PDA

View Full Version : Iran passes law requiring badges for Jews, Christians


Cochise
05-19-2006, 12:16 PM
Iran eyes badges for Jews
Law would require non-Muslim insignia

Chris Wattie
National Post

<img src="http://media.canada.com/canwest/149/star.jpg?size=l" width="210" height="210" border="0">

Friday, May 19, 2006

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said.

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

"We are not here to answer such questions."

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called "chilling," and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

"There are some very frightening parallels here," he said. "It's time to start considering how we're going to deal with this person."

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but Tehran believed by Western nations to be developing its own nuclear military capability, in defiance of international protocols and peace treaties.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

cwattie@nationalpost.com

© National Post 2006

jiveturkey
05-19-2006, 12:29 PM
I demand that all muslim Iranians wear target badges.

Make it so number 2.

Taco John
05-19-2006, 12:38 PM
I wonder how the thought process goes there...

"Hmmm... I wonder what we could do to make us look as close to Hitler as possible. Anyone got any ideas?"

Taco John
05-19-2006, 12:41 PM
"Little moustaches! Let's all grow little moustaches!"

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 12:52 PM
Doesn't it bother you that you have to get up in the morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of flair? You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 01:08 PM
Will the anti-religion, in particular Christianity, left have Christians wear large yellow crosses on them? Particularly, when they vote at the polls. Or would that also violate the "Establishment" clause too?

Hydrae
05-19-2006, 01:08 PM
This is what you get with an out of control Theocracy.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 01:11 PM
Was pre WWII Germany a theocracy?
It was a democracy.

Hydrae
05-19-2006, 01:33 PM
Was pre WWII Germany a theocracy?
It was a democracy.

I never said anything about comparing to Germany. There are similarities with the law but I don't think this is the rise of Nazism again either.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 01:35 PM
I know you didn't say anything about Germany...I did.
Just got me thinkin' that it doesn't have to be a theocracy to institute such measures... was what came to my mind immediately.

Hydrae
05-19-2006, 01:47 PM
I know you didn't say anything about Germany...I did.
Just got me thinkin' that it doesn't have to be a theocracy to institute such measures... was what came to my mind immediately.

True, it does not take a theocracy. However that is how it sounds to me, we will discriminate against all those who do not follow the state religion. Germany targetted a small portion of the population (Jews, Gypsies and gays in particular) while Iran is actually doing the opposite, they are targetting those that do not fit their definition. Exclusionary as opposed to inclusionary.

Donger
05-19-2006, 01:53 PM
Ah. Full circle. For ten points, who knows the etymology of 'Aryan'?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 02:02 PM
Ah. Full circle. For ten points, who knows the etymology of 'Aryan'?


hehe...I do. I looked that up once.

Hydrae
05-19-2006, 02:03 PM
Ah. Full circle. For ten points, who knows the etymology of 'Aryan'?


Off the top of my head, I do not know the etymology of the word but I know that this is an ancient race that probably started in India and was very strong in Persia. I thought of that connection as well. :)

Amnorix
05-19-2006, 02:30 PM
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZnfIkQ1BYuvCTM:capefeare.com/hitler.gif

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 02:46 PM
Was pre WWII Germany a theocracy?
It was a democracy.
Care to dilineate the differences between a theocracy and an ethnocracy?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 03:03 PM
No because I didn't say ethnocracy.
Germany was a democracy and Hitler got into power using it's own legal constitutional mechanisms to gain power. It may have become something else afterwards. But it wasn't before. And a lot of people liked him.

In a democracy you can have majority rule and you can have the "tyranny of the majority"...ever hear of that?

Democracy is no guarantee of freedom or even freedom from oppression. I mean we had slavery and Dred Scott was considered property. If a majority wants to lynch a black person then in a puredemocracy that can happen. That's what I mean by the "tyranny of the majority." Ben Franklin and Madision discussed these points as felt it was one of the worst forms of govt.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 03:55 PM
Will the anti-religion, in particular Christianity, left have Christians wear large yellow crosses on them? Particularly, when they vote at the polls. Or would that also violate the "Establishment" clause too?
What in the **** are you talking about? Some times you just look completely stupid and worthlessly petty. WAAAAAAY too much like Tom Cash.

(/rant)

Cochise
05-19-2006, 03:58 PM
Hitler got into power using it's own legal constitutional mechanisms to gain power.

It requires a willing public like Adolf Jr. has in Iran.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:01 PM
It requires a willing public like Adolf Jr. has in Iran.

That's part of my point.
Democracy is not a gaurantee of good govt.

Cochise
05-19-2006, 04:14 PM
That's part of my point.
Democracy is not a gaurantee of good govt.

Do you have a better solution?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:20 PM
Yep!

memyselfI
05-19-2006, 04:46 PM
Actually, this is what happens when fanatical and fundamentalist people are in power with no checks and balances...

memyselfI
05-19-2006, 04:51 PM
Ah. Full circle. For ten points, who knows the etymology of 'Aryan'?

Iranians are not Arabs. :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 05:13 PM
.....people are in power with no checks and balances...

BINGO!

Even our system, is not a pure democracy but has checks and balances built into it, including on the people, not just on the 3 branches. It's a representative republic governed by a constitution that protects the rights of the minority against the majority on certain things. The people make the laws in a democracy which we don't do and governs by majority. There really is this key difference.

Anyhow, if leaders from such a system can only be as good as the people. People can still elect leaders that will slaughter them. No system is perfect though...but constant alertness helps.

Adept Havelock
05-19-2006, 05:19 PM
"Ist you all indoctrinated?""

Jawohl!

"Ist you all good little Nazis?"

"Jawohl!!"

"Ist you all good little Adolfs?

"JAWOHL!!!"

Then everyone turns around to salute the guard, Shultz. Every right arm extends, everyone screams "Zieg Heil!"—and everyone has their hair combed down over their right eye, and each has a Hitler mustache.

Donger
05-19-2006, 05:28 PM
Iranians are not Arabs. :hmmm:

Are you serious?

CHIEF4EVER
05-19-2006, 05:29 PM
Are you serious?

They're Persians.

Donger
05-19-2006, 05:30 PM
They're Persians.

Yeah, I know. I thought mememe was asking that.

Mememe, what are you saying?

CHIEF4EVER
05-19-2006, 05:30 PM
"Ist you all indoctrinated?""

Jawohl!

"Ist you all good little Nazis?"

"Jawohl!!"

"Ist you all good little Adolfs?

"JAWOHL!!!"

Then everyone turns around to salute the guard, Shultz. Every right arm extends, everyone screams "Zieg Heil!"—and everyone has their hair combed down over their right eye, and each has a Hitler mustache.

"Klink, you eedeeot! How about a new assignment to ze RUSSIAN FRONT!" ROFL

jAZ
05-19-2006, 05:33 PM
BINGO!

Even our system, is not a pure democracy but has checks and balances built into it, including on the people, not just on the 3 branches. It's a representative republic governed by a constitution that protects the rights of the minority against the majority on certain things. The people make the laws in a democracy which we don't do and governs by majority. There really is this key difference.

Anyhow, if leaders from such a system can only be as good as the people. People can still elect leaders that will slaughter them. No system is perfect though...but constant alertness helps.
Sometimes I agree with you completely. Other times? Well...

In this case, I can't agree more.

Consider the above in the context of the campaign against one of the 3 branches of government... the "Activist Judges" campaign, where people try to smear the protection of the minority through our courts as an attack on Democracy.

A balance what's required, and an ability to put blind, ideological rhetoric aside.

memyselfI
05-19-2006, 05:35 PM
Yeah, I know. I thought mememe was asking that.

Mememe, what are you saying?

I'm making the etymology connection you were looking for.

Adept Havelock
05-19-2006, 05:41 PM
"Klink, you eedeeot! How about a new assignment to ze RUSSIAN FRONT!" ROFL

Stalag 17 and Hogan's Heroes. Two of my favorites. :thumb:

Adept Havelock
05-19-2006, 05:44 PM
BINGO!

Even our system, is not a pure democracy but has checks and balances built into it, including on the people, not just on the 3 branches. It's a representative republic governed by a constitution that protects the rights of the minority against the majority on certain things. The people make the laws in a democracy which we don't do and governs by majority. There really is this key difference.

Anyhow, if leaders from such a system can only be as good as the people. People can still elect leaders that will slaughter them. No system is perfect though...but constant alertness helps.
Very true. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Old Abe.
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Loki
05-19-2006, 05:47 PM
sounds like a wonderfully tolerant system.

WTG iran!!! :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
05-19-2006, 05:50 PM
This isn't anything new. In their Hadith, people of other faiths were forced to wear distinguishing insignia and follow draconian rules. Very tolerant and loving people.

Adept Havelock
05-19-2006, 06:07 PM
And another article from the same source. :shrug:

At this point, neither would surprise me if it was true. The Wiesenthal endorsement of the original story lends some credibility for me, but it would lend considerably more if old Simon was still with us. I know his character, but little about those running it nowdays.

Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue

Chris Wattie
National Post
Friday, May 19, 2006


Several experts are casting doubt on reports that Iran had passed a law requiring the country’s Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims. The Iranian embassy in Otttawa also denied the Iranian government had passed such a law.
A news story and column by Iranian-born analyst Amir Taheri in yesterday’s National Post reported that the Iranian parliament had passed a sweeping new law this week outlining proper dress for Iran’s majority Muslims, including an order for Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear special strips of cloth.
According to the reports, Jews were to wear yellow cloth strips, called zonnar, while Christians were to wear red and Zoroastrians blue.
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.
Hormoz Ghahremani, a spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, said in an e-mail to the Post yesterday that, “We wish to categorically reject the news item.
“These kinds of slanderous accusations are part of a smear campaign against Iran by vested interests, which needs to be denounced at every step.”
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.
Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli expert on Iran and the Middle East who was born and raised in Tehran, said yesterday that he was unable to find any evidence that such a law had been passed.
“None of my sources in Iran have heard of this,” he said. “I don’t know where this comes from.”
Mr. Javdanfar said that not all clauses of the law had been passed through the parliament and said the requirement that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians wear special insignia might be part of an older version of the Islamic dress law, which was first written two years ago.
“In any case, there is no way that they could have forced Iranian Jews to wear this,” he added. “The Iranian people would never stand for it.”
However, Mr. Kermanian added that Jews in Iran still face widespread, systematic discrimination. “For example if they sell food they have to identify themselves and their shops as non-Muslim,” he said.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, acknowledged that he did not have independent confirmation of the requirement for Jews to wear badges, but said he still believes it was passed.
“We know that the national uniform law was passed and that certain colours were selected for Jews and other minorities,” he said. “[But] if the Iranian government is going to pass such a law then they are not likely to be forthcoming about what they are doing.”
Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, said yesterday that Iran is “very capable” of enacting such a law but could not confirm reports that members of religious minorities must wear identifiable markers on their clothing.
“Unfortunately we’ve seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action,” Mr. Harper said. “It boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the earth would want to do anything that would remind people of Nazi Germany.”
National Post, with files from Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
© National Post 2006

Sully
05-20-2006, 08:05 AM
The Star had a story buried in it today that said this whole thing wasn't true.

Adept Havelock
05-20-2006, 09:47 AM
The Star had a story buried in it today that said this whole thing wasn't true.
I saw that. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a little Hearst-esque "Yellow Journalism"? After all, "their like Hitler!" was a pretty good rallying cry for GW I and II. Or the false reports from GW I that the Iraqi's were pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to ship the incubators back to Iraq. SSDD.

:hmmm:

I expect the drumbeat to increase in intensity right up till Late Sep through Oct. After all.....
From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.
War as a "product"? Oy. What a pity they junked SAC's old motto when they folded them into Strategic Command.

patteeu
05-20-2006, 11:04 AM
I saw that. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a little Hearst-esque "Yellow Journalism"? After all, "their like Hitler!" was a pretty good rallying cry for GW I and II. Or the false reports from GW I that the Iraqi's were pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to ship the incubators back to Iraq. SSDD.

:hmmm:

I expect the drumbeat to increase in intensity right up till Late Sep through Oct. After all.....War as a "product"? Oy. What a pity they junked SAC's old motto when they folded them into Strategic Command.

Just for the sake of context, "they're like Hitler [or the Nazis]" and has been used by Republicans and democrats alike in lots of recent conflicts (e.g. against Serbia, the Palestinians, the Israelis, the US etc.)

htismaqe
05-20-2006, 11:16 AM
Just for the sake of context, "they're like Hitler [or the Nazis]" and has been used by Republicans and democrats alike in lots of recent conflicts (e.g. against Serbia, the Palestinians, the Israelis, the US etc.)

It's unfortunately like the little boy who cried "wolf!"

This IS just like the Nazis, but we've heard it so much that the general populace is likely to throw up their arms and not care...

patteeu
05-20-2006, 11:33 AM
It's unfortunately like the little boy who cried "wolf!"

This IS just like the Nazis, but we've heard it so much that the general populace is likely to throw up their arms and not care...

I agree.

Frankie
05-20-2006, 12:11 PM
I hold my judgement until I know more about the qualifications of this source. Is there any other source?

banyon
05-20-2006, 12:40 PM
This is a lot like the story of Saddam murdering the babies in the hospital before Gulf War I, that was ultimately untrue, but help enflame people's passions who didn't both to read the correction story.

I think it's false. Surely no one could make this blatant an homage to the Third Reich unwittingly.

Frankie
05-20-2006, 12:59 PM
This is a lot like the story of Saddam murdering the babies in the hospital before Gulf War I, that was ultimately untrue, but help enflame people's passions who didn't both to read the correction story.

I think it's false. Surely no one could make this blatant an homage to the Third Reich unwittingly.
I would think it is too.

stevieray
05-20-2006, 01:37 PM
too funny, if these were badges for homosexuals, the usual suspects would jump on the cross.before they could post.

Logical
05-20-2006, 01:40 PM
Actually, this is what happens when fanatical and fundamentalist people are in power with no checks and balances...:clap::clap::clap:

Gee I wonder who wants to destroy our system of checks and balance, I wonder who has almost single handedly made me decide I need to vote for a Democrat for my next congressman almost regardless of his overall views to help ensure the Republicans no longer control all of congress. I know, I know, Jim is being and has been an alarmist on this destruction of the checks and balances for many, many months now, don't listen it is only a rant to grab attention.

Logical
05-20-2006, 01:45 PM
too funny, if these were badges for homosexuals, the usual suspects would jump on the cross.before they could post.In all honesty I am not sure who you are castigating. The side who who bashes Bush normally would be who I associate with you saying usual suspects but they would also be the first to be against badges for homosexuals. Second jump on the cross sounds like a Christian reference to me, yet that group is pretty much equally divided between believers and non-believers.

Could you try to be a little less cryptic Stevie?

stevieray
05-20-2006, 01:52 PM
In all honesty I am not sure who you are castigating. The side who who bashes Bush normally would be who I associate with you saying usual suspects but they would also be the first to be against badges for homosexuals. Second jump on the cross sounds like a Christian reference to me, yet that group is pretty much equally divided between believers and non-believers.

Could you try to be a little less cryptic Stevie?

:rolleyes:

Logical
05-20-2006, 01:52 PM
Sometimes I agree with you completely. Other times? Well...

In this case, I can't agree more.

Consider the above in the context of the campaign against one of the 3 branches of government... the "Activist Judges" campaign, where people try to smear the protection of the minority through our courts as an attack on Democracy.

A balance what's required, and an ability to put blind, ideological rhetoric aside.That is one aspect of what is going on, the other is the President bypassing congressional and court oversight with issues like wiretapping etc.

