View Full Version : Iran to Force Jews to Wear Identifying Badges
Divinus Arma
05-19-2006, 15:47
Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.
"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."
Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."
The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.
Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.
Article (http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073)
Sounds like a good idea to me. We should do something like this in the States. Let's all wear some type of cloth or marker to identify our religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
Article (http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073)
Sounds like a good idea to me. We should do something like this in the States. Let's all wear some type of cloth or marker to identify our religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
Yup, sure makes it easier to round up all the undesirables should you choose to do so.
Disturbing stuff really. :no:
Devastatin Dave
05-19-2006, 15:55
Very sad, history repeats.:shame:
Considering this is the same political/religous body that claims the holocaust did not happen, is it all that surprising coming from them>
edyzmedieval
05-19-2006, 16:02
Very sad. :shame:
Lucky for us the Israelis treat their minorities better.
Kralizec
05-19-2006, 16:14
Absuredly evil. I never expected them to show their true face so clearly...guess I was wrong.
Absuredly evil. I never expected them to show their true face so clearly...guess I was wrong.
It'll be interesting to see if the clerics overturn this one, now that it has garnered international attention. Any bets?
Sounds like a proposal from hard line elements within the Iranian ruling class which has yet to be given approval.
Watching with concern....
Rodion Romanovich
05-19-2006, 16:44
Idaho, if you're right, then these news are hardly sensational. We have a few crazy nazis in Europe and USA too.
Otherwise, it's really disgusting stuff. Luckily enough Iran isn't powerful to carry out something like the holocaust, and if they would do, they'd be wiped off the map in a few months. But if there are many Iranians who have the desire to do so, if only they had power? *Shudders*
Ironside
05-19-2006, 16:46
Considering this is the same political/religous body that claims the holocaust did not happen, is it all that surprising coming from them>
The "best" case scenario is that another "in your face" statement from Iran. That's already disturbing...
Idaho, if you're right, then these news are hardly sensational. We have a few crazy nazis in Europe and USA too.
Otherwise, it's really disgusting stuff. Luckily enough Iran isn't powerful to carry out something like the holocaust, and if they would do, they'd be wiped off the map in a few months. But if there are many Iranians who have the desire to do so, if only they had power? *Shudders*
It passed their parliament- it's left to the clerics in charge to either allow it or reject it.
From the article:
Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.
Rodion Romanovich
05-19-2006, 16:58
It passed their parliament- it's left to the clerics in charge to either allow it or reject it.
:sweatdrop: :no: :wall: :furious3:
Samurai Waki
05-19-2006, 17:57
Never Again. Finally a reason I'd join up and go to war.
Bar Kochba
05-19-2006, 18:37
well of course the clerics will accept what possible reason wouldnt they ?
Sjakihata
05-19-2006, 18:54
well of course the clerics will accept what possible reason wouldnt they ?
International pressure
Wow, "Islamofascism" has never been a more apt description ...
Hurin_Rules
05-19-2006, 19:07
Don't the people who voted for these badges read history? I mean, really... this has happened numerous times in the past, and it never had a good result.
Rodion Romanovich
05-19-2006, 19:28
Never Again. Finally a reason I'd join up and go to war.
Concentration camps are apparently already in China, so it's a bit late for "never again". But at least there's time to stop this thing. The problem is from a political point of view Iran is at the same time forcing all others to show religion etc. by clothing, so it's not direct oppression of any distinct minority, just a form of totalitarian oppression about clothing - and an oppression which the locals may even like too much for us to be able to step in as saviors if/when removing it. The thread title is a very incorrect way of describing this law. The law is disgusting, but it's not anti-semitism. It's islamo-fascism - it's rather a form of strenghtening the "we" feeling than the "they" feeling. But such things can easily turn into a "they" way of thinking, directed at one or more minorities.
If Iran has an evil agenda they'll sooner or later do something that'll be a clear step over the line that forces us to defend ourselves. In passing the law, they've not made a distinct step over the line. But if they punish someone harshly for not following it, then we can speak of real oppression, and a good justification for a war. However if they don't harshly punish people who break this disgusting law, they'll unfortunately remain in the grey-zone between clearly evil and clearly neutral (however, if you pass a law, you're likely to use it, so we're likely to get a justification for war pretty quickly). The problem is, in the light of the passing of a law like this, the Iranian nuclear program comes into a whole new perspective. Obviously in the ideal case nobody should be attacked unless evil, but nobody can know for sure whether someone is evil or not, so the decision of attack can only be based on the attacker's perception after he's taken his responsibility of trying to make his judgement of the opponent fairly, always questioning the evilness of said opponent as far as possible, until no doubt remains. While the nuclear program shows they're trying to become a dangerous opponent in war, this recent law shows it's likely they've also got the desire to use the capabilities that that strength could give. With this law, even if it wouldn't be used to persecute any breaker of it, it's a difficult situation for people who support peace, as they get a more and more difficult time argumenting for peace. Laws such as this are really testing the abilitity of other countries to trust Iran's intentions. We should make an ultimatum now - if any non-muslim American or European citizen is persecuted for not wearing a badge, then Iran could be subject to war. If any non-muslim American or European becomes target of street violence by a mob because he/she wore a badge and it was what made him/her a target to the mob, Iran could be subject to war. And with "subject to war" I mean that Iran could be attacked at any time American or European armies would consider appropriate.
This is the best chance for American and European forces to get a strong justification for war, a justification which would make the situation during (better support from home for the troops) and after the war better (unlike than the situation after the Iraq war, for example, where the approach to ultimatum was careless), which are both of great importance. So far an Iran war has been in the grey-zone between justified and not justified, because they've been provoking and looking like they've bad intentions, while never completely stepping over the line, and we've responded too early, making us both look equally bad. But if we make an ultimatum now, and they step over that line, they'll have passed their line so clearly that we've got a justification for a war against Iran. Then we'll get out of this grey-zone of fear for both parts, and find out whether they desire a fight, or desire peace.
Spetulhu
05-19-2006, 19:29
That's the only source on badges. Others report that the Iranians are thinking about a dress code, but nothing about badges. Seems someone has been adding a bit of extra flavor to the report.
Bar Kochba
05-19-2006, 19:34
yeah ive seen this on e fourms and there all from canada!!:juggle2:
Rodion Romanovich
05-19-2006, 19:43
That's the only source on badges. Others report that the Iranians are thinking about a dress code, but nothing about badges. Seems someone has been adding a bit of extra flavor to the report.
Gah! I'll just keep my mouth shut until some better sources turn up :wall:
Well it all seems a very fitting story with the build up to war and all. I remember last time we had such a media campaign full of unproven"facts" was before the Iraq war and look at the truths now. Besides if it is true: how many jews live in Iran anyway - 25 000.That's less than the civilian death toll in Iraq
Rodion Romanovich
05-19-2006, 19:49
The good thing, laws are official records, so in the end it'll be easily possible for almost everyone to check up whether it's true or not. If it's passed, it'll be difficult to hide it, and if it isn't passed and/or never existed as a suggestion, it'll be difficult to make it up. I'm of course just speaking hypothetically above. If I were to make a political decision on or vote on the subject of war or not I'd take my responsibility on checking up the truth behind this first. However there's not much responsibility related to random posting in a gaming forum ~:)
I think it is so weird we never read: "Israel forces the Palestinians to live in ghettoes behind barbed wired fences just like the Nazis did"
Bar Kochba
05-19-2006, 20:03
funny that you dont hear that eygptions and jordanies do the same things!!!
I think it is so weird we never read: "Israel forces the Palestinians to live in ghettoes behind barbed wired fences just like the Nazis did"
That is a totally different issue. It's funny how you just oversimplified a large, current situation.
yesdachi
05-19-2006, 20:13
Don't the people who voted for these badges read history? I mean, really... this has happened numerous times in the past, and it never had a good result.
The most significant event in recent history that relates to this is something they are not willing to even recognize happened. The situation is very frustrating to me.
I know the UAE requires its people to list their religion on their ID cards because Muslims are forbidden to drink liquor (and other practical reasons, I assume). This circumvents that by preventing them from buying fake ID's, assuming that they do not want to risk being outside the house without their 'badge', even if the story is true.
BHCWarman88
05-19-2006, 20:21
Never Again. Finally a reason I'd join up and go to war.
I'm 14, but if I was Older,I would Enlist.. Iran going to be the NExt Germany,Mind what I say people!!:furious3: :furious3:
Bar Kochba
05-19-2006, 20:24
it dosent have the power and with super powers like america and china even russia a bit they will never let it get that far
That is a totally different issue. It's funny how you just oversimplified a large, current situation.
The only issue is that USA is going to yet invade another Middle East country. The rest is just propaganda warfare in the buildup to the war. Muslims are the Jews of today, they are hated, persecuted and colonized and no one is lifting a finger while we rape( in many different ways) their land, natural resources and populations in the name of oil and the stability that occupying the entire region would buy.
Justiciar
05-19-2006, 20:28
That is a totally different issue. It's funny how you just oversimplified a large, current situation.
And Iran isn't a large, current situation? And yet people are constantly exaggerating things regarding their government and actions. Don't get me wrong, I in no way approve of the current regime, but I think they're painted as a Neo-Nazi Nation far too often.
Bar Kochba
05-19-2006, 20:31
ehhh yellow badges how much more nazi can u get?
Justiciar
05-19-2006, 20:32
Is there any proof of that claim beyond an article on the internet?
Bar Kochba
05-19-2006, 20:34
i know you do have a point checked cnn and bbc they didnt have this apparently only the candaians know about it
The only issue is that USA is going to yet invade another Middle East country. The rest is just propaganda warfare in the buildup to the war. Muslims are the Jews of today, they are hated, persecuted and colonized and no one is lifting a finger while we rape( in many different ways) their land, natural resources and populations in the name of oil and the stability that occupying the entire region would buy.
If you think the United States is going to invade Iran, you need to think otherwise. That's just want we to deal with, occupation of another country. I really don't see your point though on how Muslims are the Jews of today. I really dont recall any past events where any country specially targeted and killed 7 million Muslims. I also find it funny that you think we are "colonizing" the Middle East and raping the populations. Last time I check, the countries selling us oil were making huge profits off it. Gee, that sure sounds like rape. Finally, comparing the entire Palestinian people to 25,000 Jews in Iran is pretty unfair.
It makes me real sad to see where this is going: smart bombs clinically KILLING small dark skinned children in my and your name. I have a boy ok light skinned and only 2 years old and I pray every day that your country never gets interested in my region whether to liberate us or give us democracy
I'm content to watch and see for now. So far this seems uncorroborated and certainly unratified and not implemented.
Please everyone remember that Iran is much more of a complex place and people that pronouncements by the clerics and politicos make it seem. Political dissent and opinion is definately there - just hidden.
I pray every day that your country never gets interested in my region whether to liberate us or give us democracy
That does it. We're invading Sweden.
Divinus Arma
05-19-2006, 20:54
And yet another leftist conspiracy theorist joins the backroom. Great.
The problem with your views, my friend, is that they are absolutely absurd and based on conjecture. You are building bridges between concepts that simply do not exist, based on peceptions that are fabricated for you by politicians and extremists with an agenda. Of course, with statement such as these, you are no different than they. Goodie. Side with Iran; all they want is "peace". How the hell are we making this up? Haven't you heard the rhetoric coming from Achbenejinain-whatever, the evil president of Iran?
And another thing, the muslims are the Jews of today? That sounds pretty anti-semitic, considering that the Jews never advocated the violent overthrow of world governments.
Sorry, but this is nuts. You are really out on the fringe. And you are in good company because there are plenty of almonds and cashews to join you in the can back here.
The rational guiding forces of America do not want to go to war with Iran. We do not view muslims as evil. And we do not want to colonize the catbox of the world. We want peace, trade, and freedom.
I am sorry i got steamed up and i shall leave you to your speculations before I say something I am going to regret. Just remember that the Iranians are people just like you and me and have been around lot longer than we have.
And another thing, the muslims are the Jews of today? That sounds pretty anti-semitic, considering that the Jews never advocated the violent overthrow of world governments.
I guess you forgot that hitler called communism "jewish plot to take over the world" then. Och and USA invading both the neighboring countries shouldn't worry Iran
It makes me real sad to see where this is going: smart bombs clinically KILLING small dark skinned children in my and your name. I have a boy ok light skinned and only 2 years old and I pray every day that your country never gets interested in my region whether to liberate us or give us democracy
Yes, the US is evil and targets 2 year olds, eats babies, and rapes women. EXACTLY. Atleast we agree on something. I wouldn't want to waste the time even if it was worth liberating you.
Sure you are all high and mighty and god is on your side just don't be surprised that the rest of the world hates you.
38 posts to go from Iran implementing a dress code to calling the US a baby killing, racist nation. That's got to be close to a record, right? :laugh4:
Maybe Dâriûsh will chime in here with some more details on this topic, and we can stop speculating.
Sure you are all high and mighty and god is on your side just don't be surprised that the rest of the world hates you.
God on our side? What the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned God once in this thread. Oh and by the way, I doubt the rest of the world actually hates us, but if they do, so be in. Doesn't bother me one bit.
Stalin, havea heart. We in America adore Swedish furniture and pornography. We don't want to invade you and bomb you into Democracy. But if we have to, well, we will.
Your president mentions God all the time, apparently god speaks to him. Look guys i am sorry the name calling has started, shall we stop it untill we are sure we have a reason for it?
Look guys i am sorry the name calling has started, shall we stop it untill we are sure we have a reason for it?
There is never a reason for name-calling. The point of Backroom is to debate political, religious, and other touchy subjects, but name-calling is not debating and the mods frown upon it. So even if we find out what the truth is behind the dress code, we have to keep it civil.
Your president mentions God all the time, apparently god speaks to him. Look guys i am sorry the name calling has started, shall we stop it untill we are sure we have a reason for it?
Sure, buddy. One thing you should know about this country though. The president DOES NOT respresent the view of a vast number of Americans. We all aren't identical. ~;)
Avicenna
05-19-2006, 21:26
He's Bush. He does whatever the hell he wants. He has below average IQ. You're not thinking that he represents the average American do you?
Anyway, it's obvious nobody's lifting a finger at America. Why? If they did, they'd be the aggressors. So, that's a few countries plus the USA ganged up on them. Heck, only the USA could destroy any other country on its own. And you're wondering why nobody openly opposes them?
DA: you should say anti-Jewish or anti-Islamic, as anit-Semitic kind of covers both these groups.
Edit: Iran the new Germany? How? They're not exactly going to go to the East looking for Lebensraum, since the Americans and their coalition are over there. Go west like the Germans? The USA are there as well. Iran is just bluffing. What can they do? They most definitely won't nuke anyone. Why? Because nobody in the right mind would do that. Appeasement's had its day seventy years ago, everyone's learned the lesson. Iran nuke anyone, they'll get gang banged. The nukes are just for show, giving them another card to play.
And another thing, the muslims are the Jews of today? That sounds pretty anti-semitic,
(insert lazy trumpet here) Arabs are Semites.
“Muslims are the Jews of today, they are hated, persecuted and colonized and no one is lifting a finger while we rape (in many different ways) their land, natural resources and populations in the name of oil and the stability that occupying the entire region would buy.”
You should go and walk in the streets of your own country. Except if you live in Iraq, there are no Mosque burned, no Crystal Night, Muslim have representation in almost all western countries. I still wait from you to show me the minutes of an equivalent Wannsee conference and the start of the building of a new Treblinka and the new Einsatzgruppen.
I am sick to death to read or heard this kind of comments. On one hand the Muslim or/and sympathisers deny the Holocaust; on the other hand they don’t stop to claim to be victim of one.:furious3:
It is true, why so much Muslim live in Western and Genocidal Countries?
I am afraid the only guilty for the actual misrepresentation of Islam and Muslim are the Muslim themselves. The extremists of course, but also the moderate who didn’t want to kill Rushdie, but didn’t condemn the fatwa. They didn’t support the GIA in Algeria, but understood the reasons, etc…
So they are hated? Well, they should be happy that even when they are hated, they are not killed in the street like some judge in Turkey, put in jail like some guy in Afghanistan, ban from work like in Saudi Arabia… Where are the proofs of this hate? None, zero, not at a state level. Not at a society level.
But if one cartoon, one word offend them, hoops, kill the unfaithful, behead the offenders and so one.
By the way, for your knowledge and education, Iraq was a SECULAR state, before the US put their big feet and changed things.:dizzy2:
You mixed politic and Religion. You might thing that the US invaded Iraq for oil, but that implicates it wasn’t because it is a Muslim Country. Chavez is also on a black list, so you will pretend it is because he is a Catholic, or it is because he is a Statesman in charge of oil producer country? And a little bit communist as well. And the best US ally is Saudi Arabia, but perhaps it isn’t a Muslim country. If you look at a map, you will see that there are more Muslim Countries allied with the West than hostile… Just open an atlas.
In fact, I find the Western Countries quite mild in their answer, considering their power.
Not lifting a finger: Who paid the Palestinian Authority until Hamas got elected? The Muslim Countries, the Muslim Conference? No, Europe and US. Now, you will tell me that we deny the vote of the Palestinian people in cutting the financial help. No, we recognise their right to choose Hamas, but they have to deal with the consequence of their choice. We don’t want to pay terrorists. That is our right. Hamas, Hezbollah, Amal, all these people want our death. So, well, sorry, find the money somewhere else… Why should we forget the hostages taken during years in Lebanon, why should we forget our soldiers blown up, our planes high jacked, exploded in the air or on the tarmac? Our subways set in fire, our population under fear, our freedom of expression are attacked on regular basis. And no prominent Imam says a word. No demonstration against terrorism when the targets are Westerners. In England, Germany, France, all these countries either big or small Satan, demonstrations were organised against the war in Iraq.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, NATO intervened in favour of Muslims. But because they are Europeans, they probably don’t count in your calculation.
I have finished with this. Al what I can tell is lost anyway. You are convinced of what you said, so, even hard facts won’t change you mind.:wall:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-19-2006, 21:31
That is a totally different issue. It's funny how you just oversimplified a large, current situation.
Well, I know for a fact that I would rather wear a piece of ribbon then live in a ghetto behind a barbed wire fence.
Seriously, it's just a bloody piece of ribbon. It's not like they're putting people in concentration camps, and I doubt that will happen, as it means instant invasion more or less.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-19-2006, 21:32
Maybe Dâriûsh will chime in here with some more details on this topic, and we can stop speculating.
Far too sensible a stance for the Backroom. I'll have to report you to the moderators so they can restrict you to nice fora. This place is for brawling!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-19-2006, 21:35
Heck, only the USA could destroy any other country on its own.
Right...
I know for a fact Germany can own Sealand. :laugh4:
Far too sensible a stance for the Backroom. I'll have to report you to the moderators so they can restrict you to nice fora. This place is for brawling!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:shame: I'm sorry, I will go do my penance in the Babe Thread. :shame:
:laugh4:
Well, I know for a fact that I would rather wear a piece of ribbon then live in a ghetto behind a barbed wire fence.
Seriously, it's just a bloody piece of ribbon. It's not like they're putting people in concentration camps, and I doubt that will happen, as it means instant invasion more or less.
Yes, but, why do they have do the Isreali government find it necessary to make them live there? Oh yeah, to stop them from attacking Isreal.
Why do the Iranians find it necessary to put a ribbon on the Jews? If you find a good answer, tell me.
Ser Clegane
05-19-2006, 21:42
Seriously, it's just a bloody piece of ribbon. It's not like they're putting people in concentration camps, and I doubt that will happen, as it means instant invasion more or less.
I have to disagree - if this marking really happens (and so far I have some doubts, as I am pretty sure that the media would be all over it) it would be more than "just a ribbon".
As I am pretty sure that whoever would pass such a law is very much aware of the badges Jews (and some other selected groups) had to wear in Germany, this could only be inetrpreted to be well considered decision that is supposed to send a very clear message.
However, I would agree with what some patrons here already mentioned - it might be prudent to wait until this is confirmed by a couple of reliable sources, before we start to scream for blood.
Avicenna
05-19-2006, 21:42
I knew I worded that badly.. I meant that just the USA on its own could take on any country that dares to oppose it. :embarassed: Sorry 'bout that mistake.
And I'm betting that there would be foreign support for them anyway.
“And yet another leftist conspiracy theorist joins the backroom”. Why are you linking left and pacifisms? The Red Army wasn’t in favour of the flower Power if I remember well. And the best known resistant in France, Jean Moulin, was a socialist.
Goofball
05-19-2006, 22:02
I think it is so weird we never read: "Israel forces the Palestinians to live in ghettoes behind barbed wired fences just like the Nazis did"
You overlook one of the many differences in the two situations:
In 1930's Germany we also never saw headlines reading "Jewish Businessmen Send Suicide Bomber to Aryan Wedding, 15 People Confirmed Dead."
To try to compare the Israelis to the Nazis is not only incredibly innacurate, it's also one of the most hateful, ignorant statements a person could possibly make. Especially given that (from the tone of your other posts) your motivation appears to be a dislike of all things American.
Vladimir
05-19-2006, 22:27
What Holocaust? Don't you know it never happened? :dizzy2:
Let's see the Iranian apologists spin this. I'd really like to know who they are.
Vladimir
05-19-2006, 22:37
He's Bush. He does whatever the hell he wants. He has below average IQ. You're not thinking that he represents the average American do you?
Just thought this was interesting. During the debates wasn't it revealed that Bush has a higher I.Q. than Kerry? I heard Kerry trying to waffle out of the question and I'm pretty sure his score was lower.
There's a scramble on to confirm this story. Details. (http://www.nysun.com/article/33095)
Marcellus
05-19-2006, 23:41
Several experts are casting doubt on reports that Iran had passed a law requiring the country’s Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims.
The Iranian embassy in Otttawa also denied the Iranian government had passed such a law.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
Thankfully it would appear that this story is untrue.
Kaiser of Arabia
05-20-2006, 01:01
Mahmouds turning out to be a real Nazi, eh?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-20-2006, 01:08
However, I would agree with what some patrons here already mentioned - it might be prudent to wait until this is confirmed by a couple of reliable sources, before we start to scream for blood.
Hear hear.
I believe it would be how the badge system was implemented, not the system itself. But I'll save my arguement on that matter for later, so please don't respond to this post. :2thumbsup:
Kaiser of Arabia
05-20-2006, 01:18
Wait a tick
http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2005/05/126541_orig.jpg
http://www.ilna.ir/images/84-02-15/25.jpg
Must be the Satan brigade.
Justiciar
05-20-2006, 01:41
(Be nice please - Beirut)
Iran going to be the NExt Germany
I like Germany and I don´t think Iran is developing the same democratic structure as we have here.:inquisitive:
Samurai Waki
05-20-2006, 02:14
I think what he meant was teh next nazi germany.
BHCWarman88
05-20-2006, 03:23
YEa I did mean what Wakizashi Said, They going to be the NExtNaxi Germany..
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 06:34
They going to be the NExtNaxi Germany..
I wouldn't mind - as long as they skip the 1933-1945 part. They certainly would have the potential to become a prospering democracy in the future...
Avicenna
05-20-2006, 07:32
Just because his IQ is higher than one person's though, doesn't make him have an average or above average IQ. The fact remains that this man is quite stupid and quite unreasonable.
Ser Clegane: Even before Hitler came to power, Germany was secretly re-arming. Hitler just completed the re-armament. All the Germans wanted at least to reverse Versailles, so hostile relations with France at least were unavoidable. Also, if you skip '33 to '45, that's skipping all the years of Nazi rule :tongue:
Alexanderofmacedon
05-20-2006, 07:42
Your president mentions God all the time, apparently god speaks to him. Look guys i am sorry the name calling has started, shall we stop it untill we are sure we have a reason for it?
No, I'm from America. I was born here and lived here all my life and I agree with many points you're making. You will not hear anything out of me. Keep going...
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 07:52
Also, if you skip '33 to '45, that's skipping all the years of Nazi rule :tongue:
That's the idea...
I want to differentiate between objecting (or hating) a person/country as opposed to objecting to the persons/country's behavior: I don't hate the USA but lately it has been real hard not to see it as a global bully pushing others around. Most of the problems I see brought up here ( the reasons given to justifythis bullying behaviour) the USA has created itself, be it Usama bin Laden or the deposed Iraqui dictator. In a way it is difficult: to see someone take crap on their own plate in a restaurant and then ask you for help sueing the restaurant for the unprovoked insult especially if the other guests were telling that person that maybe it's not a good idea after all.
Now we are supposed to hate Iran, country in a mess due to yes you guessed it USA. If the Shah's ( guess whose puppet he was) rule was not so bloody and brutal the ayatollah would never find enough support (plunging the entire country into middle ages). I refuse to believe that we canbomb these people to goodness. The only result of the war on terrorism so far has been an increase in terrorism. Every fanatic on the planet now only needs to go to Iraq to find an easy target.:wall:
Red Peasant
05-20-2006, 09:28
I wouldn't mind - as long as they skip the 1933-1945 part. They certainly would have the potential to become a prospering democracy in the future...
Does that mean after we have beaten them to a pulp?
Very interesting, badges huh. Ser Clegane come in make yourselve comfortable, still remember why you gave me a warning a few weeks ago? I should change my name to Nostrafragus :laugh4:
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 10:53
Does that mean after we have beaten them to a pulp?
No
Very interesting, badges huh. Ser Clegane come in make yourselve comfortable, still remember why you gave me a warning a few weeks ago?
a) Yes, I remember the warning - and I would give it again if the statements were repeated
b) So far it does not seem that this badge-thing can be confirmed. Let's wait a bit before you assume a new name ~;)
Maybe Dâriûsh will chime in here with some more details on this topic, and we can stop speculating.
According to IRNA, the Iranian embassy in Canada has denied these allegations.
According to IRNA, the Iranian embassy in Canada has denied these allegations.
Phew that settles it then. Now I understand why that retarded mountaingoat wants the nuclair tech so badly, he needs the gassoline for something else.
Muahahaha that was real funny
HiPlnzDrifta
05-20-2006, 13:35
Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian public at large. Most Iranians are tolerant. Iranians pride themselves on being cosmopolitan. Most Iranians are polyglots, and Iran itself is more an empire than a nation. The Jewish community has long roots in Iran. Iranian Jews still make pilgrimages to Hamadan, a city in western Iran, to visit the tombs of Esther and Mordechai. The prophet Daniel walked through the lion's den in Susa, the ruins of which lie in the province of Khuzistan, not far from the Iraqi border. Even today, Iran boasts the second-largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel.
Irrational anti-Semitism has deep roots among Iran's clergy. The Nazi practice of forcing Jews to wear a yellow star had its origins in Iran, when in the ninth century an Abbasid caliph forced his Jewish subjects to wear yellow patches. Various subsequent rulers revived the practice for short periods of time.
excerpt taken from an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal written by Michael Rubin...
it's always the people on the street that suffer... the women and the children most of all...
if you think the U.S suffers from poor leadership take a look around... at least the majority of us in this forum can make comments from within a free democratic country...
the fact of the matter is, the state the world is in atm we need something like the U.S.A, i mean honestly, some of us may think denying same-sex couples marriage may be uncivilised but in Iran they hang homosexuals publicly... alternatively i dont ever hear the U.S.A threatening to wipe cultures and nations off the face of the map...
lesser of two evils gentlemen...
i wish i didnt have to choose, but we must take sides right??
honestly we cant let this happen to people in this day and age...
Soon as I read that the story was printed in the National post, whew it's a lie. We can all relax, the story was printed by the National post. For those of you not here in Canada the National post is a journalistic joke. It prints major distortions and sometimes out right fabrications.
No, I'm from America. I was born here and lived here all my life and I agree with many points you're making. You will not hear anything out of me. Keep going...
He was implying since the president said God was on his side, we all thought so too. You actually agree with this Alex? Come on, I thought I knew you better then that...
Justiciar
05-20-2006, 16:19
You mean to tell us that you aren't a hive mind seeking to bring the world to it's knees? :inquisitive:
The very foundation of my knowledge has been shattered..
BHCWarman88
05-20-2006, 16:30
I want to differentiate between objecting (or hating) a person/country as opposed to objecting to the persons/country's behavior: I don't hate the USA but lately it has been real hard not to see it as a global bully pushing others around. Most of the problems I see brought up here ( the reasons given to justifythis bullying behaviour) the USA has created itself, be it Usama bin Laden or the deposed Iraqui dictator. In a way it is difficult: to see someone take crap on their own plate in a restaurant and then ask you for help sueing the restaurant for the unprovoked insult especially if the other guests were telling that person that maybe it's not a good idea after all.
Now we are supposed to hate Iran, country in a mess due to yes you guessed it USA. If the Shah's ( guess whose puppet he was) rule was not so bloody and brutal the ayatollah would never find enough support (plunging the entire country into middle ages). I refuse to believe that we canbomb these people to goodness. The only result of the war on terrorism so far has been an increase in terrorism. Every fanatic on the planet now only needs to go to Iraq to find an easy target.:wall:
Hmmm, USA being a Bully?? So Be it. Counties Look at us saying "USA are bullies" "they xan't do anythin right" etc...so on and so forth, after we do something like take out Saddam Or Over THorw the Tablian.. Well,Mabye we should Be a Bully, cuz Last time I check, if USA wasn't around, I bet you guys would not have overthrow the Tablian or Capture Saddam yourself..
Hmmm, USA being a Bully?? So Be it. Counties Look at us saying "USA are bullies" "they xan't do anythin right" etc...so on and so forth, after we do something like take out Saddam Or Over THorw the Tablian.. Well,Mabye we should Be a Bully, cuz Last time I check, if USA wasn't around, I bet you guys would not have overthrow the Tablian or Capture Saddam yourself..
Both the Taliban and Saddam wouldn't be there if not for USA
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 16:38
May I remind you that the topic of this thread is not "USA - evil imperialists or benevolent superpower?" but a law that is allegedly being passed in Iran.
Please stay on topic
Thanks
Ser Clegane
Both the Taliban and Saddam wouldn't be there if not for USA
That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I really can't find the words to explain why either... it really is simple.
Back to topic though. Is this thing a hoax or is it really? I'm getting mixed reports.
Marcellus
05-20-2006, 16:53
Back to topic though. Is this thing a hoax or is it really? I'm getting mixed reports.
It still seems rather confused, but it would appear that the story is false - there have been various denials of it.
A couple of reports: here (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252934,00.html), and here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3).
Also note that if you try to follow the original link the article no longer exists.
Hmmm, USA being a Bully?? So Be it. Counties Look at us saying "USA are bullies" "they xan't do anythin right" etc...so on and so forth, after we do something like take out Saddam Or Over THorw the Tablian.. Well,Mabye we should Be a Bully, cuz Last time I check, if USA wasn't around, I bet you guys would not have overthrow the Tablian or Capture Saddam yourself..
In all fairness, he never was a problem to us. Not my world, I just live here. I don't oppose the invasion of Iraq because it may just hatch a healthy egg, and it took guts to at least try it, but Iraq is first and foremost a USA/Israeli problem where we kindly offered a hand. It costs europe a lot of money, and the USA is really there to make it for us.
From what I have heard this story isn't true. The true bad thing is that I almost took the bait - so fitting it would be, given Iran's view of Israel and the rest of the West :no:
Well since the story isn't true the thread is redundant. Besides it should be renamed and "Jews" replaced with "non-muslims"
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 17:43
Yeah they 'denied' it after all, sorry if I am not convinced.
Uhm ... what makes you think it is true? So far we have a single article that has apparently been withdrawn.
"This story is no longer available". Wow that got withdrawn even quicker than this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eQKxV9Lh04&search=trapped%20in%20the%20closet
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 18:23
"This story is no longer available". Wow that got withdrawn even quicker than this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eQKxV9Lh04&search=trapped%20in%20the%20closet
I don't quite see what this has to do with the topic ... if you cannot stay on topic, please refrain from posting here.
Thanks
Ser Clegane
The comic strip was withdrawn and never shown again due to someone questioning the truth of the inherent statement: if you can't see the connection then I CAN DRAW YOU A MAP.
That came out little hard, sorry...
Ser Clegane
05-20-2006, 18:28
The comic strip was withdrawn and never shown again due to someone questioning the truth of the inherent statement:
The video still has nothing to do with the topic
if you can't see the connection then I CAN DRAW YOU A MAP.
Thanks for the kind offer - please go ahead
:bow:
I don't like to say I told you so...
Well actually I do:
I told you so
Kaiser of Arabia
05-20-2006, 19:57
Stalin, calm down. Seriously. You're making me look calm, rational, and intellegent ~D
On topic though, since the article was withdrawn, I take it we are not invading Iran? Aw. Well, I always thought it was fishy, because of those Iranian army pics I posted earlier with the pink and red and light blue flags and all, but I wouldn't have been surprised if Iran did that, they are led by Khomeni and Mahmoud after all. Neither of them have proven to be sane yet ~:)
The story was most likely planted by Iranian expatriots.
Kralizec
05-20-2006, 23:08
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/1dff99f0-c739-4556-a982-6d0f865afa05/yellowbadge.jpg?size=l
I like how the discription says it's something German jews had to wear during the 40'ties, when the writing on the star is clearly Dutch :idea2:
Major Robert Dump
05-20-2006, 23:32
Instead they should make al the citizens wear unique badges that say "Hello! My name is _____"
I'm sorry, but the name Mohammed is already taken, pick another name or choose a variation of your original from the suggestions below: Mohammed23, Mohammed62, 01Mohammed, Mohamm3d
Alexanderofmacedon
05-20-2006, 23:33
Both the Taliban and Saddam wouldn't be there if not for USA
Warhammer: I do think you sir have just been "PWNED"
Instead they should make al the citizens wear unique badges that say "Hello! My name is _____"
I'm sorry, but the name Mohammed is already taken, pick another name or choose a variation of your original from the suggestions below: Mohammed23, Mohammed62, 01Mohammed, Mohamm3d
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Tribesman
05-21-2006, 19:49
Let's see the Iranian apologists spin this.
Yep :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh damn , it was all spin anyway so what happens now?~;)
Both the Taliban and Saddam wouldn't be there if not for USA
You might want to check some facts about the Taliban. Without the Soviet Union invading - the Taliban wouldn't be in existance.
Considering most of the Iraqi Military equipment was Soviet supplied. Without the Soviet Union one could state Saddam would not be there.
Then there is France, England, and a several other nations that played power games in the Middle-East.
The 1979 Iranian revolution overthrew the American "puppet" Shah government in Iran. Building up to this, the populace of the country had grown increasingly hostile to the American influence on their rulers, to the "immoral" and foreign cultural elements that were being introduced into their country. The revolution was strongly anti-American, and the government that replaced the Shah was a strong Islamic Fundamentalist government. Note that before this event, the USA had increasingly been dominating the people with a government they didn't want - democracy, in Iran, was certainly not on the USAs list of priorities. The result was a backlash that equalled a civil war.
This lead to the USA instead pouring military support and finance into Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq. This government had a terrible human rights record from beginning to end, it was corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive. It was easily manipulated by American wealth. However, Iraq, too, became increasingly anti-American. By 1990, the USA became fearful of Saddam Hussein's growing power and "attempted to destroy his military might in the second gulf war of 1991, and set about bolstering Saudi Arabia in turn as the regional power" [Heater & Berridge p64]
"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge. Quotes from original 1993 Harvester Wheatsheaf Publishing, Hertfordshire, England
I agree that more than one nation is responsible but being the only superpower means one dictates the events. The more influence the USA has and the more pressure it exerts, the stronger the backlash is against the foreign influence, and the less democratic the replacement government that is created in response. You want me to continue on the talibans?
The 1979 Iranian revolution overthrew the American "puppet" Shah government in Iran. Building up to this, the populace of the country had grown increasingly hostile to the American influence on their rulers, to the "immoral" and foreign cultural elements that were being introduced into their country. The revolution was strongly anti-American, and the government that replaced the Shah was a strong Islamic Fundamentalist government. Note that before this event, the USA had increasingly been dominating the people with a government they didn't want - democracy, in Iran, was certainly not on the USAs list of priorities. The result was a backlash that equalled a civil war.
This lead to the USA instead pouring military support and finance into Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq. This government had a terrible human rights record from beginning to end, it was corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive. It was easily manipulated by American wealth. However, Iraq, too, became increasingly anti-American. By 1990, the USA became fearful of Saddam Hussein's growing power and "attempted to destroy his military might in the second gulf war of 1991, and set about bolstering Saudi Arabia in turn as the regional power" [Heater & Berridge p64]
"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge. Quotes from original 1993 Harvester Wheatsheaf Publishing, Hertfordshire, England
I agree that more than one nation is responsible but being the only superpower means one dictates the events. The more influence the USA has and the more pressure it exerts, the stronger the backlash is against the foreign influence, and the less democratic the replacement government that is created in response. You want me to continue on the talibans?
You might want to check your data again - In the 1970 and 1980 the United States was not the sole super power.
And sure continue on. You will discover that the Taliban rose from the struggle against the Soviet Occupation of Afganstan and with the backing of the United States and others. The point is that your presentation is lacking in intellectual honesty toward the history of the Taliban and of Saddam Hussian.
AntiochusIII
05-22-2006, 09:16
The story was most likely planted by Iranian expatriots.Expatriots?
What are they?
Enlighten me. :bow: Are they like the White Russians after the Bolshevik Revolution, except this time for the royalists after the Islamic Revolution?
Expatriots?
What are they?
Enlighten me. :bow: Are they like the White Russians after the Bolshevik Revolution, except this time for the royalists after the Islamic Revolution?
In some ways yes.
They are a mixed group of royalists, intellectuals, Baha’I, Zoroastrians, Azeris, Turkmen, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, Sunnis, Assyrians, Balochs, Jews, Christians, draft-dodgers, and ordinary decent Iranians who disagree with the Mullahs and have thus left the country.
Then there is France, England, and a several other nations that played power games in the Middle-East.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif
Watchman
05-22-2006, 13:18
(insert lazy trumpet here) Arabs are Semites.And Iranians aren't Arabs. I'm not sure of the details, but I understand they go under the heading "Persians".
What I find rather telling is the symptomatic willingness of many to accept the original story as true right off the bat without any reputable corroborations. That sort of knee-jerk reaction to pretty blatant propaganda (I thought it smelled fishy as a fishing trawler the second I saw the thread title, which is why I've kept away until now) tells volumes of just how calmly and rationally people tend to regard Iran. Not that I had many illusions about the matter before.
Consider your judgement in the matter discredited until further notice and have a nice day, gentlemen. :bow:
And the point of the picture is what Idaho. Did you see me write that the United States was not playing power games in the Middle-East?
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 13:53
Two comments:
#1: Single source articles are placed in the backroom regularly. This is no unusual practice, so the comments in respect to that are quite arrogant indeed. If the article has been discredited, than so be it. Part of our discussions back here is to obtain truth- not to support a partisan, elitist, nationalist, or racist agenda. Insulting the practice of single source articles as a basis for discussion is a fairly radical idea if you ask me. Again, if an article is discredited, than it is discredited and I take no issue with that- especially since I am the one who posted this.
#2: In respect to the discredited article itself, would anyone here doubt that Iran may seriously consider a pracitice like this? Was the article, albeit erroneous, so out of line as to make false claims completely out of character for the Iranian regime? This is a government that actively calls for Israel to "wiped off the map" and denies that the holocaust ever occurred. It was reasonable to take the article at face value within this context, and that is why I posted it here for discussion.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 14:11
I'd give that point much more credit if there was even a trace of conditionals or source critique evident early in the thread. Plus I've partaken in enough Iran-related threads to be under no illusions on just how shaky basis some opinions on it are formulated.
As it stands it is difficult to take many of the reactions as anything else than swallowing what seems to me to be a blatant propaganda piece hook line and sinker.
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 14:23
I'd give that point much more credit if there was even a trace of conditionals or source critique evident early in the thread. Plus I've partaken in enough Iran-related threads to be under no illusions on just how shaky basis some opinions on it are formulated.
As it stands it is difficult to take many of the reactions as anything else than swallowing what seems to me to be a blatant propaganda piece hook line and sinker.
We see what we want to see. You see propaganda (from Canada?), while I see a news article that ended up being false.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 14:27
I fail to see why there could not be people with the requisite anti-Iranian sentiments in Canada to engage in active propaganda. And I for one have no idea where the original article got its information from anyway, although several potential culprits spring easily into mind.
However, it is people's reactions to it that make it a piece of (at least intitially succesful) propaganda even if it was not initially meant as such.
Which I don't believe for a second.
Pannonian
05-22-2006, 14:28
Two comments:
#2: In respect to the discredited article itself, would anyone here doubt that Iran may seriously consider a pracitice like this? Was the article, albeit erroneous, so out of line as to make false claims completely out of character for the Iranian regime? This is a government that actively calls for Israel to "wiped off the map" and denies that the holocaust ever occurred. It was reasonable to take the article at face value within this context, and that is why I posted it here for discussion.
The pro-Muslim Juan Cole and the anti-Muslim MEMRI offer a different translation of the speech.
Juan Cole's translation
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/338786.shtml
The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
MEMRI's translation
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305
'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.
Juan Cole has been accused by some of being an apologist for various middle eastern regimes, while MEMRI has been accused of picking the worst of the Muslim press and presenting it as the norm. Indeed, each has accused the other of exactly that, so they're obviously not from the same ideological background. Both translations talk about pages of something, translated in one as history, translated in the other as time, suggesting that there is a common element there. Moving from that to "wiped off the map" is a considerable leap in interpretation, suggesting that the common version is inaccurate in detail.
Does anyone know where the "wiped off the map" version first appeared? The badges story can be traced to Amir Taheri, a noted Neo-con writer, but who originally came up with the "wiped off the map" quote?
Sun., May 21, 2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717935.html
Several hours following its publication, the National Post retracted the article, and laid the blame for the story in the lap of veteran journalist and Iran analyst Amir Taheri.
Monday February 24, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,901982,00.html
Readers who like to keep an eye on such things should watch out for media appearances by any of the following Benador "experts":
...
Amir Taheri
...
Watchman
05-22-2006, 14:35
This sort of thing may strike the average non-American as power-crazed and mad (and, before the emails start flooding in from the US, I should add that many Americans find it abhorrent, too). However, the real point is not whether such ideas are mad, it is the amount of influence that they have on policy.Word.
Yesterday, after it emerged that the report had been false, the affair of "the yellow patch that wasn't" left us with one lesson: The world is ready to believe anything when it comes to a country ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ditto.
And the point of the picture is what Idaho. Did you see me write that the United States was not playing power games in the Middle-East?
I believe that is perhaps the most significant image of the last 50 years. It is worth well over a thousand words. The fact that one of those men orchestrated the removal of the other 20 years later and denied they had ever met is an excellent sub-text.
Money, oil, power. If you swapped those two round 30 years ago they would have both probably done the same things. Self serving scum the pair of them. They should be hung next to each other.
I believe that is perhaps the most significant image of the last 50 years. It is worth well over a thousand words. The fact that one of those men orchestrated the removal of the other 20 years later and denied they had ever met is an excellent sub-text.
Money, oil, power. If you swapped those two round 30 years ago they would have both probably done the same things. Self serving scum the pair of them. They should be hung next to each other.
And in the context of my statement - you have missed the point entirely. Maybe you should of brought it forward without quoting my statement. Are you attempting to deflect the activities of the British and the French in that area of the World through the 1970's. Cause if you are - your making the same mistakes that many have. Like the one of care to explain who helped supply and build the Nuclear Power Plants in Iran and Israel? Or how about which nations do countries in the Middle-East buy their weapons from?
Politics is politics - the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now. That is what happened. That Rumsfeld felt the need to deny the meeting shows that he is a politican first, attempting to get his way on the issue that was being discussed when he denied the meeting. Most politicans are self-servicing bastards first.
Why would I have any interest in deflecting the activities of the French and the British state in the middle east? I am happy to discuss either.
Pannonian
05-22-2006, 16:11
Originally Posted by Haaretz article
Yesterday, after it emerged that the report had been false, the affair of "the yellow patch that wasn't" left us with one lesson: The world is ready to believe anything when it comes to a country ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ditto.
The funny thing is that, xenophobic though he may be and hostile to Israel, Ahmadinejad has been fairly liberal in his approach to domestic affairs, arguing that it's not the government's business what individuals wear or do, moving towards equalising rights between the sexes, and helping the poor. His liberal domestic policies come complete with a huge bill that the conservatives are unhappy about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Domestic_policy
Why would I have any interest in deflecting the activities of the French and the British state in the middle east? I am happy to discuss either.
Then do so.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 16:19
Feel free to start a thread and throw in a slew of background info, then. As the US is the major perpetrator still noticeably active in the region and context it should not come as a great surprise it tends to take the priority.
That the French and others actually tend to make genuine efforts at staying out of excessive limelight (as opposed to the US, who apparently can't do *anything* without a full media circus) no doubt plays a part too.
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 16:25
Forgive me, but I fail to see how "eliminated from the pages of history" is any better than "wiped off the map". Seems worse, actually.
Then do so.
Create a thread about it and I will. However I think any such thread is to do precisely what you accused others of; deflecting attention from the US.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 16:29
I don't create threads. It's a policy.
...DA, you *did* read that whole post right...?
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 16:34
I don't create threads. It's a policy.
...DA, you *did* read that whole post right...?
Yep. You pointed out an erroneous translation citing a neo-con, as you put it, for the mistake.
But is the translation, aside from being a difference in verbage, any different in its essence as inflammatory rhetoric seeking the destruction of Israel?
Watchman
05-22-2006, 16:37
Well, the one you seem to be referring to appears to be the MEMRI take. The other one's in passive tense...
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 16:44
And the first one said that Israel "must [vanish from] from the page of time".
Kind of the same thing isn't it? No matter how ya slice it, Amdhmenjain-whatever-evil-SOB wants to see the elimination of Israel.
Holocaust denial? Calls for the destruction of Israel? The guy is an extremist nut!
Watchman
05-22-2006, 16:48
Passive tense. "Must vanish" is a rather different tone from "we're going to make it vanish" - although I'll give you that it's not exactly concilatory or reassuring either.
And let's not go into the dumb "Ahmadinejad is crazy" debate here, okay ? He doesn't call the shots in the important decisions over there anyway. AFAIK the Iranian president has pretty limited powers.
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 16:55
Here is what I see:
(1) Calls for the destruction of Israel
(2) A Historical Precedent for State-Sponsored Terrorism
(3) A Culture Supportative of Martyrdom/Suicide-Employment of Weaponary against Civilian Enemies of the State/Culture
(4) Pursuit of Enriched Uranium
Am I a tad worried for Israel? You bet. And I don't think that I am engaging in unreasonable conjecture either.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 17:00
You are, however, working from the rather unreasonable base hypothesis "Iran is run by lunatics".
Which is sort of the whole point. So long as you keep adhering to that particular piece of right-winger propaganda they're going to have a really easy time feeding you horse cakes. QED this thread.
Besides, if there wasn't a meaningful difference in the tone of the translations the distinctly more explicitly hostile version wouldn't have specifically come from anti-Iranian/neocon sources...
The ulterior motives for that, methinks, are glaringly obvious.
Then there is France, England, and a several other nations that played power games in the Middle-East.
Luckily I´m German and can bash you as much as I want.:sweatdrop: ~;)
And sure continue on. You will discover that the Taliban rose from the struggle against the Soviet Occupation of Afganstan and with the backing of the United States and others.
So first you backed them, then you fought them, you might have wanted to check whether the Russians or the Talibans were the bigger danger before supporting them. Blind hate against communists may not always be the best solution.
Isn´t there a similar situation in Iran now? Where the US helped the Mullahs at first to discover now that the Mullahs don´t really like the US?
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 17:17
I see no difference in tone. Six of one, Half dozen of the other.
As for "Iran is run by lunatics", I think that historical precedent is an important predictor of the future.
Not to say that Iran is Nazi Germany, but I think Hitler shows us an example where diligence would have been the wiser choice vs complaceny & appeasement.
What reasons are there to believe that the Iranian oligarchy would not destroy Israel and sacrifice itself?
I am well aware that the leadership of Iran does not entirely represent the perspective of the people, just as Bush does not represent 71% of the U.S. However, the people of Iran do not get to choose their leaders as we free people of the west may.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 17:32
They get to choose some of their leaders, anyway. And by all accounts I've heard the elections were perfectly honest.
And in the case you haven't noticed, Israel isn't Iran's main agenda. They have quite a few other gooses cooking, and none of those seem to be of particularly "b0b0 does this for 4ll4h" bent.
Take their little nuke program, for example. There's exact one motive behind it - deterrent. They have very good reasons to believe the US will be coming after them sooner or later. They're already surrounded by US bases, allies and/or puppet regimes. So they need something to hold that colossus off. For the time being nuclear deterrent would be pretty much the exact only one they can get their hands on. So they're going to get it - I sincerely doubt they'd particularly trust any nonaggression pacts the US might theoretically offer, not that I particularly expect it to anyway. Perversely, the more threatening tone Washington adopts to dissuade them from the project the more reason they have to get it finished ASAP in response to clear hostile intent... Catch-22 really, that one.
Speaking of historical precedents (and why is it always the right-wingers who bring Adolf up anyway...?) I'd incidentally like to hear an example of the Irani leadership doing something that could be clearly consituted as suicidally stupid. I can't think of any instance, but perhaps someone could enlighten me ?
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 17:43
You know, Iran has another choice other than taking up nuclear arms: peace.
All it has to do is accpet Israel's right to exist, denounce terrorism, and seek a peaceful relationship with the rest of the world. The U.S. couldn't argue preemptive strikes in this situation, not could Israel.
As for why Iran is dangerous, go to google and type in: Iran terrorism. Enjoy the reading.
Pannonian
05-22-2006, 17:54
Forgive me, but I fail to see how "eliminated from the pages of history" is any better than "wiped off the map". Seems worse, actually.
"Map" is physical, "time"/"history" is historical. Governments appear and disappear over time, through force, election, obsolescence, etc. They don't necessarily disappear from the map, but they do disappear from history, given time.
"Wiping off the map" implies active action to bring this about. "Eliminate/disappear from the pages of time/history" can mean action, or it can mean just waiting things out. The former combined with legislation to discriminate against Jews means alarm bells. The latter combined with no particular discrimination against Jews means we should look for more evidence that Iran is a threat to Israel, as little we've seen so far has been substantiated, and much of what we have seen is dubious at best and clearly fabricated with ulterior reason at worst.
For instance, there are plentiful quotes from influential figures, GW Bush among them, that call for regime change in Iran. How do they differ from "eliminating from the pages of history/time"?
Watchman
05-22-2006, 17:56
You may have noticed they obviously aren't about to take the concilatory route, so what does that leave them with ?
Anyway, using terrorist organizations and similar quasi-deniable and morally dubious assets doesn't yet rate as much of a clearly suicidal thing to do. Iran and the US both supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets after all, and similar activities seem to have been a pretty widespread hobby not too many decades back.
*cough*
Contras.
*cough*
I'm still waiting for the examples...
Pannonian
05-22-2006, 17:57
I see no difference in tone. Six of one, Half dozen of the other.
As for "Iran is run by lunatics", I think that historical precedent is an important predictor of the future.
Not to say that Iran is Nazi Germany, but I think Hitler shows us an example where diligence would have been the wiser choice vs complaceny & appeasement.
I personally would have sent in the troops the moment Germany started its re-armament programme, as it would have broken the terms of the Versailles treaty. What treaties has Iran broken?
Luckily I´m German and can bash you as much as I want.:sweatdrop: ~;)
Care to try - I can point out some of the German created problems regarding the Middle-East.
So first you backed them, then you fought them, you might have wanted to check whether the Russians or the Talibans were the bigger danger before supporting them. Blind hate against communists may not always be the best solution.
So allowing people to have "yellow rain" placed on them because they were the enemies of the Soviet Empire is an acceptable stance in your opinion?
Careful now - Afganstan was not about blind hate against the communist regimes. If your going to begin to attempt to revise history - at least study some of it before attempting such a tact.
Isn´t there a similar situation in Iran now? Where the US helped the Mullahs at first to discover now that the Mullahs don´t really like the US?
Not at all - review the history of the Iranian Revolution, and the discourse between the two nations since that event. Its never been real friendly between the two nations. Both have a habit of using negative rethoric in an attempt to demonize the other.
Avicenna
05-22-2006, 17:58
The sad thing is, you managed to choose a hopeless leader. Twice.
@Pannonian: Nobody was prepared to fight another war. Nobody. The British and Americans felt that Versailles was too harsh anyway, and the French had already had their supposedly impentrable Maginot Line to hide behind. Nobody else was capable of facing Germany. All countries were in a depression. Everyone was still feeling the effects of the Great War, and were unwilling to sacrifice more family members. Britain had disarmed anyway. Finally, the Germans had started re-armament even during the Weimar Republic, which nobody could have known about. There weren't sattelites at the time, and so it was easy for the Germans to hide any new things they managed to produce.
Iran has broken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 18:06
I don't get all this blind support of Iran. Why so cozy? The government doesn't exactly hold the moral high ground. Theocratic oligarchy, state discrimination against minorities, state sponsors of international terrorism, blind hatred of western culture, etc. What's to love? Sure, the government doesn't represent half the population, but that's just one more reason to help 'em out.
Global democracy is an eventuality. Relgious extremism in any form, be it Christian or Islam, is a passing relic of human ignorance. It is violent in its last throes, is it not?
Watchman
05-22-2006, 18:13
Passing relic ? Check your history. Islam was a nonentity in the global political scene before the Iranian Revolution... Politicized Islamism seems to have gotten a fair bit of wind in its sails in the last few decades too. And look what kinds of people you have running the US, for that matter. What kind of idiot calls the invasion of a Middle Eastern country a "crusade" anyway ?
DA, this isn't about liking the Iranian system. It's about disliking the US approach to these matters, and particularly the blatant dishonesty involved in it. Nobody likes habitual hypocritical liars after all.
And don't try to change the subject. I'm still waiting for clear indications of severe and widespread mental instability in the Iranian decision-making organs.
Pannonian
05-22-2006, 18:22
Iran has broken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Countries are allowed to develop nuclear programmes for civilian use. Other countries may offer incentives to dissuade them from doing so, but they're allowed to under the terms of the treaty. Iran has been careful so far in sticking to those terms as far as we know. Of course, it's obvious they're developing a military weapon on the quiet as well, but we don't have actual evidence of such, and considering Bush is committed to attacking them I can't blame them.
Pannonian
05-22-2006, 18:28
I don't get all this blind support of Iran. Why so cozy? The government doesn't exactly hold the moral high ground. Theocratic oligarchy, state discrimination against minorities, state sponsors of international terrorism, blind hatred of western culture, etc. What's to love? Sure, the government doesn't represent half the population, but that's just one more reason to help 'em out.
We don't believe there is sufficient reason for war, but we also also believe that Bush will go ahead with it anyway. Personally, being British and not American, I don't have the right to dictate what the US should or shouldn't do in its foreign affairs, but I don't want us to be involved. Not after Iraq. Go ahead and invade, but keep Britain out of it.
Avicenna
05-22-2006, 18:33
Unfortunately, with Blair in power, I don't think you Brits will be able to keep out of it.
Tribesman
05-22-2006, 19:30
I don't get all this blind support of Iran. Why so cozy? The government doesn't exactly hold the moral high ground.
Lets see .... hmmmm....I don't get all this blind support of America . Why so cozy? the government doesn't exactly hold the moral high ground ......yep , that works .:2thumbsup:
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 22:08
Oh like I haven't seen that before. Come on Tribesman. You can do better.
And moral high ground over Iran? We sure do. Democracy vs. Oligarchy. Freedom vs. totalitarianism.
Please.
Watchman, By passing relic, I mean within the context of human history, looking forward. An intelligent society does not fall prey to soothsayers, magicians, and holy men. It may be considered, but it is not the deciding factor. Why, look at lovely secularizing europe as a prime example. Organized religion dies with education.
And I don't mean lunatic literally. Extremist? Yes. In fact, your argument serves mine best. The leaders of Iran are not crazy. They are evil at worst, and misguided at best. I'm sure Hitler thought his Aryan nation was perfectly rational too.
Watchman
05-22-2006, 22:19
An awfully deterministic view you have of history. Need I remind you it's only some sixty-seventy years since Western civilization went awfully wrong ?
Reenk Roink
05-22-2006, 22:27
Organized religion dies with education.
Third time I've posted this...
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2001papers/HIER1913.pdf#search='religiosity%20vs%20education%20harvard'
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 22:28
"Wrong"? What, since the western world abandoned organized religion?
Watchman
05-22-2006, 22:38
Hint: Germany.
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 22:41
Third time I've posted this...
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2001papers/HIER1913.pdf#search='religiosity%20vs%20education%20harvard'
Good Article. I look forward to reading it all.
It pretty much proves my point, though differently than I guessed. As your article states, education increases attendance, but reduces beliefs. The article explains that the education link relates to social group membership, but not spirituality. Which is essentially my point.
To use this logic to understand the education-religion puzzle, we need to recognize that education has two important effects on religious attendance: education increases the proclivity towards social group membership and decreases belief in the returns to religious activity the key unobservable in this case. The positive social effect of education explains the positive education-religion relationship at the individual level. The negative effect of education on beliefs coupled with strong sorting by beliefs across denominations explains the negative denomination-level relationship between
education and attendance.
See? I was right.
Reenk Roink
05-22-2006, 22:48
Actually...
The article hypothesizes social behavior as to be the key to explaining the paradox between the increase among individuals and the decrease among denominations. However, there are many other hypothesis's equally valid as the 'social' one.
We could get into a discussion of what is the best explanation of this paradox, but my point is to leave you with this:
"In the United States, church attendance (the biggest indicator of organized religion) rises with education."
Your statement was:
Organized religion dies with education.
Divinus Arma
05-22-2006, 22:58
Fair enough. Your article directly contradicts my statement. Attendance with organized religion does indeed rise with education. Not much more I can say there. You got me. Well done. My choice of words trapped me.
Reenk Roink: 1
Divinus Arma: 1,000,000,000,000
Pretty soon you may catch up. :laugh4:
Watchman
05-22-2006, 23:00
Among the main points they hammer to our heads in the Science Philosophy (rough translation on the fly, you get the idea) course is that the literati are in no way inherently immune to being swept along by morally bankrupt movements and ideologies. Assorted Nazi sympathizers of course immediately spring to mind, but numerous Western intelligentsia were also awfully fond of the USSR during the Cold War period too.
For that matter, education and devout religious belief aren't exactly incompatible either. Just look at the Bush adminstration. Is there anyone there nowadays who doesn't have something like an university degree as well as deep religious conviction ?
And, conversely, much perfectly good science has been made by True Believers. All that takes is for them to keep their personal beliefs separate from their profession.
Reenk Roink
05-22-2006, 23:03
Fair enough. Your article directly contradicts my statement. Attendance with organized religion does indeed rise with education. Not much more I can say there. You got me. Well done. My choice of words trapped me.
Reenk Roink: 1
Divinus Arma: 1,000,000,000,000
Pretty soon you may catch up. :laugh4:
Hee Hee :laugh2:
Well, I'm still young... :kid:
Tribesman
05-23-2006, 07:18
Oh like I haven't seen that before. Come on Tribesman. You can do better.
OK then , why all this blind hatred over Iran then ?~;)
And moral high ground over Iran? We sure do.
Really ? which was the last country that Iran invaded ? Which was the last democratically elected government that Iran toppled ? Which was the last country that Iran imposed sanctions on for its own political/economic interests ? How many more terrorist groups does Iran support than America ?
How many dictatorships does Iran arm and finance compared to America ?
You cannot claim the moral high ground when you are up to your neck in excrement Divinus so don't even try .
Sure the revolution was taken over by nuts , the new regime is equally as bad as the one it replaced . But the way you blindly attack it and try to claim moral superiority is utter rubbish .
The main problem with your position .....
I don't get all this blind support of Iran. Why so cozy?....is where is all this blind support of Iran that you talk about ?
Does it exist at all ?
Or is it a companion of Toto , Dorothy , the Lion and the tin-man ?
Pannonian
05-23-2006, 11:00
Some recent news stories on the imminence of Iran's nuclear threat.
Thursday, 12 January 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606356.stm
However, the influential London-based think tank The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said in a report in September that this was contaminated and was not currently useable.
The IISS estimates that, if Iran decided to develop HEU, it could take it between three and five years to make enough for a single nuclear bomb, assuming that it mastered the technology.
But the IISS also says it could take as long as 10 to 15 years, depending on Iran's ability and intentions.
The IISS says Iran would need to build a reprocessing plant suited to the fuel used in Bushehr and this would be very technically challenging.
But this will not be ready until at least 2014, and probably later, the IISS has said.
6 March 2006
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n003.html#iran
The report on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran is before you. As you are aware, the Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.
So intelligence experts say that it will be at least 3 years before any bomb can be produced, but will more likely be upwards of 10 years. And in the March report, the head of the IAEA reports that intensive investigations have shown no sign of a military nuclear programme. What is this imminent threat to Israel that necessitates military action? Haven't we had enough of being lied to over Iraq?
Why not take all everyone's ( in the geographic area) actual existing nukes. I mean no-one threatens Israel with invasion because of their nukes. Oh wait they deny having them...
Why not take all everyone's ( in the geographic area) actual existing nukes. I mean no-one threatens Israel with invasion because of their nukes. Oh wait they deny having them...
You never got the idea it might have to do with Israel already throwing two invasions back?:inquisitive:
Or is it a companion of Toto , Dorothy , the Lion and the tin-man ?
If I was the scarecrow, I would totally do it with Dorothy. She was hot.
Kralizec
05-24-2006, 06:48
And Iranians aren't Arabs. I'm not sure of the details, but I understand they go under the heading "Persians".
Indeed, they're not Arabs.
Since 1979 "Iranian" is a nationality, but for much longer "Iranian" has been an ethnicity or a linguistical group. The Kurds are also non arab and speak an Iranian language. Most inhabitants of Iran are Persians, a specific Iranian ethnicity. The rest is composed of Arabs, other ethnic Iranians and others.
Compare how Dutch are ethnic germanians, and so are Germans.
Hurin_Rules
05-24-2006, 20:01
Looks like the original story that started this thread is indeed a fake. The Canadian newspaper that posted it (a conservative rag known as the National Post), has just apologized:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/24/canada.iran.reut/index.html
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
05-25-2006, 12:27
Then there is France, England, and a several other nations that played power games in the Middle-East.
To be fair, I don't think France or UK action in the Middle East was of any significant influence after 1956 and Suez crisis: after that, it was really a USSR/ USA show.
The only exception I can think about is Libya being beaten down after they tryed to invade Chad. And that's quite minor. Otherwise, both UK and France were US sidekick.
That does not detract from the original point that Iraq was mainly Soviet backed, although, when it came to give weaponry againt Iran, everybody felt like helping a bit...
Back on the topic: mod might want to change the title so that it becomes obvious it's a fake.
Louis,
Major Robert Dump
05-25-2006, 13:34
This may be my favorite thread ever. All you old schoolers punching it out. That and I nary contributed a one-liner so theres nothing for me to be proven wrong on. I'll have some eggs now.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.