Monday, May 22, 2006

Update: the dress code rumor

Via Dr. Zin of Regime Change Iran, here's an update on the Iranian dress code story, from the Canadian newspaper that originally published it.

The gist of the most recent information seems to be this:

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.

Mr. Kermanian said the subject of “what to do with religious minorities” came up during debates leading up to the passing of the dress code law.

“It is possible that some ideas might have been thrown around,” he said. “But to the best of my knowledge the final version of the law does not demand any identifying marks by the religious minority groups.”

Ali Reza Nourizadeh, an Iranian commentator on political affairs in London, suggested that the requirements for badges or insignia for religious minorities was part of a “secondary motion” introduced in parliament, addressing the changes specific to the attire of people of various religious backgrounds.

Mr. Nourizadeh said that motion was very minor and was far from being passed into law.

That account could not be confirmed.

So far, the whole thing seems to be on the order of a rumor that was allowed to pass muster and be published in Toronto's National Post, as well as to be given voice by Amir Taheri. I have a small wish (or maybe it's not so small): that newspapers, both on the left and the right and in the middle, do more fact and source checking before they publish the news that we all rely on.

Roger Simon has further thoughts on the matter.

[ADDENDUM: Taheri, one of the original disseminators of the rumor, has put out a further statement.]


At 3:43 AM, May 23, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

ok so you have been removing posts again. Hope that was because of yrmdwnkre and not me :-)

The point remains that, even though the story was not impossible, you were very keen to leap on this it and I argue, not accuse, that this shows an over willingness to believe bad things about muslims.

There is a real tendency for all to dismiss the MSM and look for stories from the web which simply agree with their point of view. This in turn increases the polarisation of opinion in the US

At 8:37 AM, May 23, 2006, Blogger nyomythus said...

Neo-neocon, it's all good to write about a breaking story, especially as you did with a clear note saying "This story may be false -- It may be untrue, etc...". It would be like hearing a story that fishermen were illegally netting rare sea turtles. At first, I would tend to believe it. [no moral equivalence here just a simple analogy in regards to "what's believable”] The professional thing is to remain cool and critical until corroborated evidence emerges. We know that dress codes for non-Muslims are built in to Islam – it is not a stretch from the unbelievable.

At 12:39 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

i have reposted the post that was removed, not to annoy neo but because it expresses what i meant a little more coherently than the one above

ok neo, but does it not occur to you that you are all too willing to believe anything bad about Iran in order to support your negative view of Islam. You adopt this pose of distant objectivity, but this little incident has shown you as anything but.

As for the media, some of them are doing the same as you, some are trying their best under difficult circumstancs - after all it wasn't an entirely unlikely story, but none have a complete claim to objectivity.

In the end we live in a great deal of uncertainty. Given that a bit of caution and a willingness to believe that we might actually be wrong is always helpful.

A blanket refusal to believe the "mainstream mass media" and a total credulity about any website/blog that holds opinions we share can only be dangerous, and may go some way to explain the polarisation of belief in contemporary US poltics.

not so offensive

At 12:48 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger nyomythus said...

You're confusing "willing to believe" with "willing to consider" [and based on high probability] ... The reservations of the report, which she cited, points directly to the latter. The spin stops here.

At 1:05 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

ok change it to "willing to consider" and the predisposition remains. And i don't just mean neo. This is standard blogging approach. I do wonder if it is leading to polarisation. From reading blogs, newspapers and soe us cable us politics does seem very bitter and divided.

At 1:11 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

There's 3 or 4 levels of aggravation, past a certain point I simply stop tolerating it.

There's the direct ad hominem attacks which includes lying, ridiculing, and otherwise acting like a kid in kindergarten.

One level up from that, is supporting and defending regimes like Iran.

Another level up from that, is saying things like this

not really a nice compromise as it is simply a roundabout way to argue that all revolutions are wrong apart from the American one.

What other revolutions are considered acceptable? And what shoudl be the reaction of those people who findthemselves the victim of oppression? Passivity? Acceptance that a revolution will only make things worse?

When people act like they're the ones looking out for the interests of the oppressed, and then support and defend regimes like Iran cause they're too busy attacking people who attack Iran, then that's level 3 aggravation.

Level 4 aggravation is what happens when all 3 is in one person, and they're talking to me.

When you sit down and actually read about what Iran and regimes like Iran, is doing. It is hard to believe there really is a human conscience operating for people to prioritize attacking neo-cons and AMericans, and not only ignore Iranian oppression but actually defend and justify it as being harmless.

Hypocrisy up to a point, is fine. Then it's funny. But past a certain point, it just cannot be tolerated.

These three links provide some perspective on Iran

At 1:28 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger nyomythus said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 1:30 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger nyomythus said...

Division is good in the intellectual spheres -- the last thing I want is intellectual homogeny, which is exactly what we have in academia. This is probably because academia is a self-purging enterprise while media is purged when the people reject the product. [That product being bogus reporting/analysis] America academics, principally in the humanities, anything goes – and so they are forced protect them selves through absolute unifying homogeny, which is as sad for the students and the tax payers because the product is not being delivered – that product being a liberal education. On the other hand, American scholarship in the hard sciences and technology are untouchably incomparable to the rest of the world’s universities.

At 1:48 PM, May 23, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Saddam's arms and munitions (conventional, biological and chemical) were paid for by the good old freedom lovers at Uncle Sam's ranch and their whacky pals the House of Saud.

More than that, the US directly struck Iranian civilian targets, blasted a civilian aircraft on a scheduled daily flight out of the sky and blockaded its oil exports for Ronnie Raygun's "rock in the middle east".

And you wonder why they don't like you and they feel a touch threatened by the western world.

Comment by Confud. Just some stuff that demonstrates people who support and defend Iran by attacking people who attack Iran. Even Saddam, they defend, by attacking those who attacked Saddam, which would be us. So the logic seems to go, Iran is good cause America attacked Saddam and Saddam attacked Iran...

Or rather, Iran is good cause Saddam was bad for attacking Iran, and Saddam is good because America is bad for attacking Saddam. So confusing.

At 2:24 AM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

The only confusing thing is the confused misinterpretation and false extrapolation of my comments.

Yours and Sally's deliberate lies are not confusing at all though. Character assassination (there's a word that probably has you reaching for the tissues) is the the refuge of the intellectually feeble and the morally culpable.

Your gang in Washington are masters (in an American kind of way). Some of us have scruples.

At 2:45 AM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Character assassination consists of laying claims against your opponent, instead of defending or explaining your own position on Saddam, Iran, and the UN.

So basically, instead of explaining what you believe and why you believe in it, you talk about other people's characters. In essence, character assassination. I prefer real assassination, it is a lot cleaner.

At 5:15 AM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

So under this logic, if I were to witness a person being attacked and I then stepped in to defend him or her from said attacker then I would be attacking the attacker no matter what my action or lack thereof toward them even if the said attacker ran off before I arrived. Then presumably I should be ridiculed and prosecuted for my defense of said attackee.

Under that situation it would be best to pretend not to have seen anything, not help and run away.

I know that is what you would do Yboy.

At 11:45 AM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

character assassination has few if anything to do with defending people. What kind of logic do you think you're using?

At 1:37 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

Character assassination (there's a word that probably has you reaching for the tissues) is the the refuge of the intellectually feeble and the morally culpable.

People like you, in other words? It's always amusing to see someone attack random people on the street that aren't the slightest bit hostile. You should probably work on those people skills some, before venturing into the real world. You might also want to give clozapine a shot.

At 4:39 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Well, on reflection Justin, my attack on you was unjustified and intolerant, I apologise unreservedly.

In mitigation I can only say that I had been reduced to anger by the false accusations against me by others (in lieu of the ability to argue factually).


At 5:07 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

It's still open season on Ymar, so bring it on.

At 5:14 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Explain the BBC comment.

At 7:21 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

What BBC comment? Did you see a bbc comment, i didn't see a bbc comment, did anyone else?

At 7:57 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

I've asked you several times what is a "supporter of the BBC" and what one of those does. I chose to question one of many outright bizzarre statements you've made.

Please answer it.

At 10:29 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Supporter of the BBC means exactly that. Someone who believes and supports the BBC's function as they have outlined it. No different from the CBC or the ABC.

When you're characterizing Fox as the end all and be all to bad journalism, there's a really bad bias when either your information or your beliefs come from an organization like the BBC.

I really don't answer questions when they're part of the insult package, and I've already said this to SB and many others.

Forgive me as you will probably think I am a bit naive with my questions to you. I am trying to understand the seeming prevailing political psyche within the US. A lot of us in the outside world just don't get what is driving you.

I said,

"What is it that the US public actually thinks Iran has done wrong to the point of being threatened with a nuclear strike?"

Taking our embassy hostage. Aiding Hezbollah in blowing up our Marine barracks killing more in one attack than any single IED or suicide bomber has in Iraq on US troops. Sending money and destabilization agents into Iraq. Hanging a teenaged girl for being raped. Oh you know, the usual things that will piss off the Jacksonian segment of America.

As I've pointed out before to our Brit visitors. America has had a very successful history of using wars to solve our problems. Revolutionary War solved independence from Britain. Civil War solved slavery for us. WWII solved fascism. Cold War solved communism. You get the picture. Compare this to what the rest of the world accomplishes with war. Zippo, you get zip, in terms of success. Any other country tries to do war, they just make the world more of a mess.

You can believe its engineered, but that's not how 85% of America sees it as.

You said,

Oh, OK. So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation. I'm not on the side of the mullahs or anyone else, but the Iranian revolution came about because the Shah's regime was an incredibly brutal period in a country with a very long history and a proud culture.
Sorry to be a little abrasive about this, but I did find your response to my genuine question, a touch arrogant and dismissive. Tally ho.

Elvis said,

arrogant and dismissive is kinda the neo con norm.....get used to it.
[...]oh and ignore yrmdwnkr - he is truly out there on his own....check out his blog, highly comical. all sci-fi and war games

Note who started calling people names after I had answered in a calm response to your "genuine question".
You said,

I did look at the young Y man's blog and I agree with you, I don't think I'll get much insight there. Apparently, 6 billion people are jealous of his power and money.

Apparently answering questions gets repaid with snarky remarks about my power and money.

I said in reply,

"So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation."

Something like that, but with Bush his motives are not personal but solely about WMDs. He believes Iran is a threat, Bush however is an internationalist, he believes in the UN and in Europe. Most of America actually are not very confident in the UN. Sure, there's the 22% on our Left that always favors the UN, but you're always going to have someone favor something in any poll.

Bush could easily have destroyed the UN after Oil for Food was found out, and taken retributive action against Iran free of any international barriers, but he didn't. A lot of Americans regret that. I know I do.

"Where will it end?

It'll end when one side wins. When was Europe's wars going to end? When America stepped in and Ended it For Them. That's when.

Not a lot of people actually believe Bush is sincere, but he actually is. You won't get any real grasp on American policy until you accept that premise. Unlike Europe, Americans elect their President directly by a modified popular vote. We don't vote for the Republicans and the Republicans elect Bush themselves like a Parliamentary system would do in Europe. This means Bush's policies are not Congressional but rather sourced from the people, the base of power.

Confud's reply,

You are pretty offensive for someone so young and obviously untravelled. That sort of stuff usually takes years of practice. But, you are confusing me for someone who will respond to your racist claptrap. Two pieces of advice for you though. You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy. FOX news may tell you what you want to hear, but it won't way you down with any facts.
The second is, that if you are going to spin a yarn, there needs to be an element of truth somewhere in there. Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

Don't even start on people not answering your questions Confud, don't even start. You really don't want to know where I can take it.

At 10:35 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

While I appreciate the general "outreach" from confud and conned, I'm not like other people around here. In that well, I actually extended them an olive branch, and they refused it. Lock stock and barrel.

I'm too much of a Jacksonian just to reinvent the honor code at whim.

At 10:47 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Hmm, I think their charter as a public service broadcaster is to report the news no matter to whom it is palatable or not, in as unbiased and even handed way as is possible. No news organisation can be perfect as people always have a tendency toward one side, all they can do is be as fair as possible and have the checks and balances in place. I would think that the BBC has as much integrity as any anywhere.

They'll probably get a US rpg somewhere for it like Al Jazeera but what the hey.

You should google the recent report regarding perceived pro-Palestinian bias. Interesting and revealing.

Fox news is a profit driven news organization controlled by a known megalomaniac editorial meddler with a pretty blatant agenda.

At 10:49 PM, May 24, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

As for the rest of it you see Yfronts, you didn't actually answer the question at all and your long ramblings I just can't be bothered reading. All the Jacksonian stuff is soporific. Being a Disneynian would be more interesting.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger