# False allegations from Iran: Jews to wear Insignia in public



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2006)

Sound familiar?



> Law would require non-Muslim insignia
> 
> Chris Wattie
> National Post
> ...



Obviously chilling, if it truly comes to pass.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (19 May 2006)

uhm...  :-\

These Iranians sure arent making it any easier to resist the urge to bomb their government back to the 40s.

The whole "Im going to wipe Israel off the earth" , "the holocaust nevre happened" and "im building nukes if I want, go to hell EU" is a little uh.... maybe its just me, but its not sitting very well


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (19 May 2006)

They did, but it was only a few months ago... Came right out in public and said it was a hoax created by the jews for sympathy or something.

Their president is clearly.... dillusional at best. There is no way this man can be allowed to have nuclear weapons, because the more he talks the more sure I become that hes going to nuke Israel the first chance he gets.

Good timing on his part though, most of the world is wrapped up in alot of other problems at the moment. Had this been 6 years ago, the US would have been bombing them months ago.


----------



## munky99999 (19 May 2006)

Wow this is pretty bad. They are really asking for it. Do you think this will be the proverbial straw? If so, what response do you think the USA and Canada will give officially?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2949b7ed-f9db-42da-8471-b6b6de9b615e&k=72143
Harper commenting.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2006)

What do you reckon?

Double envelopment or Hammer and anvil?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What do you reckon?
> 
> Double envelopment or Hammer and anvil?



Call me a dreamer, but I'd love to see the UN back a US-led invasion. Even better, a European invasion. It would be reaffirming to see Germany go to war to defend the rights of Jews to be free of religious persecution.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 May 2006)

Wow, they really go out of their way to act rational don't they  :

We should start an Army.ca pool on when the bombs will start to drop on Iran, $1 per guess, my guess is sooner rather than later... umm, Oct 1st 2006?


----------



## Britney Spears (19 May 2006)

I know it's hard for you conservatives, but you guys really need to rein in your blind trust of the <a href=http://www.940news.com/locale.php?news=2512>media</a>. 

How about waiting for an actual primary source from Iran or the Iranian goverment?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I know it's hard for you conservatives, but you guys really need to rein in your blind trust of the <a href=http://www.940news.com/locale.php?news=2512>media</a>.
> 
> How about waiting for an actual primary source from Iran or the Iranian goverment?



True enough; given the "moderate" statements by the Iranian president lately, this seemed a little spurious. I note the Canadian and Australian PMs have responded, but only to the "allegations", they did not reply as if it were fact.

Still, I do think that if action is going to be taken, I would hope it had some kind of official sanction other than the US President's astrologer.


----------



## medicineman (19 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Still, I do think that if action is going to be taken, I would hope it had some kind of official sanction other than the US President's astrologer.



Might as well dial up McKenzie-King's dear dead mom and dog while we're at it...

MM


----------



## AndrewS (19 May 2006)

Hmmm.. Interestingly the 2 stories have been pulled from the National Post website.  There was quite alot of people replying in the sound off section that there was no other confirmation from other news sites and that the story was false.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (19 May 2006)

> How about waiting for an actual primary source from Iran or the Iranian goverment?



The Iranian government has denied the claim.  We will have to wait and see I guess.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I know it's hard for you conservatives, but you guys really need to rein in your blind trust of the <a href=http://www.940news.com/locale.php?news=2512>media</a>.
> 
> How about waiting for an actual primary source from Iran or the Iranian goverment?



What fun is that? Come on, pick a date! You know Iran is just hankerin' for a spankerin', when will they feel America's pimp hand??


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 May 2006)

I just did a search for more info and found nothing ouside of the national post article "iran eyes badges for jews".  Sounds like inflammatory reporting unless omeone else can pinpoint a second news article on the subject.


----------



## munky99999 (19 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I just did a search for more info and found nothing ouside of the national post article "iran eyes badges for jews".  Sounds like inflammatory reporting unless omeone else can pinpoint a second news article on the subject.


Well I've been looking around and I can’t seem to find anything anywhere. All you have is 2 national posts. And the 1 other saying it’s not true.

All I can find is these 2 others which seem very similar; But no anti-Semitic relation at all.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-16/0605158004121559.htm
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1475/1/
Which do seem to corroborate with this one which is saying the national post is wrong?
http://www.940news.com/locale.php?news=2512

I’m tending to lean towards this being a National Post goof.


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 May 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> I’m tending to lean towards this being a National Post goof.



A goof by the management, or the writer is a goof?


----------



## AndrewS (19 May 2006)

JPost is still running the story, they picked it up off National Post.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961377561&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 May 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I couldn't help myself DOROSH so I took the liberty...Call me a dreamer, but I'd love to see the UN back a CDN-led invasion. Even better, a European invasion. It would be reaffirming to see Germany go to war to defend the rights of Jews to be free of religious persecution.
> 
> I find this rather amusing....so when is the U.S. responsible for righting the world's problems or is it to spend its blood and treasure if CDNs agree (aren't the Americans only about oil for blood and such)?  Couldn't help myself with your statement's irony.



Ahah! Keen observation!


----------



## Britney Spears (19 May 2006)

The article in canada.com has been <a href=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9070ec32-f409-4161-9e96-7bae0436ccc3&k=66789>replaced</a>



> But western journalists based in Iran told their Canadian colleagues that they were unaware of any such law.
> 
> And Iranian politicians - including a Jewish legislator in Tehran - were infuriated by the Post report, which they called false.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2006)

I've edited the subject title so as not to rile any casual readers, but so we can continue discussion.

I don't think it is any secret that the US has been considering action against Iran; they have been named as part of the Axis of Evil. My comment was meant to show support for such a move - if it became necessary. Had this allegation been true (the insignia) I would have felt it qualifies as yet another _casus belli_; not on its own, but in conjunction with other concerns. Canada couldn't lead such a move, even if we were capable of fielding an entire brigade.


----------



## couchcommander (19 May 2006)

Oh National Post - what a sorry excuse for journalism.


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 May 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The article in canada.com has been <a href=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9070ec32-f409-4161-9e96-7bae0436ccc3&k=66789>replaced</a>


Britney, I followed your link and the story seems different from what you posted...not having seen the original post, is this the first article, the second article, or a new one?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9070ec32-f409-4161-9e96-7bae0436ccc3&k=66789
Harper says Iran 'capable' of introducing Nazi-like clothing labels Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 Article tools
OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to condemn Iran on Friday for an anti-Semitic law that appears not to exist.  Harper seized on a newspaper report that said Iran's hardline government would require Jews and Christians to wear coloured labels in public.  The prime minister couldn't vouch for the accuracy of the newspaper report, but he added that Iran was capable of such actions and compared them to Nazi practices.  "Unfortunately, we've seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Harper said.  "We've seen a number of things from the Iranian regime that are along these lines . . . 
"It boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the Earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany."  But western journalists based in Iran told their Canadian colleagues that they were unaware of any such law.  And Iranian politicians - including a Jewish legislator in Tehran - were infuriated by the Post report, which they called false.  Politician Morris Motamed, one of about 25,000 Jews who live in Iran, called the report a slap in the face to his minority community.  "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament," Motamed told the Associated Press.  "Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."  Another Iranian legislator said the newspaper has distorted a bill that he presented to parliament, which calls for more conservative clothing for Muslims.  "It's a sheer lie. The rumours about this are worthless," Emad Afroogh said.  Afroogh's bill seeks to make women dress more traditionally and avoid Western fashions. Minority religious labels have nothing to do with it, he said.  "The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing," he said.  "Please tell them (the West) to check the details of the bill. There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill."  The Associated Press reported from Tehran that the draft law, which has received preliminary approval, would discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.  According to existing law, women must cover from head to toe, but many young women, buoyed by social freedoms granted to them during the 1997-2005 rule of former President Mohammad Khatami, ignore the law.  The Post's front-page story, which quoted Iranian expatriates living in Canada, made headlines around the world and was the banner story on the popular Drudge Report website in the U.S.  The story said Iran would require Jews to wear yellow labels on their clothing in an eerie reminder of the buildup to the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler forced Jews to identify themselves with yellow Star of David patches.  Christians would need to wear red labels, and Zoroastrians would be tagged with blue.  The law was still to be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenehi, the Post reported.  Calls to the Post newsroom for comment on the developments around the story was not immediately returned. 
Harper called the report a reminder that the international community must prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.  He made the remarks during a news conference in Gatineau, Que., with the visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.  Both men provided lengthy answers to a question about the report.  Harper said he had seen the story and wasn't sure if it was true, before launching into his criticism of the Iranian government.  Howard said he hadn't seen the report. In answering the question, he sprinkled qualifiers into nearly every sentence to underscore uncertainty about the accuracy of the report.  "I haven't previously heard of that," Howard said.  "If that is true I would find that totally repugnant. It obviously echoes the most horrible period of genocide in the world's history - the marking of Jewish people with a mark on their clothing by the Nazis."  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has previously described the Holocaust as a myth and has called for the destruction of the state of Israel.  Non-Muslims in Afghanistan were required to wear arm bands under the former Taliban regime.  The practice is a throwback to centuries-old rules imposed on non-Muslims living in Islamic states. Under Dhimmi law, non-Muslims were guaranteed security in exchange for paying a tax and wearing special labels on their clothing.  The U.S. government reacted with caution Friday. 
The State Department said any such measure would be "despicable" and carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler."  U.S. government statistics indicate that 98 per cent of Iranians are Islamic. Other faiths are Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i.  Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not comment further because the precise nature of the proposal is unclear.  "I don't have all the facts," he said.  © The Canadian Press 2006


----------



## Britney Spears (20 May 2006)

Ok Mr. Recce God.....can you see it now? 




> Harper says Iran 'capable' of introducing Nazi-like clothing labels Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
> Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 Article tools
> OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to condemn Iran on Friday for an anti-Semitic law that appears not to exist.  Harper seized on a newspaper report that said Iran's hardline government would require Jews and Christians to wear coloured labels in public.  The prime minister couldn't vouch for the accuracy of the newspaper report, but he added that Iran was capable of such actions and compared them to Nazi practices.  "Unfortunately, we've seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Harper said.  "We've seen a number of things from the Iranian regime that are along these lines . . .
> "It boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the Earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany." * But western journalists based in Iran told their Canadian colleagues that they were unaware of any such law.  And Iranian politicians - including a Jewish legislator in Tehran - were infuriated by the Post report, which they called false.  Politician Morris Motamed, one of about 25,000 Jews who live in Iran, called the report a slap in the face to his minority community.  "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament," Motamed told the Associated Press.  "Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."  Another Iranian legislator said the newspaper has distorted a bill that he presented to parliament, which calls for more conservative clothing for Muslims.  "It's a sheer lie. The rumours about this are worthless," Emad Afroogh said. * Afroogh's bill seeks to make women dress more traditionally and avoid Western fashions. Minority religious labels have nothing to do with it, he said.  "The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing," he said.  "Please tell them (the West) to check the details of the bill. There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill."  The Associated Press reported from Tehran that the draft law, which has received preliminary approval, would discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.  According to existing law, women must cover from head to toe, but many young women, buoyed by social freedoms granted to them during the 1997-2005 rule of former President Mohammad Khatami, ignore the law.  The Post's front-page story, which quoted Iranian expatriates living in Canada, made headlines around the world and was the banner story on the popular Drudge Report website in the U.S.  The story said Iran would require Jews to wear yellow labels on their clothing in an eerie reminder of the buildup to the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler forced Jews to identify themselves with yellow Star of David patches.  Christians would need to wear red labels, and Zoroastrians would be tagged with blue.  The law was still to be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenehi, the Post reported.  Calls to the Post newsroom for comment on the developments around the story was not immediately returned.
> ...


----------



## Britney Spears (20 May 2006)

<a href=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4&k=28534&p=2>Original Article</a>
<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri>Wiki on the originator of the hoax: Amir Taheri</a>
Not suprisingly, Mr.Taheri is also a frequent contributor to *a_majoor*'s favourite Bush/Neo-CON propaganda screed, _The National Review_. I have no doubt that this little lie will be parroted as gospel by the Naive American Population™ for years to come.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2006)

I usually cringe when it is time to renew my subscriptions to the Atlantic Monthly or the Economist, since they often feature writers prone to go half cocked as well.

What I find interesting about the subject is how fast people came out in defense of ........Iran. Certainly there was enough rhetoric coming from that nation in the recent past which should be making almost everyone with even a speck of decency cringe. While I was waiting for a confirmatory story, I will admit I didn't find this report to be particularly strange or outside of the already established behavior of the current regime.

Yet the same people, blogs and newspapers which will print the most outragious claims without stopping to verify them if they are detrimental in any way to George W Bush, the United States or the West in general are suddenly a legion of fact checkers when it is a self declared enemy of the West............The story is secondary, it is all about the messenger and the message.


----------



## Britney Spears (21 May 2006)

Yeah, the old "ask someone who's actually IN Iran" trick. Those snobby anti-semitic Ivory Tower Liberals, I tell you. What's an honest man to believe?

Of course, now I'm the one "coming to Iran's defence". Well, I might as well put on the arm band and moustache and start goose-stepping to "I hate America" eh?


----------



## xenobard (21 May 2006)

The first article was perhaps not perfectly objective according to journalism-standards; the author's personal disdain for the Iranian regime seeps through the words a bit.  Nevertheless, no where does it explicitly say that Iran passed the insignia clause of their new Islamic clothing law.  I think the first article is fine.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (21 May 2006)

I can't believe the amount of posts defending this guy.    Maybe these allegations are false but I would not be surprised if they are lying.  Iran IS an anti-Jewish nation; it is not too difficult to imagine that they would want to wipe Israel off of the map.  If anyone can't see a potentially dangerous situation occurring here then I'll provide the towels so they chould wipe the sand off their heads when they finally pull them out.


----------



## couchcommander (21 May 2006)

Indeed the situation is dangerous, which is why reports like this are unacceptable. 

It wasn't his writing style that is bad or even exactly what he said, it's the fact he didn't bother to even check with another source despite the fact that the one they had was questionable at best. Just as bad, IMO, was the fact that neither did his editors. 

Journalists SHOULD, though it seems most don't (left and right wingers included), have an obligation to a certain level of integrity. People trust them (unfoundedly) for their information. 

a_majoor - the reason so many people are all of a sudden becoming fact checkers is that big elephant in the room, and it's not because we all secretly love Iran and want america to burn. 

How does the saying go again? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? 

As far as western media and middle eastern countries go, my level of face value trust is almost nill. 

If hostilities break out between Iran and the west, a conflict which could very well involve a lot of people on this forum, I, personally, would want it to be based upon fact and a desire to better the world - not rumour, speculation, or outright lies. 

I think we owe it to those who would die carrying out their orders, and to the innocents who would, truely, be the most affected.


----------



## couchcommander (21 May 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I agree, too bad the same journalistic standards aren't used when their are negative articles written about the U.S. that turn out to be totally false!



unfortunate indeed


----------



## mdh (21 May 2006)

> I agree, too bad the same journalistic standards aren't used when their are negative articles written about the U.S. that turn out to be totally false!



+1


----------



## JBP (21 May 2006)

If this has any truth to it, it sends HUGE warning bells off to me... 

Anyone who has read "Shake Hands with the Devil" - about Rowanda, will know why. The people who were being slain in the genocide were all required to have "government" id cards listing thier heritage as either 1 or the other. 1 being the slaughterer and the other the slaughtered... 

This was done so that those orchestrating the slaughter knew who they were going after ahead of time. Anyone see a similarity???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 May 2006)

All I see is a lot of hyperboyle over an unsubstantiated rumour.


----------



## xenobard (22 May 2006)

> It wasn't his writing style that is bad or even exactly what he said, it's the fact he didn't bother to even check with another source despite the fact that the one they had was questionable at best. Just as bad, IMO, was the fact that neither did his editors.



Whether or not he needed another source is not the issue.  He never said Iran passed a law making religious minorities wear insignias.  

What happened was that an old law stipulating the dress-code for Shite Muslims was "unblocked".  The claim the author of the article is making is that there is embedded in this old law a proposal for infidels to wear insignias on their clothing identifying to which religion they belonged.  Therefore, the author is perfectly justified in saying: 





> It [the law] also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public.


  The word "envisages" is the verb - a rather vague usage for the severity of this topic to say the least, but nevertheless technically accurate.

Later on in the article you'll also notice that he uses only conditional language when referring to how the insignia proposal might affect religious minorities living in Iran. - a lot of ifs, woulds, and wills.  It is clearly in the context of such conditional language that he writes: 





> Religious minorities would have their own colour schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar. It is not clear what will happen to followers of other religions, including Hindus, Bahais and Buddhists, not to mention plain agnostics and atheists, whose very existence is denied by the Islamic Republic.


  The conditional in all this is: if they follow the proposal.

What I find far more interesting is how Iranian officials responded to the article.

They attempt to refute it saying that they never discussed such an idea in parliament: 





> Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament.


(JP article) 
Sure, like they'd ever discuss something like that openly in parliament. If ever they were to draft such a proposal they'd try and slip  the bill through embedded in some obscure sub-paragraph and make sure no members of parliment notice it. 

They also tried to refute the claim saying that the proposal isn't in the bill: 





> "The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing," he said. "Please tell them (in the West) to check the details of the bill.


