PDA

View Full Version : Jewish MP denies Iran badge plan


azdaja
May 20th, 2006, 12:18 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19196947-1702,00.html

IRAN'S only Jewish MP strongly denied reports in a Canadian newspaper overnight that Iran may force non-Muslims to wear coloured badges in public so they can be identified.

"This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false," Maurice Motammed said in Tehran. "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain" by doing so.
congratulations to the hatemongers, they did it again. lies, lies and more lies. to those who blindly believe them - you got owned once again.

*JR*
May 20th, 2006, 12:46 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19196947-1702,00.html


congratulations to the hatemongers, they did it again. lies, lies and more lies. to those who blindly believe them - you got owned once again.
There's a thing in politics called a trial baloon; if it doesn't seem to get the desired reaction, then whoever "launched it" disassociates themself (and their boss) from it. That may have happened here, plus the message was sent that Iran could do this if it so chose.

Lord Nelson
May 20th, 2006, 12:52 PM
Iran has a Jewish MP in parliament :eek:

azdaja
May 20th, 2006, 12:59 PM
There's a thing in politics called a trial baloon; if it doesn't seem to get the desired reaction, then whoever "launched it" disassociates themself (and their boss) from it. That may have happened here, plus the message was sent that Iran could do this if it so chose.
in this case it seems we are dealing with a complete fabrication, though. the proposed law seems to be about "an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women" and does not mention religious minorities at all.

azdaja
May 20th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Iran has a Jewish MP in parliament :eek:
they have representatives for all religious minorities.

*JR*
May 20th, 2006, 01:38 PM
in this case it seems we are dealing with a complete fabrication, though. the proposed law seems to be about "an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women" and does not mention religious minorities at all.
Stories like this generally don't totally "invent themselves". Perhaps the part about the religious ID's was in an earlier draft of it, then dropped for the reasons I mentioned above. (In every legislative body except those like in North Korea, the first drafts of legislation are typically amended B4 passage). But if it wasn't @ least a "subtle message", then why didn't a member of the leadership immediately disassociate the government from it?

Scotso
May 20th, 2006, 01:43 PM
they have representatives for all religious minorities.

Oh, how kind. One Jewish voice.

azdaja
May 20th, 2006, 01:58 PM
Stories like this generally don't totally "invent themselves". Perhaps the part about the religious ID's was in an earlier draft of it, then dropped for the reasons I mentioned above. (In every legislative body except those like in North Korea, the first drafts of legislation are typically amended B4 passage). But if it wasn't @ least a "subtle message", then why didn't a member of the leadership immediately disassociate the government from it?
from what i gather this was reported only yesterday, so there is still time for reaction. it was already denied not only by this mp, but also by some middle east analysts (who are not friendly towards the iranian regime).

there is not much information available (in english, that is, there is apparently more information about the law on the internet in farsi), but it seems that the law is directed against the iranian fashion industry and indeed only regulates the dress code for women. furthermore, the badge rumours were started by some random newspaper and the sources were very vague - "human right groups".

it should be also noted that ahmadinejad's supposed statement that israel should be wiped off the map was also not reported accurately. such phrase apparently does not exist in farsi, and what he actually did was quoting a sentence from an old speech by khomeini and should be translated as "The occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." of course, ahmadinejad wouldn't mind wiping israel off the map, i'm sure, but his statement was far less spectacular than that. first of all, it's not the first time someone in iran has said that and the one who said it the first time had more political power than ahmadinejad has.

these sensationalist claims are there to whip up anti-iranian sentiment. that's not unusual when nations are preparing for war. in other times things like this would be reported differently.

azdaja
May 20th, 2006, 02:02 PM
Oh, how kind. One Jewish voice.
given that there are only 30,000 jews in iran that pretty much corresponds to their numbers.

of course the situation is not rosy for iranian jews. ahmadinejad's anti-semitic ramblings will have an impact on the iranian public and as such deserve condemnation.

*JR*
May 20th, 2006, 02:18 PM
it should be also noted that ahmadinejad's supposed statement that israel should be wiped off the map was also not reported accurately. such phrase apparently does not exist in farsi, and what he actually did was quoting a sentence from an old speech by khomeini and should be translated as "The occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." of course, ahmadinejad wouldn't mind wiping israel off the map, i'm sure, but his statement was far less spectacular than that. first of all, it's not the first time someone in iran has said that and the one who said it the first time had more political power than ahmadinejad has.

these sensationalist claims are there to whip up anti-iranian sentiment. that's not unusual when nations are preparing for war. in other times things like this would be reported differently.
As I don't know the timeline re. the dress code proposal, I'll wait B4 saying anything more. But your slant clearly shows in your narrative about the "wiping Israel off the map" thing. Whatever Mr. Ahmandinejad meant in those statements, he's had more than ample time to say "I just meant that the occupation of Jerusalem must end" or whatever, but did not do so. (Obviously he was fine with the perception of him wanting Israel eliminated, whether he used those exact words or not). :rolleyes: Later.

azdaja
May 20th, 2006, 02:30 PM
As I don't know the timeline re. the dress code proposal, I'll wait B4 saying anything more. But your slant clearly shows in your narrative about the "wiping Israel off the map" thing. Whatever Mr. Ahmandinejad meant in those statements, he's had more than ample time to say "I just meant that the occupation of Jerusalem must end" or whatever, but did not do so. (Obviously he was fine with the perception of him wanting Israel eliminated, whether he used those exact words or not). :rolleyes: Later.
but i actually did say that ahmadinejad wouldn't mind wiping israel off the map (his statements about holocaust speak volumes about his anti-semitism anyway). that's not my point. the point is, all this is actually old news, it was said before, but these things are being reported in a sensationalist way in order to prepare the public for a possible war against iran. the iranian regime did not change overnight because ahmadinejad came to power, but things are painted that way by those who support a military action against that country.

*JR*
May 20th, 2006, 09:48 PM
but i actually did say that ahmadinejad wouldn't mind wiping israel off the map (his statements about holocaust speak volumes about his anti-semitism anyway). that's not my point. the point is, all this is actually old news, it was said before, but these things are being reported in a sensationalist way in order to prepare the public for a possible war against iran. the iranian regime did not change overnight because ahmadinejad came to power, but things are painted that way by those who support a military action against that country.
If I were the new President of a country (even one who doesn't directly control the military) and a statement of mine was mis-translated to sound more threatening to another country, I'd still have clarified what I said. (Ooops, I forgot, they don't consider Israel a country). Even if I agreed with the sentiments of the inaccurate translation, I wouldn't let others put words in my mouth.

What President of any country lets his subordinates (or a news service, etc.) decide for him the timing and degree in the way a statement that gets worldwide attention was reported, by not clarifying what he said? (Unless he was in on the "mis-translation" himself.

Or the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ordered it. Which in fact would make the way the words were reported even more disturbing, as that fellow does command the military and other security services.

John A Roark
May 20th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Fight the good fight, JR.
Steadily you bring idiocy back into line.

Martian Willow
May 20th, 2006, 10:21 PM
Oh, they're just oppressing women instead of jews. Thats not so bad.

Mother_Marjorie
May 20th, 2006, 10:44 PM
http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=8081027&postcount=1

Volcana
May 21st, 2006, 03:22 AM
Iran ain't my idea of heaven, but in this case, it the story originated in a foreign newspaper, Canada's National Post, and got picked up by other news sources. It's always easy to tell lies about people who are unpopular. It's harder to admit you've been made a fool of. I should have questioned the story more in the first place. There's enough propaganda about Iran flying around that almost anything reported needs to be questioned before it's believed.

Reuchlin
May 21st, 2006, 03:31 AM
I saw this story as a headline in the National Post (a Canadian Daily). Wish I would have checked it.

Mother_Marjorie
May 21st, 2006, 04:00 AM
Iran ain't my idea of heaven, but in this case, it the story originated in a foreign newspaper, Canada's National Post, and got picked up by other news sources. It's always easy to tell lies about people who are unpopular. It's harder to admit you've been made a fool of. I should have questioned the story more in the first place. There's enough propaganda about Iran flying around that almost anything reported needs to be questioned before it's believed.


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

Iran Story Stirs Things Up


(CBS/AP)
Here we go. The National Post in Canada has published a story claiming that the Iranian parliament has passed a law "that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims." The story is sourced to "Iranian expatriates living in Canada."

So far, at least MSNBC and Fox News Channel have mentioned the story, and it has been the dominant story of the day in the blogosphere. Right now, mid-afternoon, many news outlets are in a scramble to find out if it is true. The Iranian embassy has denied it, and Mohammad Mohammadi, press officer at the Iranian mission to United Nations, told CBS News Radio the story is "completely untrue."

The Drudge Report has had a link to the story at the top of its page all day. CBSNews.com has not mentioned it. "It's potentially an explosive story but we won't touch it until we have some sort of concrete confirmation, and we haven't come close to that," says Dan Collins, senior producer for CBSNews.com.

CBS News Radio has also decided against running the story, according to Exective Producer Charlie Kaye. "There are too many red flags here," he says. "The best we can determine is this has originated with Iranian dissidents in Canada. We have spoken to a CBS News correspondent just back from Iran and her producer, we've spoken to the Iranian mission to the UN, we've spoken to our State Department Reporter Charlie Wolfson, and at this point we're not comfortable putting it on the radio." The story has run on WCBS 880 local radio news here in New York, however.

BUBI
May 21st, 2006, 09:30 AM
but i actually did say that ahmadinejad wouldn't mind wiping israel off the map (his statements about holocaust speak volumes about his anti-semitism anyway). that's not my point. the point is, all this is actually old news, it was said before, but these things are being reported in a sensationalist way in order to prepare the public for a possible war against iran. the iranian regime did not change overnight because ahmadinejad came to power, but things are painted that way by those who support a military action against that country.
:worship::worship::worship:

azdaja
May 21st, 2006, 11:39 AM
If I were the new President of a country (even one who doesn't directly control the military) and a statement of mine was mis-translated to sound more threatening to another country, I'd still have clarified what I said. (Ooops, I forgot, they don't consider Israel a country). Even if I agreed with the sentiments of the inaccurate translation, I wouldn't let others put words in my mouth.

What President of any country lets his subordinates (or a news service, etc.) decide for him the timing and degree in the way a statement that gets worldwide attention was reported, by not clarifying what he said? (Unless he was in on the "mis-translation" himself.

Or the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ordered it. Which in fact would make the way the words were reported even more disturbing, as that fellow does command the military and other security services.
sorry, jr, but that's again totally beside the point. ahmadinejad is bad, the iranian regime is bad. i know. there is no disagreement between you and me about that. i'm not talking about that at all and you can post volumes about that problem, it does not change anything (it can't because we agree). i'm talking about the way this news is being reported in the media. it consists of distortions or outright fabrications. it creates panic and a sense of urgency even though in iran nothing new has happened. the mis-translated statement was made by the commander of the iranian military back then and nothing happened and it was also not big news, probably because war against iran was not on the agenda. now it is big news not because the threat is imminent (iran does not have the capacity to wage an aggressive war at all), but because some people have already decided to start a war against that country. we have had all this 4 years ago in the case of iraq. it was clear that saddam hussein was an idiot and that his regime sucked. but stories about the imminent threat were ridiculous. and so are stories about the threat from iran now.

back on topic, the "human rights groups" that started the story about badges were identfied. it seems it was a group if iranian expatriates associated with the former monarchy. so, the badges story seems to be a complete fabrication.

azdaja
May 21st, 2006, 11:42 AM
Fight the good fight, JR.
Steadily you bring idiocy back into line.
do you know the difference between an athlete and a fat person who can't compete and only can cheer for them? you are the intellectual equivalent of the fat person.

azdaja
May 21st, 2006, 11:47 AM
Oh, they're just oppressing women instead of jews. Thats not so bad.
they actually oppress everyone - jews, women, christians and ordinary muslim iranians as well. iranian regime is not nice.

but this law is apparently not about oppressing women. it is about developing a sense of fashion that conforms to islamic standards rather than western ones. ghandi had a similar idea for india. it's silly, but that's them.

Hulet
May 26th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Sh*t, I missed this thread and the whole National Post's article about Iran, the retraction and the apology. That tells you how much I trust the media in this country. Especially this particular newspaper. If not outright liars, they are blatantly biased to "Israel's cause" or any other right-winged agenda. In fact, I suspect the reason that they apologised for this article is just because they were caught. To be honest, the other dailys, even the one's usually termed left-wing, are not so worried about the truth. That is the reason that I haven't bought a newspaper for the last, I don't know, four or five years. Why pay for a propaganda when you can get it for free?

samsung101
May 26th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Hatemongers?

Sloppy reporters.

It's Iran, not like it would be a real stretch considering
some of the things this guy has said leading Iran lately,
and for years.

Again, read the guys 18 page letter to Bush. He's
missing more than a few screws and a lightbulb.


His hatred of Israel and Jews is without comparison.

However...if they had no legitimate and verifiable
proof of the statements, they should have stated that.



How about putting some blame on the media, period.

The news media that puts out half stories, half truths,
non-truths (otherwise known as lies), without bothering
to check them out. Dan Rather, Brian Ross, it's just
status quo these days. The miners are alive, oh wait,
no, they're not, and we never had any proof or verification
they were alive, just thought it would be good tv to say that. Hundreds are dead in the Superdome in New Orleans, no, we haven't seen that, but someone whispered
it to us, and so we went on tv w/that story! Turns out to
be false. We need to ask for more, and get it.

Write some e-mails, send some letters to the papers or
writers that wrote this first, complain loudly and often.

We should demand more as consumers and citizens.


But, considering who they were writing of, they figured
it was true. Not good enough. Doesn't mean the Iranian
govt. isn't deadly or dangerous or asking for Israel to
be destroyed, it is all that.

Hulet
May 26th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Hatemongers?

Sloppy reporters.

It's Iran, not like it would be a real stretch considering
some of the things this guy has said leading Iran lately,
and for years.

Again, read the guys 18 page letter to Bush. He's
missing more than a few screws and a lightbulb.


His hatred of Israel and Jews is without comparison.

However...if they had no legitimate and verifiable
proof of the statements, they should have stated that.



How about putting some blame on the media, period.

The news media that puts out half stories, half truths,
non-truths (otherwise known as lies), without bothering
to check them out. Dan Rather, Brian Ross, it's just
status quo these days. The miners are alive, oh wait,
no, they're not, and we never had any proof or verification
they were alive, just thought it would be good tv to say that. Hundreds are dead in the Superdome in New Orleans, no, we haven't seen that, but someone whispered
it to us, and so we went on tv w/that story! Turns out to
be false. We need to ask for more, and get it.

Write some e-mails, send some letters to the papers or
writers that wrote this first, complain loudly and often.

We should demand more as consumers and citizens.


But, considering who they were writing of, they figured
it was true. Not good enough. Doesn't mean the Iranian
govt. isn't deadly or dangerous or asking for Israel to
be destroyed, it is all that.
Should I be scared that I agree with 75% of what you wrote here? :o ;)