New dress code law in Iran

[Tower]

What do buddists where?

[jolinar of malkshor]

All this and they also want to be in possession of weapons grade uranium/plutonium. I sure wouldn't feel safe with those wing nuts in possession of such materials.

[Vulcan]

"All this" may be a tempest in a teapot. Somehow I get the feeling someone may be trying to manipulate me. I don't like being manipulated unless she's really good looking.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

No, it hasn't been on the books for two years.

A draft law being considered by Iran's parliament encourages the wearing of Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity, according to a copy of the bill obtained by The Associated Press on Saturday.

The 13-article bill, which received preliminary approval a week ago, does not mention requiring special attire for religious minorities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052000467.html

Cowperson

<edited to be more polite>

according to some others it's not on the books at all, it's a motion put forth by some extreme (extreme for iranian politics even) cleric at some level, not close to actual law. something like, say, pat robertson spewing some nonsense and a motion passing at a not-yet level of legality.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...e-bb91af82abb3

one view, close to posts in this thread:

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed that the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect.

another view (indirectly) from an iranian parliament member:

Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran — including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament — and they denied any such measure was in place.

exactly how reliable an iranian parliament member is on the subject, is of course up to debate.

and finally, as with most matters of middle east reality, i refer to the jerusalem post or ha'aretz (sp?) because the israeli media is very honest, and will report on things that north american media wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole for fear of b'nai brith or AIPAC.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull


Iran expert Menashe Amir on Sunday traced incorrect reports about a proposed Iranian uniform law to earlier debate on the measure.
According to erroneous articles - "totally false" in the words of Amir - Iran was preparing to require Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear colored ribbons on their clothing to distinguish them from Muslims.

Though the current version of the law only lays down loose guidelines for a national uniform, it was proposed under former president Muhammad Khatami two years ago and has been the subject of much discussion.

...


"The Western world, especially Jewish organizations, are so mad at Ahmadinejad" for his Holocaust denial and anti-Israel statements, Javedanfar said, "that they want to give him a taste of his own medicine." He added, though, that the criticism of Ahmadinejad - particularly from Israel - for false reports "didn't help" in international efforts to paint Iran as a rogue state. "Ahmadinejad lives off these kinds of attacks from Israel," he said. In terms of Ahmadinejad's desire to be seen as the leader of the Islamic world, "it helps his image to be seen working up the Israelis."

ah. actual journalism. israel, where people are keenly aware of their security, and what government policies help or hurt that security.

anyone that reads aboot or studies the mideast, very quickly, realizes the level of rhetoric is very very high. what bill o'reilly might say in the excited states, could be what a head-of-state would spew out of his pie-hole over there. american leaders have political pundits that do their frothing for them, and tow the government line. saves some money i bet too, not having a propoganda ministry like iran has to.

is iran capable of this brand of insanity? oh yeah. but even the washington post lists a canadian media source, so i'd hardly call it fact yet.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

And the best course of action would be......

Seriously, I have no problem when one states their opinion, but at least back it up.

it's a hockey board, here's a hockey analogy:

removing todd bertuzzi from your team.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...246312,00.html

"Iran may recognize Israel in a number of years," Dr. Rahman Garmanpoor, a manager of the Iranian nuclear program, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

"Some of our society believes that we must be neutral, but the policies of the new president Ahmadinejad and his warring statements are tied to internal politics. This is a new government, that must consolidate its power," he said.

and some good-old fashioned nuclear brinkmanship, you can practically hear PNAC lick it's lips with this quote:

Dr. Garmanpoor, 35, said that his government is 'playing' with the international community, but that it would stop doing so the minute it felt it had pulled the rope too far.

my best course of action is to not goad the iranians. their repressive system had been on the fast track to the dustbin of history for some time now.

is american foreign policy the SOLE cause? absolutely not. but to say that they're not a factor is serious head-in-the-sand territory.

yes, these religious wackos are trouble.

why the **** are we helping them out?

[Azure]

Right Looger. I think Iran has already had enough time to get ride of their nuclear weapons program. Yet despite the UN Security Council calling for it to be shutdown, it still continues.

You would allow it to continue until New York is nuked and Canada is left to deal with the fallout. Saddam was President for Iraq for over 30 years, even with many, many of his own citizens opposing him. If the nutjob President in Iran is in control of the military, which he is, the people have little hope left to take over the country and get rid of him, unless they can control the military.

[Looger]

...not sure where i advocated letting iran attack new york and canada before trying to stop them...

the president is not a dictator. a council of religious nuts is... though that may be more dangerous than one man. there is time, right now, to allow the iranian people to topple their own corrupt regime. if they have nukes, they're saving them for defense. if they don't, they're probably trying.

to strike israel they'd need to deploy delivery systems, and the israelis, americans, and probably a dozen or more arab governments would get tipped off - not many secrets are safe in the mid-east. to say nothing of the spy satellites, etc.

for iran to become an OFFENSIVE nuclear threat, there are many things that would have to happen, that have not yet.

attack them, and you will find out REAL QUICK if they have nukes or not.

[Azure]

not sure where i advocated letting iran attack new york and canada before trying to stop them...

Well here you go...

"my best course of action is to not goad the iranians. their repressive system had been on the fast track to the dustbin of history for some time now.

Isn't that saying we should leave Iran alone so that they can fix their own problems from the inside? Then when they attack New York with a nuke, given that their nutjob President would love too, everyone will be up in arms against the US for not doing anything, when in fact those same people, like yourself, where saying it leave Iran alone.

Remember Chamberlin? He tried to leave Hitler alone as well. Turned around and kicked him right in the ass. Iran is the same way. We have to deal with the problem NOW, before it gets worse.

the president is not a dictator. a council of religious nuts is... though that may be more dangerous than one man. there is time, right now, to allow the iranian people to topple their own corrupt regime. if they have nukes, they're saving them for defense. if they don't, they're probably trying.

As long as the President has control of the military, there is no way the Iranian people are going to topple the regime. If Iran isn't going to shutdown their nuclear program, like the UN has instructed, their President, the guy who in the end makes the final decision, needs to be taken out.

to strike israel they'd need to deploy delivery systems, and the israelis, americans, and probably a dozen or more arab governments would get tipped off - not many secrets are safe in the mid-east. to say nothing of the spy satellites, etc.

So you want to wait until then?

for iran to become an OFFENSIVE nuclear threat, there are many things that would have to happen, that have not yet.

Like refusing to listen to the UN?

attack them, and you will find out REAL QUICK if they have nukes or not.

Better then having them attack us to find out if they use Nukes or not, right?

There are ways to strike at Iran and take out the nuclear sites now, before they can even develop Nuclear Weapons.

[Looger]

iran's president is elected.

i answered all the rest of your questions, multiple times, and am sick of answering the exact same questions.

there is a world of difference between airstrikes / supporting incursions into iran, and iran attacking new york (?). to believe that one or the other are the only choices... wow.

and hitler / chamberlain - exactly whois invading countries here? better watch your comparisons.

i am done in this thread.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I would rather not give Iran the opertunity to hold nuclear weapons over the heads of every western country. Not a good idea

[Bobblehead]

And today the National Post prints that they were wrong.

Our mistake: Note to readers

Last Friday, the National Post ran a story prominently on the front page alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law that, if enacted, would require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges that would identify them as such in public. It is now clear the story is not true.

The story is in the paper or in the subscribers area of the Canada.com website. It explains how they got their info, how they tried to confirm it, and why they decided to publish.

I feel for them, it was a tough call, but without better confirmation perhaps it should not have been at the top of the front page.