Iran's descent into fundamentalism continues...

Manny said:
UPI's got it.
Click to expand...

UPI apparently got it from the Post.

Iranian expatriates confirmed reports the Iranian parliament, or majlis, has approved a law that would require non-Muslims to adhere to a dress code which mandates they wear "standard Islamic garments," according to Canada's National Post.
Click to expand...

It just seems unusual that no news organization picked up on this in 2004. In example, this site came out before the Post's, yet has no mention of the Christian and Jewish symbols. Then again, that could just mean the writer didn't have enough time to fully read the law...
 
bob_kark said:
We wouldn't assassinate the President of Iran, we would simply create a new employment opportunity within the Iranian government.
Click to expand...

And it would be filled. And little would change. Would killing GWB have much of a effect? I think not.
 
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...

Not any longer , a post I made a year or two ago when someone objected to its alternative usage:

Because it no longer has just one meaning.

The phrase "To beg the question" also (now) has a legitimate alternate usage of (according to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable) “…The phrase is now commonly used to mean simply to raise the question, to invite the obvious question,...[/i]"

I posted about this a little while ago which begs the question: How many other people are unaware of what is now an alternate meaning of the phrase? ;)

It’s just an example of how English is an evolving language.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the derail.
 
geni said:
And it would be filled. And little would change. Would killing GWB have much of a effect? I think not.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here geni. I understand what you are getting at, but I think you underestimate the influence individual leaders have on the stupidity of their nations. If someone killed off GWB it would certainly change alot. Not in our day to day lives (since nobody that matters gives a sh-- about politics), but certainly in the nation to nation political game.
 
geni said:
And it would be filled. And little would change.
Click to expand...

Yep, especially since Ahmadinejad talks big but is relatively powerless, like his slightly less reactionary predecessor. The theocracy holds the real power... Ahmadinejhad can't even integrate a soccer match without their permission.
 
We NEED corroborating sources.

Google hits are tending to reference the National Post article...
 
So this is reason #94,549,328 for Jews in Iran to get the heck out of there.
 
Facinating. If true, completely abhorent. Possibly the spark for intervention.

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.

Iran, working on building a functioning, multi-party democracy, had an elected parliment. That parliment elected a Prime Minister who nationalized the oil industy (ah, a Communist action if there ever was one, save for the fact that the Brits had a monoploy on oil production and refused for years any negotiation with the Iranians about the oil busines, shared profits, development of the country wages, etc. Indeed, the Iranians were essentially 2nd class citizens in their own country).

The young Shah, under pressure from the Brits, sacked the PM and the elected Parliment. The Parliment and the people rose-up and chased the Shah out of Iran. We sent in Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA who managed a military coup, brought the Shah back.

The Shah than spent the next 30 years kissing US butt, doing US bidding, oppressinghis own people and putting a thumb on the development of Democracy. As a result, the religious "sphere" grew into the only outlet for many protests and the opposition to the government, etc. Resulting, in we all know, of the Iranian revolution.

Now, of course, we lament the Iranian government, its abhorent tyranny, its fundumentalist nature and the lack of an active democracy in Iran.

Bush, proclaiming the need for building democracy in the Middle East rattles his saber and threatens Iran. Iran, never having had any acknowledgement from the US of its many and manifest grievences against US policies toward Iran, not only feels insulted, but understandably distrusts the US and all who stand by it (i've heard more than one Irani say: what is this thing about Democracy you in the US always talk about? We once had the beginings of a functioning democracy, but for the sake of oil, you overthrew it...).

Anyway, Iran is a disaster for its people and possibly for the world. It is a disaster that may indeed cause us to go to war (and, we may even be able at some point to justify a war). But, we should always remeber as we look at the disaster that is Iran, we (the US and Britain, prinicipally) played a major role in creating the conditions that now exist there. Iran today is, of course, a failure for which Iranians are ultimately resposible, but it is a failure that arises in great part from our own past mistakes and we have yet to fully acknowledge and deal with those mistakes.

Why should the Iranians listen to us? If the situation were reveresed, would you listen to Iran preach about what is right and correct international behavior? Heck, as little as thirty years ago, there was active, legal as well as passive discrimination against black people in this country -- and I think you will find from looking at newspapers of the period (especially southern newspapers) they were pretty dismissive of the USSR or Castro or whomever suggested that our lectures to the world on democracy rang a little hollow.

Anyway, and so, when someone says "let's assisnate..." or "maybe we ought to take them out even if they don't go nuclear..." it makes me wonder what Iran will look like in another 50 years.