"(JP Article)  Well, no doubt.  I'm sure _now_ it isn't in the bill.  A Canadian journalist found it, reported it, and now they're having to go back and change it to cover their tracks. Good.

The point is that I honestly can't see the article expressly lying about anything.  The only indication that it does is because some Iranian officials just say so.

Lastly, all this controversy has only served to cast a shade of doubt on the truly important fact of the matter: Iran is going to make its Muslim civilians wear Islamic uniforms, and this will leave minorities of other religions automatically identifiable with or without insignias.


----------



## TCBF (22 May 2006)

These people lie every time their lips move.

Tom


----------



## couchcommander (22 May 2006)

xenobard said:
			
		

> Whether or not he needed another source is not the issue.  He never said Iran passed a law making religious minorities wear insignias.



To me it's not _exactly_ what was said that's the issue. I mean I could send in an op ed piece:

"Conservative government may be considering eating your babies!"

Oh, you mean their not? Well I used the conditional. 

My point being several pronged:

a) a lot of people will completely miss the "may" "would" "if" and read "Conservative government considering eating your babies!", and in fact if you look up and down this thread, that's what a lot of people got out of it

b) once again, trusting a single, very unreputable source for something as potentially explosive as this is irresponsible, and I would say that if this was "Iran has no nukes" or "Iran has lots of nukes". 

In the end, the point of the article was to try and paint Iran in a certain light without any real factual basis for it, and on that note I really don't care precisely what semantics he used to ensure he couldn't be sued - that was the intent and that was the message that was conveyed. 

IMO anywho.


----------



## xenobard (23 May 2006)

Conditionals imply a certain level of probability that an event will happen in the future.  Measuring the level of that probability always involves a certain amount of guess-work, in which one may consider any number of variables which only a few will have any direct impact on the actuality of that future event.  It is thus a subjective, intuitive mental process which the individual reader to works out for him or herself.  This is why the author didn't indicate the likelihood of religious minorities actually being forced to wear the insignias.  It would have been just an educated guess on his part; merely his own opinion if he had done so; it wouldn't have been a news story but rather only an editorial.  

As a journalist, his job is to present the facts and let the reader develop his or her own opinion.  It is the reader's responsibility to determine for him or herself the likelihood of religious minorities being forced to wear identifying insignias, not only from this article mind you but also from other knowledge, other news stories, other experts' opinions and arguments.  When people on this forum state their own opinions regarding this news story, some posters have come to believe that that there is indeed a high likelihood of Iran passing and enforcing such a law. Others, on the otherhand dismiss the possibility.  In every case it is a subjective judgement call made each individual reader.  

For it to be an accurate judgement, however, one needs to develop their opinion into a comprehensive fact-based understanding of the broader picture.  The responsible reader will conduct their own personal research into whether or not Iran passed / might try to pass such a law. One might even consider whether or not there exists in Iran a level of anti-semitism that would place a social pressure on religious minorities to in fact 'voluntarily' wear such insignias even without a formal law mandating them to do so.  At the very least, the responsible reader will ask themselves, "Would the Iranian regime actually try to pass a law like this?  Do I know enough about Iran to even have an opinion on this question?  I don't?  Well, I better find out some more about this then."  It is ultimately the reader's responsibility to be as informed as possible about such an important issue.  And, personally, I think most readers are that responsible.


----------



## paracowboy (23 May 2006)

it is the journalist's responsibility to present FACT in an unbiased manner. Not to spew crap in order to sell advertisements. That is the job of the Fifth Estate. They are, instead the Fifth Column.  : No matter which "side" they may be on, the fact that they have one, and present it, shows they are hardly impartial purveyors of information.



			
				xenobard said:
			
		

> And, personally, I think most readers are that responsible.


And you would be horribly wrong.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2006)

The source article for the National post story

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19504

the author stands by his work

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19508

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19511


----------



## TCBF (24 May 2006)

"As a journalist, his job is to present the facts and let the reader develop his or her own opinion."

- As a journalist, his job is to do what his boss tells him to do or get fired.

Tom


----------



## Wizard of OZ (24 May 2006)

They do what they do to make money, sell papers, get people to watch their shows or whatever other medium they are.  

They did run an apology on the story today allbe it on page two.  Hmmp not on the front page?  Apologies don't sell papers.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 May 2006)

On reading the apology on page 2 I noticed that all the sources cited were contacted were secondary ones and most had no presence in the government of Iran. Furthermore the editors decided to run the story before a reply had been received from the Iranian Embassy. To paraphrase Don Cherry, 'Kids, don't ever, ever think that secondary sources are reliable, especially if they have an agenda."


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2006)

While there are a lot of "told you so's" and mela cupas in the media and blogosphere, one reason the story got as much traction as it did without verification was the fact that this sort of behavior is not outside the boundries of the *already documented* statements and behaviour of the Iranian government.

Imagine if the headline was "Arsonist caught with Fireworks". Would you find that headline strange or extraordinary?

We can hope that there was not a grain of truth in the story, and hope even more the Iranian people will settle their accounts with the Theocracy and Revolutionary Guard sooner rather than later, but I expect there will be similar stories coming from Iran in the future.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 May 2006)

You are right majoor, with Iran nothing they could say would really suprise me.  That country does not know what the right hand is doing while looking at their left.

That is still no excuse for a major Western paper with resources and credibility on the line printing a story before verifying the story.  That is the mistake made here.  And now Canada and Harper will have to face the music for its "free enterprise" papers who instead of telling the truth/fact, run with a rumour or second hand information.


----------



## xenobard (30 May 2006)

> That is still no excuse for a major Western paper with resources and credibility on the line printing a story before verifying the story.  That is the mistake made here.  And now Canada and Harper will have to face the music for its "free enterprise" papers who instead of telling the truth/fact, run with a rumour or second hand information.



Personally, I don't think it is really isn't that big a deal.  Harper basically responded to the article basically saying that if the story is true (notice the conditional), he wouldn't be surprised, which is pretty much the same thing we're all saying.

Granted, the story isn't strongly fact based, but I don't think it ever truly claimed to be in the first place.  

Well, anyway, I think we've beaten this horse to death, eh?  

I guess the reason I have taken to defending this particular article is because I have noticed quite a lot of disdain for the press throughout posts on this forum.  Personally, I tend to think that much of this cynicism and disdain towards the press is taken a bit too far.


----------



## Xoshua (2 Jun 2006)

Well, I would think they would not bomb Iran because of the oils but then again I could be wrong.  It's sick though, it definetly sounds like Nazis with Nukes.  Something will happen soon, no doubt, my question is, what will Canada do?


----------



## tamouh (4 Jun 2006)

i'd think Nazi with Nukes is a far fetch for Iran, at least there is a large Jewish group in Iran that actually support the nuclear program! Iran Nukes will be really nothing but self defense because no matter how crazy you are, you wouldn't want to hit Israel with 2-3 nukes just to get hit back with 20-30 nukes! Even Pakistan and India understood this concept long time ago.

What we want to do is ensure these nukes don't get in the hand of criminals and terrorists who'll not hesist to use it for their own self pleasing purposes!


----------



## Wizard of OZ (5 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> i'd think Nazi with Nukes is a far fetch for Iran, at least there is a large Jewish group in Iran that actually support the nuclear program! Iran Nukes will be really nothing but self defense because no matter how crazy you are, you wouldn't want to hit Israel with 2-3 nukes just to get hit back with 20-30 nukes! Even Pakistan and India understood this concept long time ago.
> 
> What we want to do is ensure these nukes don't get in the hand of criminals and terrorists who'll not hesist to use it for their own self pleasing purposes!



And how do you do that.  Hell Russia is having a hard time keeping count of their nuclear leftovers right now and they are a more likely target for internal terrorist then the US.  I think this is a problem that has to be snipped before it gets a chance to come to a head, kinda like a boil.   But then how do you do that?  Through arms or through political pressure? or something a little more sneaky?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2006)

Came across this gem while surfing.  It was on the RAWA site "Revolutionary Association for Women of Afghanistan".  Fighting for women's rights since 1977 and a well respected and connected association of the Left. 

It was found amongst a list of the restrictions imposed on women in Afghanistan by the Taliban.



> - Non-Muslim minorities must distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what did Nazis with Jews.



http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

Scroll to the bottom of the list.

I believe lawyers might suggest that this goes to show a pattern of behaviour.

Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2006)

I suspect that a group had presented a draft law including these clauses, but even they knew it would create a sh*t storm with the local population and it is stalled or withdrawn. Of course since they don't release much information it's hard to confirm one way or another. Also have read that the Jews there keep a low profile and work hard not to antagonize the government, for oblivious reasons


----------



## mustialwaysremember (9 Jun 2006)

The day Jews in Iran wear the star of David is the day that Persians wear their own insignia in every nation.


----------



## mustialwaysremember (9 Jun 2006)

Never will Jews ever wear the Star.


----------

