Iran's descent into fundamentalism continues...

If this is not accurate... then the amount of juicy details about colored ribbons makes it rather difficult to think it may have simply been a misunderstanding. Someone must have made it up...
 
'baseless report'

  • According to Meir Jawadnafar, an Israeli expert on the Iranian government, Tehran has not yet determined the nature of Muslim dress that will be required in the country. Therefore, he says, the claim that it was decided that Iran's Jews would be forced to wear yellow badges on their clothing is baseless. He said the Iranian government has no intention of forcing ethnic groups to wear specific colors.

from Ha'Aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717902.html
Some Israeli commentators suggested the story still needed to be fully verified, pointing to the fact that the source of the story was Iranian exiles strongly opposed to the regime ruling their country.

I'm still a skeptic... let's wait and see how this develops.
 
BPSCG said:
[Grammar Police]
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question."
"Begs the question" means to sidestep a question.
Example:
Q: "Did you rob the bank?"
A: "I've always believed in law and order."
[/Grammar Police]
Click to expand...

Actually, it is related to a circular argument. Your use is secondary. His is tertiary, and "controversial".
 
rocketdodger said:
Really? Wow I always thought it was some kind of an ethical thing, or maybe a gentleman's agreement between first world countries.

In any case WE SURE COULD USE SOME ASSASINS NOW
Click to expand...

Ironically, assassinating their leader would generate less wrath and hatred against us than plowing through a few hundred thousand of their troops.
 
BPSCG said:
I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

Or do people find Ahmadinejad too difficult to spell?
Click to expand...

It's interesting to see someone who is akin to Hitler, not in hyperbole.

...and very sad, too.
 
senorpogo said:
I don't get your point. Since my grandfather's generation enacted very poor foreign policy in regards to Iran and because the United States has a history of racial discrimination, we now must sit in silence and let Iran do whatever it wants?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the dominent theme - and it sounds suspiciously like the moving of goalposts that occurs every time Muslims are called on their most recent atrocity. "Why don't you talk about the Crusades? Or Tim McVeigh? Or that murdering Bush? Or those 500 million Iraqi babies starved to death by the Great Satan?" (You get the point).

So if I am to understand Headscratch4 correctly, the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent Islamic Republic of Iran was created because of blowback from a CIA-sponsored bloodless coup in 1953 (this part is factually correct). Therefore, Iranians have to suffer, Iranian minorities have to suffer, and the US is allowed to do nothing, because having one more thing to blame on us is more important than actually preventing Islamic radicals from committing yet another atrocity with the blessing of the left?
 
BPSCG said:
I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

Or do people find Ahmadinejad too difficult to spell?
Click to expand...

Have you ever spoken to any Iranians? I highly recommend it. (You might not want to repeat your opening sentence though.)
 
Polaris said:
That seems to be the dominent theme - and it sounds suspiciously like the moving of goalposts that occurs every time Muslims are called on their most recent atrocity.
Click to expand...

This is the famous Tu Quoque logical fallacy defense of the ulema

Without tu quoque (you too), the typical CAIR defenses fall to pieces

this is usually prefaced with "...but the jooooooooooooooos"
 
webfusion said:
  • According to Meir Jawadnafar, an Israeli expert on the Iranian government, Tehran has not yet determined the nature of Muslim dress that will be required in the country. Therefore, he says, the claim that it was decided that Iran's Jews would be forced to wear yellow badges on their clothing is baseless. He said the Iranian government has no intention of forcing ethnic groups to wear specific colors.
from Ha'Aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717902.html
Some Israeli commentators suggested the story still needed to be fully verified, pointing to the fact that the source of the story was Iranian exiles strongly opposed to the regime ruling their country.

I'm still a skeptic... let's wait and see how this develops.
Click to expand...

I agree. As an 'apologist', I am just asking for what sceptics should ask for, proof. If it is true, it is a serious problem, but lets convict them for being guilty based on evidence.
 
Debka reports that their sources in Iran have obtained an actual copy of the proposed regulations regarding dress --
  • The Iranian draft law which raised a world uproar was obtained Friday night, May 19, by DEBKAfile, and proved to contain no clause on a Yellow Star for Jews or special dress for non-Muslim minorities in its 13-clause text.

The Debka report confirms, however, that during the writing of the regulations, speakers in the majlis debate proposed that non-Muslim minorities be made to wear distinctive clothes, yellow being the preferred color for Jews.
The legal wrangling continues, and there is still opportunity for changes to be made to the clauses.
"At the end of the majlis debate, the final draft will be put to the vote;
with or without the proposed discriminatory clauses remains to be seen."


ETA -- the article linked by Darat in the OP is no longer available!

====================================
Some people have suggested in internet chats and forums that all jews in every nation wear the yellow star for the next week, to embarrass the Iranians into backing away from the very idea.
I am sure that after the end of Shabbat (Sabbath) on Saturday night, more will be heard about this... right now, jews worldwide are offline in observance of the sabbath.
 
Last edited:
The Debka report confirms, however, that during the writing of the regulations, speakers in the majlis debate proposed that non-Muslim minorities be made to wear distinctive clothes, yellow being the preferred color for Jews.
Click to expand...
That's not the original claim though, unless the speaker in question was Ahmadinajad.