Maybe will get it right this time? History, however, is not looking good.
 
senorpogo said:
So this is reason #94,549,328 for Jews in Iran to get the heck out of there.
Click to expand...
But they were there first! It's not like the Persian Jews were hanging around in Park Slope and decided, "Brooklyn's great and all, but now that the Dodgers have gone west let's move to a majority Muslim theocracy." Jews moved to Iran in the first diaspora. They had been in Persia for over a thousand years before Mohammed had his visions and the Muslims invaded the place.
 
Manny said:
But they were there first! It's not like the Persian Jews were hanging around in Park Slope and decided, "Brooklyn's great and all, but now that the Dodgers have gone west let's move to a majority Muslim theocracy." Jews moved to Iran in the first diaspora. They had been in Persia for over a thousand years before Mohammed had his visions and the Muslims invaded the place.
Click to expand...

I think the zoroastrians where there first.
 
Manny said:
But they were there first! It's not like the Persian Jews were hanging around in Park Slope and decided, "Brooklyn's great and all, but now that the Dodgers have gone west let's move to a majority Muslim theocracy." Jews moved to Iran in the first diaspora. They had been in Persia for over a thousand years before Mohammed had his visions and the Muslims invaded the place.
Click to expand...

You're definately right. I'm sure most of them have made Iran their homeland for many, many generations. Being forced to move because of safety concerns must be extremely difficult. It is ultimately unfair.

But if the current administration in the US had publicly stated their hate for my religious group/ethnicity, if I were surrounded by a majority of people who believed it their duty to convert or kill me, and if I were being forced to wear a scarlet letter so it would make it easier for them to find and kill me, I think - no matter how unfair it would be and no matter how much it would upset me - I'd be heading for Canada.

Is it unfair? Sure. Does it beat getting murdered? Oh yeah.
 
Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.
Click to expand...

What's the point of comparing someone who actually wants to kill Jews to Hitler? It's redundant.
 
Bandersnatch said:
UPI apparently got it from the Post.



It just seems unusual that no news organization picked up on this in 2004. In example, this site came out before the Post's, yet has no mention of the Christian and Jewish symbols. Then again, that could just mean the writer didn't have enough time to fully read the law...
Click to expand...

Just one time...

Iranian expatriates confirmed reports the Iranian parliament, or majlis, has approved a law that would require non-Muslims to adhere to a dress code which mandates they wear "standard Islamic garments," according to Canada's National Post.
Click to expand...

Is this like when Iraqi expatriates confirmed that Iraq had WMD?
 
headscratcher4 said:
Heck, as little as thirty years ago, there was active, legal as well as passive discrimination against black people in this country -- and I think you will find from looking at newspapers of the period (especially southern newspapers) they were pretty dismissive of the USSR or Castro or whomever suggested that our lectures to the world on democracy rang a little hollow.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

No, sorry. I am not sure what the solution to the Iran situation is. I tried to indicate that above. We indeed may be forced into a military confrontation over the situation, we may have little choice.

My point is merely one of understanding the situation in its full context. Yes, your grandfather's generation made lousy policy choices with respect to Iran. They are polciy choices that we are not only still paying for today, they are, in many ways, at the heart of the current conflict with Iran.

You can not just say: that was than, this is now, I'm not responsible for then...

The Iranians, I fear, don't believe that...especially as we as a nation have never acknowleged our own role mucking about in their history, internal affairs, supporting the oppressive shah, etc.

There is no foundation for trust or conversation between our two countries because of those actions and their ramifications down through the past fifty years.

It limits our options. It seems to me that trying to deal with foriegn affairs with limited options is both sad and dangerous for all parties involved.

As to my stray point about the US. I guess I was trying to suggest that it might be a bit early for us to get on a high-horse about discrimination, etc. in another country, given our own history (recent history) is not quite as pristine as our rhetoric would have it be. Again, given our history, there is little reason for a country like Iran to listen to us -- other than for the threat of force. Again, I find that sad.

Anyway, Iran is the way it is because, in large messure, the actions of this country since the 1950s...it has been on-going and continual and ignores the basic point of conflict -- i.e. Iranian desire to have their many, real greviences at least acknowleged.

Again, I don't know what the solution is. It may be that fighting is necessary for our national security and our own best interest. However, these actions, like those in the 1950s, 60s and 70s will have profound consequences and it is worth thinking about those possible consequeces and we polish up our six-shooter and head out to the street for a high-noon showdown against the bad guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom