the conduct of Iranian forces during the Sacred Defence, rather than women's rights in general - not that there isn't much to say about the myth that women would enjoy "more" rights in western liberal societies in comparison with Islamic societies.
The US military's record of war crimes in modern history is far worse than Iran's.
A "fashion, lifestyle and modeling" website (as it presents itself), is hardly a valid source for sociological studies in my book.