CBS says the Iranian embassy has denied it, so too has Iran's press officer to the UN
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05/19/publiceye/entry1637037.shtml

Other sites say that the topic was summer clothing for women.

This one says the plans were not discussed in parliament.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060519-1456-iran-dresscode.html

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: “Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here.”
Click to expand...

This one even says that CanWest itself is admiting the story is false. (I can't check that, their homepage won't open -- maybe because my browser is set to not run active scripts.) But the original link in the OP says "This story is no longer available." Is that a retraction?

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php...=article&sid=4709&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Canada's National Post broke a sensational story; a story so big, the flagship of the CanWest Global media monolith denied it's nationwide dailies, keeping the scoop to themselves.

Today, the Post reported Iran has signed into law a provision requiring Iranian Jews and Christians wear identifying badges declaring their religious affiliation. Below the 18 point high headline, a picture of a man and woman, circa Hitler's Germany, each sporting the infamous Yellow Star of David stitched to their overcoats.

It's a stunning development, one that should shock the world, and finally convince all of Iran's despotism. But of course, the National Post story is a complete fabrication; a fact Canwest itself is now "reporting."
Click to expand...

El Greco
If this is not accurate... then the amount of juicy details about colored ribbons makes it rather difficult to think it may have simply been a misunderstanding. Someone must have made it up...
Click to expand...

Iraqi ex-pats swore blind that Iraq had WMDs.

If the story is false, then how many will see the retraction? It's been all over the web in nearly every political blog.

I would like to know if CanWest has made a retraction. "no longer available," doesn't count!
 
Well that will teach me - I suspect "confirmation bias" e.g. I expect the worse from the Iranian government so when it was something that was in line with my expectations I was less critical and sketpical then I should have been.

Thanks to the people who were actually skeptical about the report and went to the effort to try and get to the bottom of the story.
 
The Iranians I talk to (ones who live in Iran) say the story's not true.
 
headscratcher4 said:
But wait, we in the U.S. should remember that the regime that rule Iran today is a by-product of our intervention to save Iran back in the 1950.
Click to expand...
And even more recently, Iran was on a path towards moderation/democracy. Then came the famous axis of evil speech followed by the invasion of Iraq followed by the mullahs re-asserting power.
 
I was, obviously, being sarcastic about pie-in-the-sky knee-jerk posts about what-is-really-wrong-in-the-world-today, or yestersday or tomorrow. BTW, where did you get the global-citizen label? Is this something that you think applies selectively? I have this funny feeling that the followers of what's-his-name in Iran think it applies to them; with a god's approval.

As an aside, just what is the time in Australia right now?
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.
Click to expand...

But if you go out with a protest sign saying "Bush-Hitler" or "The USA is a Theoratic Dictatorship", you know in advance nothing will happen to you. So you can convince yourself you're "speaking truth to power" and are a "brave dissident" without any personal risk.

(It's 2006; where are the detention camps for all "dissidents" and "non-Christians" that ANSWER & co. had been promising us Bush is "planning" for years now? Are the jails full of brave librarians who let kids borrow atheist books, the sure result of the "Patriot Act"?)

If you say something bad about the religion of peace, however, some of its more unhinged believers might find out where you live and blow up your house. That usually stops the "brave fighters for truth" in their tracks.
 
varwoche said:
And even more recently, Iran was on a path towards moderation/democracy. Then came the famous axis of evil speech followed by the invasion of Iraq followed by the mullahs re-asserting power.
Click to expand...

Hooray, the "root cause" for the latest disgusting, mideaval, violent Islamist behavior had been discovered (again)--and it's the evil Bush / USA / jews (again).

Surprise, surpise, surprise.

Weird logic, though, isn't it? "How DARE Bush says we're evil! Let's put yellow stars on the jews--that'll show 'im!". A bit like "How DARE that feminist say I'm a chauvinist pig! I'm going to go out and rape some bitches! That'll show her!"

I mean, aren't they simply proving that Bush was 100% correct?
 
Even if he was, what difference would that make? The value of an act is the value of the consequences which follow from it. If calling Iran evil led to Iran becoming even more evil, then calling Iran evil was a bad move, even if he was factually correct in saying it.

I think the problem is that people (on both sides of the political spectrum) are too focused on the concept of blame. Causality is far too complex a concept for it to be possible to just distribute blame as if it was some sort of finite quantity. Life is a hugely chaotic system, and everything effects everything else. The question is not whether something caused something else, but rather to what degree each component of the system influenced the thing and what sort of actions can be made to prevent or encourage similar things from happening in the future.

With a murder, for instance, we might like to say that the murderer is to blame for the death. But that's of course just a simplification, as all the actions of the murderer were influenced by a bunch of other people. Some people (and strawmen) would like to stop there and say that "society" is to blame, but of course that's a gross oversimplification as well, because their actions were themselves influenced by a bunch of other events. The problem with looking for a "root cause" is that there is no root; it goes all the way back.

And in this situation, sure, Iranian politicans played more of a role in bringing Iranian politics to the state it's currently in than Bush himself, but there's not much we can directly do about what Iranian politicians do. American politicians, on the other hand, are more reachable.

Sometimes people are crazy and decide that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But sadly, crazies are not the sort of people to listen to reason, so trying to effect the situation from that part of the causal chain is a bit impractical, to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom