Iran's descent into fundamentalism continues...

[FireGarden]

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!".

You have evidence the story was anything other than a fabrication?

Even the Jerusalem Post has published a correction:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961380165&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The 13-article bill, which received preliminary approval a week ago, makes no mention of requiring special attire for religious minorities.

And nobody in this thread was making the argument you mock. Nobody in this thread tried to apologise away badges for religious minorities.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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.

If the experiment goes bad, you throw it in the autoclave and move on to the next one.

 

[a_unique_person]

If the experiment goes bad, you throw it in the autoclave and move on to the next one.

It wasn't an experiment, it was a country with real, live people living in it. If the US had admitted it's responsibility, apologised and opened up diplomatic relations again, it might never have got to this stage.

 

[a_unique_person]

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?

perhaps you could point out to me where Varwoche mentioned Jews?

 

[a_unique_person]

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?

There are a lot of things wrong with the world today, many of them having little to do with the USA. However, if the topic is about something the US had a huge influence in, then the US may get named. If the US did not have it's finger in so many pies, it might not get burned so often.

 

[webfusion]

Amid all the denials ---

Although much comment is being made on the report of the Canadian National Post being false, there are indeed elements that are worth considering as truthful --- the new Iranian dress-code regulations are not finalized as law, and revisions and additions to the various clauses are indeed still possible.


1. The idea of religious demarcation had only arisen in discussing a law defining Iranian dress code. The National Post quoted an Iranian commentator who said the idea of external identification of non-Muslim minorities was only raised as a secondary motion.

2. 'The purpose for the law was to prevent Muslims from becoming najis "unclean" by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.'

3. As mentioned by DEBKA, there are indeed members of the Iranian Parliament who would like to see the colored patches, and the Supreme Islamic Leader, Ali Khameni, apparently has the ultimate say-so.

4. Polaris "talks to Iranians" (in Iran), and of course, since the citizens of that democratic and open society have access to a free press and independent media, they must be assumed to be fully informed about the true intentions of the Islamic mullahs (NOT!).

It is worth keeping an eye on the story in future, and not dismiss it as "outrageously false" ------

 

[a_unique_person]

No one said "outrageously", IIRC. Just pointing out the evidence.

 

[webfusion]

Outrageous Lies?

The Iranians are the ones saying that it's an outrageous lie. It's their standard-form denial.

::::::: the National Post quoted the spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, who said of the original report, "These kinds of slanderous accusations are part of a smear campaign against Iran by vested interests that need to be denounced at every step." ::::::::


and


::::::: The report was described by Iran's local state media as a failed "campaign lead by a Zionist newspaper.'' ::::::::

Yes, it is accurate to say that I have not personally seen the exact word "outrageous" being quoted, but that is the general attitude about the story coming from Iran. They are "outraged" at having been accused of coming up with the Yellow Badge idea, yet, in the details I have read, this story has some elements of truth, and AFAIK, there was indeed mention of the colored badges concept during debates in the majlis (Parliament).

 

[varwoche]

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).

In the construction of this ridiculous strawman, who exactly are you quoting here? (bolding added)

 

[FireGarden]

Well that will teach me - I suspect "confirmation bias"

We're all prone to that kind of thing. I respect you for admitting your error.

Although much comment is being made on the report of the Canadian National Post being false, there are indeed elements that are worth considering as truthful --- the new Iranian dress-code regulations are not finalized as law, and revisions and additions to the various clauses are indeed still possible.

Are you actually hoping they'll pass such a law? Even the newspaper that ran the original claim has pulled the story. Have they given an explanation for their error?

The National Post quoted an Iranian commentator who said the idea of external identification of non-Muslim minorities was only raised as a secondary motion.

And they quote which sources?
I already quoted above:

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.”

According to this source, he was present in parliament at the time:

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19196947%5E1702,00.html

MPs representing Iran's Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian minorities sit on all parliamentary committees, particularly the cultural one, he said

And he also reckons "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain"

2. 'The purpose for the law was to prevent Muslims from becoming najis "unclean" by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.'

The purpose of the law was:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060519-1456-iran-dresscode.html

Iran's conservative-dominated parliament is debating a draft law that would discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.

3. As mentioned by DEBKA, there are indeed members of the Iranian Parliament who would like to see the colored patches, and the Supreme Islamic Leader, Ali Khameni, apparently has the ultimate say-so.

Which members of the Iranian parliament?

Polaris "talks to Iranians" (in Iran), and of course, since the citizens of that democratic and open society have access to a free press and independent media, they must be assumed to be fully informed about the true intentions of the Islamic mullahs (NOT!).

And even when the law gets passed it will be passed in secret and enforced in secret so that no-one (not even the Iranian Jewish lawmaker quoted above) will know about it! You read it here first!



This story seems to have been an outright lie. Too different to actual events, and loaded with too much detail to be a misunderstanding.

 

[Elind]

In the construction of this ridiculous strawman, who exactly are you quoting here? (bolding added)

What exactly did you mean previously then?

Since you like to find cause and effect after the fact, may I suggest you stick it to the French instead. If they hadn't been so tolerant of fundamental religious bigots they might have kicked out Khomeni instead of giving him sanctuary to run his revolution and, who knows, the fundies might never have taken over.

 

[varwoche]

What exactly did you mean previously then?

Did I refer to "root cause"? Did I blame "jews" "again", as Skeptic's post indicates. No, of course not.

I do find fault with US foriegn policy however. Normally I'd be inclined to expand, but seeing as I've received my semi-annual reminder as to why it is that I avoid threads related to the middle east, I'll leave it at that.

 

[webfusion]

spread like wildfire...

FireGarden: You have evidence the story was anything other than a fabrication? This story seems to have been an outright lie.

It was.
The National Post retracted the article, and laid the blame for the story in the lap of veteran journalist and Iran analyst Amir Taheri.

Here are the people who made various statements, leading to the information I presented in my recent post:

1. Ali Reza Nourizadeh, an Iranian commentator on political affairs in London, suggested that the requirements for badges or insignia for religious minorities was part of a “secondary motion” introduced in parliament, addressing the changes specific to the attire of people of various religious backgrounds.

"That account could not be confirmed," writes Chris Wattie, in the May 19th retraction in the National Post.
LINK TO RETRACTION HERE:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3

2. Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said the subject of “what to do with religious minorities” came up during debates leading up to the passing of the dress code law.

3. Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli expert on Iran and the Middle East who was born and raised in Tehran, offered his own statement:
Mr. Javdanfar said that not all clauses of the law had been passed through the parliament and said the requirement that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians wear special insignia might be part of an older version of the Islamic dress law.

4. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, acknowledged that he did not have independent confirmation of the requirement for Jews to wear badges, but said he still believes it was passed.
“We know that the national uniform law was passed and that certain colours were selected for Jews and other minorities,” he said. “[But] if the Iranian government is going to pass such a law then they are not likely to be forthcoming about what they are doing.”


Indeed.



ETA: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/718220.html
Meanwhile, Iranian students have started a new campaign, called ---
"The Fund for Demolishing Israel"

For a minor laugh, in the article, near the bottom, is this quote: (obviosusly a typo)
In April, Iran said it would give the Palestinian Authority US$50 in aid.

 

[FireGarden]

But when Ali Reza Nourizadeh (whose account could not be confirmed) suggests the dress code was mentioned in a “secondary motion", and Sam Kermanian says it was raised in the debate leading up to the vote -- aren't they claiming different things? "Secondary motion" is definitely parliamentary; "Debate leading up to" could be talk in the street.

The Jewish MP (one of Kermanian's sources) claims to have been at the parliamentary discussion and is quoted (in other newspapers) saying “Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament." So if Kermanian has other sources, are they talking about discussion in parliament?

Meir Javdanfar is perhaps trying to explain away the confusion without calling it lies.

If Rabbi Marvin Hier has no independent confirmation then he has nothing to support his claim. And if such a law gets passed, then they are going to have to tell people eventually! Otherwise how will people know what colours to wear?

And I like the way the retraction apologises for the error: "Yeah, we have no real evidence that Iran is doing this -- other than it's the sort of thing they would do. Hey, even the Prime Minister said so."

It seems to me they made the journalistic error of jumping for joy when they heard the news, and then printing the story before their feet returned to Earth.

Put this newspaper on your bogus list. At best, they are amateurs.

 

[Skeptic]

It's certainly good news if this is not true.

Still, I don't know why one should put the newspaper on the "bogus" list--it seems to have quickly apologized and retracted the error.

Newspapers aren't "bogus" if they make errors (though that's a question of frequency and severity), but if they deliberately make error and do not correct them.

BTW, Iran was, unfortunately, the first place in the world where jews were required to wear distinctive dressing, but that was back in the 9th century, which can hardly be judged by today's standards.

Such distintive clothing is bad enough, but most of the horror if it today has to do with the fact that the Nazis used it as a prelimenary for total extermination. The 9th-century Iranian ruler didn't have similar ideas.

 

[FireGarden]

Still, I don't know why one should put the newspaper on the "bogus" list--it seems to have quickly apologized and retracted the error.

It's a matter of comparison.
When CBS heard the news, they specifically put up a page saying they had heard it but weren't going to run with it until they could confirm it. That, to me, is professional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05/19/publiceye/entry1637037.shtml

"It's potentially an explosive story but we won't touch it until we have some sort of concrete confirmation, and we haven't come close to that," says Dan Collins, senior producer for CBSNews.com

I don't know if you've heard about Piers Morgan, who was the editor of the paper that printed the mocked up pictures of British troops abusing Iraqis. The specific story was a lie (apparently by British troops, last I heard), and Morgan fell for it because he was in a rush to print.

Even though genuine photos/videos exist of genuine mistreatment of Iraqis by British troops, I still regard Morgan as a bad journalist because of that incident.

He went to print without independent verification.


ETA CBS quote
ETA2 Just realised, one of the local went with it. link above: "The story has run on WCBS 880 local radio news here in New York, however. "

It was a local paper in Canada, also, as I understand it.

 

[Ralph]

Hey--what about lepers !! Shouldn't they have their own colored badge?

I'm sure it was just an oversight on someone's part.

 

[Polaris]

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?

Sort of like "How dare the Danes say we're violent, barbaric thugs! Let's go burn down buildings and threaten terrorism and beheadings if they say so again!"

Or "How dare the US foist a murderous dictator on we peaceful Iranians?! Let's hold a revolution and replace him with a shariah-based Islamic state to teach them a lesson!"

 

[Nova Land]

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...

You raise an important question. And the Firedoglake site (which I have begun checking out periodically, because it has the best and most informative analysis I've been able to find about the Fitzgerald investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie (Plame) Wilson) has an interesting entry today addressing the question.

Who Started the Iranian Badge Story?

After reading about it early last Friday, I spoke with Aaron Breitbart, a senior researcher of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who was eager to confirm it, using words like "throwback" to the Nazi era, "very true" and "very scary," as well as offering that the dean and founder of the Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier, had been on the phone for "four hours" confirming the story...

Reporting that the Simon Weisenthal Center confirmed Taheri’s story made it around the web and beyond... Because when an organization like that confirms something as alarming as the Iranian government passing a law to identify Jews and non-Muslims, it rightly causes four alarm Holocaust revisited hysteria. That was the intention.

After the story was thoroughly debunked, I put in another call to Breitbart late on Friday, then called back again today. I wanted to get a comment from him about the discrediting of the story and see if I could ascertain why the Simon Wiesenthal Center would unabashedly back such an outrageous falsehood...

... [W]ho got the Simon Wiesenthal Center to stick their necks out on this bogus Iranian badge story, risking their very reputation and funding credibility, and who had what to gain by doing so? ...

The blog entry contains a link to the press release from Amir Teheri, in which Teheri writes:

Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun.

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it...

Yikes!

Teheri goes on to give an explanation for his actions which further lowers my opinion of him, and concludes by stating:

... I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development.

A tag at the end of the press release notes that: "Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates." There was a diary about Teheri several days ago at DailyKos which briefly explored who he is and what Benador Associates is.

The Iranian "badge" story: Neo-con propaganda?, by paleo, May 19, 2006

Google the name Amir Taheri and you will find that his writings are published by National Review, the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post and the Weekly Standard. But more significant is that he has been sponsored by Benador Associates, http://www.benadorassociates.com/ an erstwhile public relations firm whose founder, Eleana Benador has major right-wing connections:

"Eleana Benador has been instrumental in helping to publicize key neoconservative figures in recent years, with her company Benador Associates serving as a principal neoconservative marketing agency..."

There's as much speculation as fact in these blog entries, but it is good to see people beginning to pursue this question.

 

[Nova Land]

Josh Marshall's TalkingPointMemo.com has also been doing some good entries on this topic, and provides links to a pair of good articles at Jim Henley's Unqualifed Offerings site.

Anatomy of a Smear

Or, How a Bill Becomes Propaganda.

The last maneuver in producing “fake but accurate” journalism-like activities is the smoothest of all: claim that the story was true at one point, but your reportage forced the foe to retreat. If it’s not strictly factual now, that’s only because the enemy reversed course and covered their tracks...

Taheri-ng It Up AGAIN!

Amir Taheri “clarifies” his column of Friday:

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it...​

Notice that nowhere in any of Taheri’s articles, the National Post column, the New York Post version or the Benador Associates “clarification,” does Taheri avow that he has obtained a copy of the bill...

Henley goes on to do a good job of tearing apart Taheri's attempt to justify his actions. I was not familiar with Henley's site before, but am tempted to visit there again some day to see what else he writes.