Iran to Force Jews to Wear Identifying Badges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

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, and here.

Also note that if you try to follow the original link the article no longer exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

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"

nevermind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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=_eQK...20the%20closet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

"This story is no longer available". Wow that got withdrawn even quicker than this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eQK...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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465...dge.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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

Both the Taliban and Saddam wouldn't be there if not for USA

---

Warhammer: I do think you sir have just been "PWNED"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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:

Let's see the Iranian apologists spin this.
Yep :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh damn , it was all spin anyway so what happens now?~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

(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?

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.