New dress code in Iran: Jews and Christians must wear badges
Story here.
In a break with Nazi tradition, no pink triangles for gays...I guess they just go directly to the stonewall stage. (As in "pushing stone wall over on")
The Government of Iran, has recently pass a law that requires all Jews, Christians, and other non Moslem's to wear badges identifying them religious belief's. I'm scared for their rights and safety.
copycat!
copycat!
well, if people would put
meaningful titles on their threads instad of "I don't know what to think" or "Not again?" or "The best?" or "My shiny nothingness thread" this might happen less often.
I love the teaser title, it taunts you - what is it?
What the hell is that?! You have to :::click::: to find out!
I've never been able to pull them off, myself.
I love the teaser title, it taunts you - what is it?
It's wonderful...if you have a lot of time and braincells to waste. Otherwise not.
Ya, well, anyway, you're a copycat! Copycat!
Hey, it's ok she made this thread after the other one...I mean, have you seen how many immigration threads are out there?
Oh, I'm sorry! I'm sorry I insulted your best friend in the whole universe! If you love her so much, why don't you marry her? Huh? Since you love her so much!
Copycat and Shockey-cat sittin' in a tree . . .
WTF! All I was saying is that it is fine that she double posted this thread, that happens a lot in this place. If you don't like it that she double posted, then fine, thats up to you, just ignore this thread if you don't have anything constructive to add to it, but that doens't make it fine that you start posting here acting like freakin child! GEEZ! :rar:
first comes thread-jack then comes marriage
Now I don't know which thread to post my legitimate reply on. I originally thought Flint was accusing the Iranians of copying the Germans, then I actually read his quoted post.
I rmember asking a jewish friend once if the "never again" sentiment extended to any type of genocide or religious persecution and she gave me this incredulous look and said "Of course not, it means never again - to us."
I don't know if she actually speaks for all Jews, I doubt it, but I never followed up on it. It seems to me that never again, but only for us is too little to late and doesn't adress a root problem only a very specific palliative remedy.
It stretches my brain in an uncomfortable way to try to imagine what anyone thinks, really believes they will accomplish with domination, subjugation, and or strong-arming other nations w/ nuclear weapons.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Lazarus Long
I probably would not have bothered to start a thread if I'd realized there already was one...assuming that one was started first. But I'm not going to open every thread here with a nondescript title just to find out what's in it. Especially since the AG Romper Room arrived
I figure if you can't be bothered to make the subject meaningful, the writing *in* the thread probably isn't very cogent either.
I don't know if she actually speaks for all Jews, I doubt it, but I never followed up on it. It seems to me that never again, but only for us is too little to late and doesn't adress a root problem only a very specific palliative remedy.
Somehow I don't think the six million dead would have been impressed with your oh-so-principled holding out for a "solution to the root problem".
I hear people start talking about "root causes" when they want to deflect, delay or re-spin more direct action. You know: "Well, you need to look at the
root causes here...allow me to sell you a long story about how my politics views the world, etc." Five minutes later you're getting some collectivist "moral equivalance" riff about how it's
your fault somebody planted a bomb in your restaurant.
Nonsense.
Oh, I'm sorry! I'm sorry I insulted your best friend in the whole universe! If you love her so much, why don't you marry her? Huh? Since you love her so much!
Copycat and Shockey-cat sittin' in a tree . . .
Thank You Maggie, I can't get the link to show up on my posts.
Flint, Bite Me!
Flint, Bite Me!
:::bites you::: mmmmmm causticlicious
Time for sanctions.
No, wait! I'm sorry! . . .
. . . I'm sorry you looove Maggie so much!
Somehow I don't think the six million dead would have been impressed with your oh-so-principled holding out for a "solution to the root problem".
I hear people start talking about "root causes" when they want to deflect, delay or re-spin more direct action. You know: "Well, you need to look at the root causes here...allow me to sell you a long story about how my politics views the world, etc." Five minutes later you're getting some collectivist "moral equivalance" riff about how it's your fault somebody planted a bomb in your restaurant.
Nonsense.
I maybe wasn't being clear enough. What I meant was "Never again, but only as far as jews are concerned, everyone else who is being murdered is on their own." The root being: Let's get all in someone's face if they start a genocide, rather than, "Well that shit don't worry me because it's happening to someone else"
I agree with you about dithering politicians using double speak to say the aren't aware of "acts of genocide" What is an "act" of genocide? Is that like and "act" of fucking? That's not what I'm talking about, just the opposite. A greater accountability and not just action when it suits our oil or cash needs.
BTW the six million only accounted for jews. Let's not forget the homosexuals, catholics, gypsies, mentally retarded, politically oppositional, birth deformed, just to name a few million.
Let's not forget the homosexuals..
By all means, let's not. Note pink triangle on Gwennie...my shirt was in the wash that day.
What I meant was "Never again, but only as far as jews are concerned, everyone else who is being murdered is on their own."
Their first priority is *self*-defense. which makes sense to me. If you fail to defend yourself, you won't be able to help anyone else. Who came to help the Jews when Hitler turned the ovens on?
That's what I love about the Celler - the variety of people who post here. Like Wolf is the only pagan conservative I've encountered on line, never mind real life. Maggie is the only gay (transgered? bi-sexual?) republican I've met on line, IRL.
And UT wanted to ban me for losing my temper and posting all red caps? Oh, well. Rock on everybody! :neutral:
That's the problem with *self*. It is a fairly limited concept. It has it's time and place, but it is largely over rated.
Many cultures don't put as high a premium on self as we do in the U.S. Selves make for good consumers. Selves can be threatened and can be encouraged to live in a state of fear.
I heard a person on the news recently objecting to being labeled a "consumer". She maintained that she was a citizen. A citizen is part of a larger social group. It is possible to put the concerns of the group ahead of the concerns of the self. Where we want to close that circle of group, choose who to exclude, is what allows us to create an easily exterminable "other".
If my mission statement doesn't include coming to the aid of others in distress, why would I be likely to add that paragraph when the brownshirts come marching down my block to grab my neighbor, whose dog craps all over my lawn?
Maybe I'm rambling a bit, I don't mean to be contentious but I don't recall saying let's hold out for a more principled solution to the problem.
I'm pretty much at the end of my patience with terrorists/carbombers etc. If nuking them would solve anything I'd be all for it. But it wouldn't solve a thing.
As they say, fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
Maggie is the only gay (transgered? bi-sexual?) republican I've met on line, IRL.
I'm more libertarian than Republican. And as long as we're label-mongering I'm both bisexual and transsexual.
And an aside...where I come from, "IRL" is an abbreviation for "in real life", which seems the opposite of what you intended....did you perhaps mean IIRC ("if I recall correctly")?
That's the problem with *self*. It is a fairly limited concept. It has it's time and place, but it is largely over rated.
Can't agree with you there..."self" plays a huge role in the conceptual framework of any self-aware being--for obvious reasons.
Trying to sell the idea that self-interest is bad is the memetic tool of collectivists, who wish to gain control over your personal power and direct it to thier own ends.
"Never again" is the fervent slogan adopted by the Jews in support of their own self-defense in memory of what happened when they neglected it. Criticism of it for not including others strikes me as "holding out for a more principled stand". I just think they have a very focused primary goal, and for good reason.
Oh, by the way...check the other thread on the original topic for a post from UT pointing out that the original story about Iranian law now appears to be questionable.
snip~
And UT wanted to ban me for losing my temper and posting all red caps? Oh, well. Rock on everybody! :neutral:
No, for acting like an ass and deserving a grapefruit in the face. Remember you have not been vindicated, only reprieved. ;)
No, for acting like an ass and deserving a grapefruit in the face. Remember you have not been vindicated, only reprieved. ;)
Well, I think I got SEVERAL grapefruits in the face. I apologized for posting in all red caps. That was rude. What was done to me was rather rude, as well. I don't expect vindication. And I actually don't beleive I'm all that long for the Cellar. But that's life.
I'm more libertarian than Republican. And as long as we're label-mongering I'm both bisexual and transsexual.
And an aside...where I come from, "IRL" is an abbreviation for "in real life", which seems the opposite of what you intended....did you perhaps mean IIRC ("if I recall correctly")?
That WAS at typo. I meant "on line OR in real life."
I don't mean to label ANYONE. I know and am friends with several bi-sexual and transgendered folks. They call themselves that. I call myself "staight." The only label that matters is "human being" which we all are. No offense intended.
The only label that matters is "human being" which we all are. No offense intended.
None taken. I wasn't bristling as much as it may have looked like in raw text.
Transsexual is pretty much a matter of fact in my case; not subject to dispute...and being bisexual is kind of a blast, once you figure out that's what you are. As Ellen said, "There's twice as many rides at Bi-Land".
It's really only a headache when dealing with monosexuals (of both flavors) who don't seem to be able to grok, and want to explain to you that you're wrong. ;-)
I'm stealing that 'toon.:lol2:
I'm stealing that 'toon.:lol2:
Ah...proper attribution would be:
from
"Omaha, The Cat Dancer" by Reed Waller and Kate Worley.
By all means, let's not. Note pink triangle on Gwennie...my shirt was in the wash that day.
BADGES? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
(couldn't resist)
The only thing false about the story is that Jews and Christians will have to wear different colors... they WILL have to wear badges.
"It's absolutely factually incorrect," he told The New 940 Montreal.
"Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours."
They WILL have to wear badges.
Can we get a reference for the badges? We don' need no steeking...
Some idiot tries to put a badge on me will get a shot in the puss.
Story here.
In a break with Nazi tradition, no pink triangles for gays...I guess they just go directly to the stonewall stage. (As in "pushing stone wall over on")
They don't need badges for gays, since under Islamic law they are immediately put to death.
They don't need badges for gays, since under Islamic law they are immediately put to death.
Yes...the prefered method of execution is "stoning"; a stone wall is pushed over on the victim and they are crushed to death. The Taliban sometimes used mud walls and a bulldozer.
Yes...the prefered method of execution is "stoning"; a stone wall is pushed over on the victim and they are crushed to death. The Taliban sometimes used mud walls and a bulldozer.
I guess the masons' union wasn't as strong under the Taliban.
I guess the masons' union wasn't as strong under the Taliban.
rolling, gathering chuckles bursting into full fledged mirth.
Damn shame when a honest tradesman gets undercut by those cheap stoners.:headshake
It's called an Uzi.:apistola:
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.
What part of "never again" don't they understand?
It's called an Uzi.
No, that's the dress code for Jews in Israel. In Iran a Galil or a Negev would be more suitable.
Counterspin (I know they have a bias) ran the story this morning. Apparently, the article was written by an Iranian expat and planted er submitted by the same neo con outfit that brought you wmds. Very familiar scenario but now that they're known liars folks suspect shenigans.
Well done MaggieL! I'm an old Omaha fan myself, and I've used that line in conversation time to time. Too bad the tale was never finished AFAIK.
Polymer-frame Commander-length 1911 clone in Gwennie's paw, I see. Somebody has classicist taste in handguns. Is it one of the unusual kind with an external extractor? That dot aft the ejection port suggests something different from John Browning's original internal extractor.
Well done MaggieL! I'm an old Omaha fan myself, and I've used that line in conversation time to time. Too bad the tale was never finished AFAIK.
In early 2004, Waller and Worley had moved beyond their disagreement, and were collaborating to finish the hanging storyline. However, Worley's death interrupted that work. Her widower, Jim Vance, using her notes, took her place. The title has been picked up by NBM Publishing, and has resumed publication as of November, 2005 with the new work being serialized in the magazine Sizzle.
Polymer-frame Commander-length 1911 clone in Gwennie's paw, I see. Somebody has classicist taste in handguns. Is it one of the unusual kind with an external extractor? That dot aft the ejection port suggests something different from John Browning's original internal extractor.
Kimber Pro-Carry 10 II. Yes, it's an external extractor...also serves as a tactile "chamber loaded" indicator
Sweet. I like 1911s, own two (one's about eighty years old, w/new firing pin retaining plate, and reblued, with "Property of United States" ground off the frame), and have heard good report of Kimber. Next largebore centerfire pistol I get, I'd want either a Kimber or a .45 Kahr.
Is there a chapter of Pink Pistols in your area? They might be fun to shoot with.
Thanks very much for the new info -- haven't bought comix in some time.
Is there a chapter of Pink Pistols in your area? They might be fun to shoot with.
Ya think? :-)
Gwennie and I founded the
Delaware Valley chapter about five years ago. She's National Media Spokesperson for the Pistols. The original founder Doug Krick (who had been quite active with the LP up in Massachusetts) was an old friend of hers; we found out *after* getting involved. :-).
DelVal meets every third Saturday for lunch and then shoots at a local range after.
Outstanding, and neato mosquito. If you're going to use arms, you should use them with skill and with diligence. Robert Heinlein once wrote, "A man should . . .fight efficiently, die gallantly. . . [quite an assortment of desiderata in the ellipses]. . . Specialization is for insects."
Maybe someday if you two come out to southern California, we might arrange to shoot in Holser Canyon, the extreme upper end of which hosts the annual Steel Challenge competition every August. Holser Canyon, near Piru, CA, is so end-to-end with shooting ranges it might as well be named "Holster Canyon." It would take a bit of arranging, as I don't have a membership out there, but it might be done.
Outstanding, and neato mosquito. If you're going to use arms, you should use them with skill and with diligence. Robert Heinlein once wrote...
Yes, we're both Heinlien fans, and know that quote and several similar others. (Like "Always keep your clothes and your weapons where you can find them in the dark.". His views on the subject were quite clear.
My great-great-great-grandfather Lawrence Heinlein died prematurely at the age of ninety-seven, through having carelessly left his cabin one winter morning without his gun—and found a buck deer on the ice of his pond. Lack of his gun did not stop my triple-great-grandfather; this skinful of meat must not be allowed to escape. He went out on the ice and bulldogged the buck, quite successfully.
But in throwing the deer my ancestor slipped on the ice, went down, and a point of the buck's rack stabbed between his ribs and pierced his heart.
No doubt it taught him a lesson—it certainly taught me one. So far I've beaten the odds three times: continued to live when the official prognosis called for something less active. So I intend to be careful—not chopped down in my prime the way my ancestor was. I shan't bulldog any buck deer, or cross against the lights, or reach barehanded into dark places favored by black widow spiders, or—most especially!—leave my quarters without being adequately armed.
Perhaps the warmest pleasure in life is the knowledge that one has no enemies. The easiest way to achieve this is by outliving them.
It's not widely known that he got into quite a struggle with the woman who editied the Scribners juvenile series over the use of firearms in "Rocket Ship Gallileo"; some of the corresponance appears in "Grumbles from the Grave", the posthumous collection of his letters published by his widow.
Thanks for the invitation; I've been to CA but go there as infrequently as possible.
The original article on this subject was a complete fabrication. The author of the story, Amir Taheri, is standing by it, but has no evidence or sources that will corroborate his story. The paper that printed the original column has issued a retraction. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft of the law that was being discussed, and confirmed that all it did was encourage Iranians to wear Islamic clothing. The whole story was complete disinformation.
A good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Iranian_sumptuary_law_controversy
And another:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0525/dailyUpdate.html
It may interest some of you to know that Amir Taheri was
invited to the White House on Tuesday to offer his 'expert' opinion on Iran.
So we're being fed inflammatory disinformation in order to get us to start a pre-emptive war in the middle east. This sounds oddly familiar...
A generation which ignores history has no past -- and no future.
It may interest some of you to know that Amir Taheri was invited to the White House on Tuesday to offer his 'expert' opinion on Iran.
That's not what
the briefing said. Wouldn't want to get a story only partly right...:-)
That's not what the briefing said.
Yes it is:
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][SIZE=2]Q Can you give us a readout on the President's meeting this morning with the Iraq experts? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][SIZE=2]MR. SNOW: Yes. Oh, my goodness, I forgot to bring the list. But actually -- do you have the list, Fred? Yes, it was an interesting meeting. What you ended up having was -- I've got all the names but one written down here. We had Wayne Downing, Barry McCaffrey, Michael Vickers, Amir Taheri, Fouad Ajami and Raad Alkadiri. And you had a combination there of military men and also scholars who are students of Iraq. And it was an interesting discussion that touched upon cultural issues, on political issues, on the state of affairs in Iraq. You had a number of people who've been there recently, General McCaffrey having returned just last month from his latest visit. Fouad Ajami last year had the occasion to sit down and speak with the Ayatollah Sistani, Ali al Sistani.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Yes it is:
No, it isn't.
You do know the difference between Iraq and Iran?
Well, it's an interesting strategy. You don't address any of the facts about the debunked story from the articles I posted, like that the National Post retracted the story in question or the refutation by the Associated Press, but instead repost the story, and a couple more articles by the same author. Perhaps you'd like to explain what it is you're trying to prove? Once someone's veracity is questioned, maybe you should check to see that their facts right instead of taking their word on their own honesty.
And are you actually suggesting that it's all right to invite this man, widely recognized as having fabricated disinformation to feed into the 'attack Iran' mentality, invited to the White House to provide 'expert' advice on any Middle East policy? Perhaps you think that, though he lies about Iran, he's scrupulously honest about Iraq?
Or was it just a reflexive "you made a typo, neener neener" response?
Or was it just a reflexive "you made a typo, neener neener" response?
Ah...so you actually knew he was invited to speak on Iraq, not Iran, and accidently typed the name of the wrong country, as opposed to being misled by what Molly Ivans' wrote?
As for "strategy", what I actually said was "it's interesting to read original sources"...which was apparently was the Taheri opinion piece (rather than the retracted Canadian article), which, far from being retracted, Taheri say's he's standing by. The other "original source" of course is the Snow briefing vs. the Ivans screed on "Truthdig".
I say it's interesting to read them. And I'm standing by that.
Ah...so you actually knew he was invited to speak on Iraq, not Iran, and accidently typed the name of the wrong country, as opposed to being misled by what Molly Ivans' wrote?
Yes. Do you think it's wise to have someone who authored an inflammatory article based on a complete fabrication being consulted as an "expert" by the White house?
As for "strategy", what I actually said was "it's interesting to read original sources"...which was apparently was the Taheri opinion piece (rather than the retracted Canadian article),...
The Taheri opinion piece you linked to, dated May 20th, came out the day after the National Post story. The National Post has removed the original article from its website, so we cannot compare them, but the text seems to be substantively similar.
...which, far from being retracted, Taheri say's he's standing by.
Let's get a little perspective on what that means exactly, shall we? Here's the retraction published by the National Post.
Last Friday, the National Post ran a story prominently on the front page
alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law that, if enacted, would
require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges that would
identify them as such in public. It is now clear the story is not true. Given
the seriousness of the error, I felt it necessary to explain to our readers how
this happened.
The story of the alleged badge law first came to us in the form of a column by
Amir Taheri. Mr. Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, has written widely on
Iran for many major publications. In his column, Mr. Taheri wrote at length
about the new law, the main purpose of which is to establish an appropriate
dress code for Muslims. Mr. Taheri went on to say that under the law, "Religious
minorities would have their own colour schemes. They will also have to wear
special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faith."
This extraordinary allegation caught our attention, of course. The idea that
Iran might impose such a law did not seem out of the question given that its
President has denied the Holocaust and threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."
We tried to contact Mr. Taheri, but he was in transit and unreachable.
The editor who was dealing with Mr. Taheri's column wrote to Rabbi Abraham
Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The
Wiesenthal Center is an international Jewish human rights organization that
keeps a close watch on issues affecting the treatment of Jews around the world,
and maintains contacts in many countries, including Iran. Asked about the
specific allegation that Iran had passed a law requiring religious minorities to
identify themselves, Rabbi Cooper replied by e-mail that the story was
"absolutely true." When a reporter spoke to Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the
Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, a short while later, Rabbi Hier said the story
was true and added that the organization had sent a letter to UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking him to take up the matter. (Rabbi Hier has
since said that, contrary to the understanding of the reporter, the Wiesenthal
Center had not independently confirmed Mr. Taheri's allegation.)
The reporter also spoke with two Iranian exiles in Canada -- Ali Behroozian in
Toronto and Shahram Golestaneh in Ottawa. Both said that they had heard the the
story of the badges from their contacts in Iran and they believed it to be true.
Canada's Foreign Affairs Department did not respond to questions about the issue
until after deadline, and then only to say they were looking into the matter.
After several calls to the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, the reporter reached
Hormoz Ghahremani, a spokesman for the embassy. Mr. Ghahremani's response to the
allegation was that he did not answer such questions.
We now had four sources -- Mr. Taheri, the Wiesenthal Center and two Iranian
exiles in Canada -- telling us that according to their sources the Iranian law
appeared to include provisions for compelling religious minorities to identify
themselves in public. Iranian authorities in Canada had not denied the story.
Given the sources, and given the previous statements of the Iranian President,
we felt confident the story was true and decided to publish it.
The reaction was immediate and distressing. Several experts whom the reporter
had tried unsuccessfully to contact the day before called to say the story was
not true. The Iranian embassy put out a statement late in the day doing what it
had failed to do the day before -- unequivocally deny such a law had been
passed.
The reporter continued to try to determine whether there was any truth to the
story. Some sources said there had been some peripheral discussion in the
Iranian parliament of identifying clothing for minority religions, but it became
clear that the dress code bill, which was introduced on May 14 and has not yet
been passed into law, does not include such provisions.
Mr. Taheri, who had written the column that sparked the story, was again
unreachable on Friday. He has since put out a statement saying the National Post
and others "jumped the gun" in our characterization of his column. He says he
was only saying the provisions affecting minorities might happen at some point.
All of the people who read the column on the first day took it to mean the
measure was part of a law that had been passed. Mr. Taheri maintains the zonnar,
or badges, could still be put in effect when the dress code law is implemented.
On Saturday, the National Post ran another front-page story above the fold with
the Iranian denial and the comments of the experts casting doubts on the
original story.
It is corporate policy for all of CanWest's media holdings to face up to their
mistakes in an honest, open fashion. It is also the right thing to do
journalistically.
We acknowledge that on this story, we did not exercise sufficient caution and
skepticism, and we did not check with enough sources. We should have pushed the
sources we did have for more corroboration of the information they were giving
us. That is not to say that we ignored basic journalistic practices or that we
rushed this story into print with no thought as to the consequences. But given
the seriousness of the allegations, more was required.
We apologize for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused not just
National Post readers, but the broader public who read the story. We take this
incident very seriously, and we are examining our procedures to try to ensure
such an error does not happen again.
Douglas Kelly,
Editor-in-Chief
National Post
You'll note that Mr. Taheri's idea of 'standing by his story' goes like this:
He has since put out a statement saying the National Post
and others "jumped the gun" in our characterization of his column. He says he
was only saying the provisions affecting minorities might happen at some point.
All of the people who read the column on the first day took it to mean the
measure was part of a law that had been passed.
I say it's interesting to read them. And I'm standing by that.
Meh. I prefer the truth. I've had it up to here with liars recently.
You'll note that Mr. Taheri's idea of 'standing by his story' goes like this:
No, that's not his statement about it at all. (Did you read it?)
You are instead quoting the Post retracting what
they wrote about what
Tahiri wrote. We have Tahiri's article, and his statement after the brouhaha. If you want to call
him a liar, wouldn't it be better to use
his words rather than those of The Post, the Majalis or Molly Ivans?
Pardon me, but your "typo" story severely strains my credulity...I find you reading Ivans and parroting her line (rather than reading the original Snow briefing) much more plausible. On the other hand, Happy Monkey was able to actually quote the Snow briefing and
still get it wrong, so...
No, that's not his statement about it at all. (Did you read it?)
You are instead quoting the Post retracting what they wrote about what Tahiri wrote.
Yes, I read it. But when I'm trying to establish someone's veracity, I don't just check back with them to see if they still say they're right. I check the facts. And the facts just don't bear out Tahiri's story.
But that doesn't seem to be your style. Tell you what, here you go. I'm telling you the truth. I'm telling you the truth. I'm telling you the truth. There, now you have to believe me, if you use the same criteria you're applying to Tahiri.
Pardon me, but your "typo" story severely strains my credulity...
I forgive you. Now, do you really think that someone who lies about the situation in Iran should be consulted by the White House as an expert on the situation in Iraq? Ever think about answering that particular question, or are do you just plan to dance around it some more?
No, it isn't.
You do know the difference between Iraq and Iran?
My apologies, I read it too fast, and concentrated more on "expert" than "Iraq".
Taheri's original statement was that the law was passed by one sector of Iranian government. He then went on to speculate what the law would consist of. The righty papers ran with his comment as if it
was law and as if the the speculated part was already a part of it. Taheri included too much speculation in his original article but it's the fault of the righty papers for getting it wrong.
This article from Assyrians in Iran summarizes it well. The law is to institute the nature of Islamic dress, not to differentiate non-Muslims.
The logic of the current Iranian Islamic Republic is not to create, first of all, ghettoes and special regulations for dhimmi, non-Muslim citizens who are second class. It is rather the contrary: everyone must follow the Islamic rules -- even veils for women who are visiting, including foreign Ministers -- and contribute to give the impression of "normality" and "universality" of Muslim civilization as defined by the mullahs.
Which it already does; if you are a woman in Iran you will be heavily scrutinized for acceptably Muslim costume. They just want to do it more.
"We have already admonished and 'educated' 32,000 women and 64 men for their clothing and behaviour", said the Tehran police chief, Morteza Talaei. He was speaking on 23 May, giving a first account of the work of the Police Guidance Patrols (religious police) introduced in the Iranian capital. In all, 7,000 shops have been visited, and 190 were fined for violating the ban on selling non "Islamic" clothes and other goods.
Dare to unwrap your womenfolk.
I forgive you. Now, do you really think that someone who lies about the situation in Iran should be consulted by the White House as an expert on the situation in Iraq?
Not a germane question until you show me where Taheri lied. His words, not third-hand commentary. Until then it's question-begging (in the
petitio principii sense).
He then went on to speculate what the law would consist of.
Essentially on target, although I'd characterize it differently from "speculation"...he's describing what his sources inside the Majlis told him about what the "consensus" was likely to consist of...at least before the brouhaha.
As I read it, the law actualy reifies ahead of time the "consensus of a committee that consists of members from the Ministry of Islamic Orientation, the Ministry of Commerce and the Cultural Subcommittee of the Islamic Majlis" with final approval by Khamenei...the lawmaking as such is already done.
It's just so convenient having an official state religion, you can incorporate such a pronoucement by reference in law retroactively without having to actually legislate again.
Dare to unwrap your womenfolk.
I'm on it. ;)
No . The idea of men unwrapping 'their' womenfolk is just as bad as the idea of men wrapping up their womenfolk . Women should be the ones to decide to wrap or unwrap themselves . Full stop .
Not to worry, that is part of what warch was saying. She is sufficiently progressive.
Women should be the ones to decide to wrap or unwrap themselves .
Or each other. Now
that's progressive.
Excellent , MaggieL ! I keep meaning to go , and someone makes me laugh again . And I stay , and stay , and stay ....
Excellent , MaggieL ! I keep meaning to go , and someone makes me laugh again . And I stay , and stay , and stay ....
i believe there are 12-Step Meetings for this now. One day at at time, brother! One day at a time!
My life is more in the two-step / foxtrot line , Brianna .
And that is why you should stay.
After a few days you won't be making 70 posts a day. It will roll back to a more reasonable maintenance level of addiction. Really. We've all been there.
i believe there are 12-Step Meetings for this now. One day at at time, brother! One day at a time!
I wish.
Not a germane question until you show me where Taheri lied. His words, not third-hand commentary.
Sigh.
From the article you posted as the
original source, which appears under Amir Taheri's byline:
WHILE Iran's economy appears to be heading for recession, one sector may have some reason for optimism. That sector is the garment industry and the reason for its optimism is a law passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) on Monday.
The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially the young, dress.
It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to instantly recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis" (unclean).
...
Religious minorities would have their own color schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes, while Christians will be assigned the color red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the color of their zonnar.
At no point in the article is there any indication that any of this is Taheri's speculation. It's reported as established fact.
And who would be more knowledgeable about, and more outraged by the passage of such a law than the Jewish representative on the Iranian parliament,
Maurice Motamed? What does he have to say about this?
From Agence France-Press:
"This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false," Maurice Motammed told AFP in Tehran. "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain" by doing so. .... Motammed said he had been present in parliament when a bill to promote "an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women" was voted. "In the law, there is no mention of religious minorities," he added. MPs representing Iran's Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian minorities sit on all parliamentary committees, particularly the cultural one, he said. "This is an insult to the Iranian people and to religious minorities in Iran," he said.
The paper that printed the original story issued a retraction and an apology. There is no evidence for the claims stated in the article. There is considerable evidence against it.
That counts as a lie in my book.
So, is the man who fabricated this story a reliable and competent expert, worthy of being consulted by the White House?
And who would be more knowledgeable about, and more outraged by the passage of such a law than the Jewish representative on the Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed?
Well,
I bet being leader of the Jewish caucus in the Iranian parliment is an interesting job, now that Iran's on recent record for "wiping Israel off the map". I wouldn't expect a member of the Iranian parliment to publically support a negative article by an expat who's been editor of the big newspaper in town under the previous regime. I understand the Vichy government expressed a high opinion of the Nazis, too.
The article points out that the law had passed, and that the official clothing rules would be codified (with comfortable deniability in the event of a ruckus like what actually ensued) in the "consensus" of the aformentioned committee. He then descibes what he'd found out about the likely content of the "consensus".
The Canadian paper withdrew their publishing of the article, including the headline and wrapup comment/teaser that
they wrote.
Should the White House listen to input from ex-pat editor of a major Iranian national newspaper on matters of Middle East policy? Yes, I think they should. Should they consider the motivations of people they listen to when evaluating what they say? Absolutely.
Would Molly Ivans meet your "worthiness" test for a White House meeting? By your standards for "lying"?
How about Arafat?
Should the White House listen to input from ex-pat editor of a major Iranian national newspaper on matters of Middle East policy? Yes, I think they should. Should they consider the motivations of people they listen to when evaluating what they say? Absolutely.
"Well, doc, you know... after you diagnosed me with testicular cancer for what turned out to be a zit, I had my doubts. Especially after all those office visits. Now I've got this rash, I'd like your opinion on it. But I'll have you know... I'm keeping my eye on you, by Jove."
Would Molly Ivans meet your "worthiness" test for a White House meeting? By your standards for "lying"?
I don't know much about her. Why don't you explain to me why she shouldn't be trusted? Use examples, please. Her own words, now.
How about Arafat?
Looks like you've got a lot of homework.
I made the case that Taheri lied, and I made it using the papers that published him, reliable sources, encyclopedia entries, politicians in positions to know all about the issue... etcetera. I'm bushed. If that's not enough to convince you that perhaps this man fabricated a story to further his own ends...
you're just not worth arguing with.
A guy's got to have his standards, after all.
I don't know much about her. Why don't you explain to me why she shouldn't be trusted? Use examples, please. Her own words, now. :greenface Looks like you've got a lot of homework.
Actually, no. I'm not trying to discredit her as a "liar". Just suggesting that...
A guy's got to have his standards, after all.
...your "standards" are variable.
Actually, no. I'm not trying to discredit her as a "liar". Just suggesting that...
...your "standards" are variable.
Then prove to me that the people you proposed are as deceptive as Mr. Tahir.
Then prove to me that the people you proposed are as deceptive as Mr. Tahir.
I'm not the one flinging accusations about on who's a "liar" and pronoucing judgments on who's "worthy" to speak to Bush. I do note that you bit hard on the "Truthdig" (love the name!) bait-and-switch on Iraq vs. Iran--nothing deceptive there, of course.
Besides, you've already pronounced me beneith your notice. You should go hobnob with tw or something.
Unless you *are* tw, of course. :-)
Thread Hijack
-------------
I'm more libertarian than Republican. And as long as we're label-mongering I'm both bisexual and transsexual.
Huh.
More power to ya.
As per your choice of weaponry, always remember -
Gun control means hitting your target.
-----------------
End Thread Hijack
So, if we would nuke Iran, would that make it Shiites of Glass, or would it be The Light of a Thousand Sunnis?