Logical
05-20-2006, 01:57 PM
:rolleyes:At least let us know if you are responding to one particular poster or the the thread in general. Seriously, your post is very confusing.

go bowe
05-20-2006, 02:43 PM
too funny, if these were badges for homosexuals, the usual suspects would jump on the cross.before they could post.fwiw, homosexuals were victims of the holocaust too...

go bowe
05-20-2006, 02:48 PM
That is one aspect of what is going on, the other is the President bypassing congressional and court oversight with issues like wiretapping etc.if the executive is circumventing, if not just plain violating established law (both acts of congress and judicial precedent), congressional oversight doesn't make the acts legal...

actually, congressional oversight when both houses are controlled by the president's own party is pretty much a joke, anyway...

Logical
05-20-2006, 02:52 PM
fwiw, homosexuals were victims of the holocaust too...go bo,

Do you understand Stevie's reference? Evidently he feels I was being a smart ass with my reply to him but that is not the case, I really don't understand the meaning of his post and who he is referencing when he says "the usual suspects". I cannot think of a set of people that you would group together that fit those two disparate concepts he placed together in his post.

banyon
05-20-2006, 02:59 PM
go bo,

Do you understand Stevie's reference? Evidently he feels I was being a smart ass with my reply to him but that is not the case, I readly don't understand the meaning of his post and who he is referencing when he says "the usual suspects". I cannot think of a set of people that you would group together that fit those two disparate concepts he placed together in his post.

I take it he means "jump on the cross" to be a way of saying "immediately adopt a holier-than-thou position".

I don't think he is referring to Christian leftists.

Logical
05-20-2006, 03:09 PM
I take it he means "jump on the cross" to be a way of saying "immediately adopt a holier-than-thou position".

I don't think he is referring to Christian leftists.

That helps a little bit thanks, but it still does not seem to fit with "the usual suspects" part of his comment. Lets say you grouped me, Frankie, you, jAZ and Laz as that "usual suspects" group then how does it fit us. We are all dead set against discrimination against gays.

go bowe
05-20-2006, 03:13 PM
go bo,

Do you understand Stevie's reference? Evidently he feels I was being a smart ass with my reply to him but that is not the case, I really don't understand the meaning of his post and who he is referencing when he says "the usual suspects". I cannot think of a set of people that you would group together that fit those two disparate concepts he placed together in his post.too funny, if these were badges for homosexuals, the usual suspects would jump on the cross.before they could post. i don't want to put words in stevie's mouth, but the way i understood it was if the badges were for homosexuals (either including homosexuals with religious groups or targeting just homosexuals?), those around here who commonly defend homosexuality and gay marriage and the like would play the victim card even before they post (presumably because they can't help themselves?)...

maybe...

i could be wrong about the jumping on the cross thing though...

go bowe
05-20-2006, 03:17 PM
That helps a little bit thanks, but it still does not seem to fit with "the usual suspects" part of his comment. Lets say you grouped me, Frankie, you, jAZ and Laz as that "usual suspects" group then how does it fit us. We are all dead set against discrimination against gays.maybe it's because everyone in that group (which includes me, btw) is so dead set against discrimination against gays that they will "jump on the cross"...

i don't see a conlict between the two sets, i see it as one set (those who would howl loudly if the badges were for homosexuals and those would would jump the cross before posting...

i'm getting confused now... :( :( :(

Logical
05-20-2006, 03:17 PM
i don't want to put words in stevie's mouth, but the way i understood it was if the badges were for homosexuals (either including homosexuals with religious groups or targeting just homosexuals?), those around here who commonly defend homosexuality and gay marriage and the like would play the victim card even before they post (presumably because they can't help themselves?)...

maybe...

i could be wrong about the jumping on the cross thing though...

If those people (including me) were defending Iran's action in this thread that would make sense. Since I don't see that happening I wonder who Stevie is referring to with his comment. I appreciate your interpretation though, because in all honesty I could not even get that out of it.

listopencil
05-20-2006, 05:24 PM
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!

It could have come to that, but the point is well taken.

Mohammed
05-20-2006, 07:06 PM
This badge system sounds like a great idea.

penchief
05-20-2006, 09:26 PM
For every action their is a equal or greater reaction. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that this nutjob president of Iran is a direct result of the Bush Administrations sabre-rattling and over the top rhetoric?

You know.....the Axis of Evil speech and then promptly invading a country that didn't attack us. If I were Iran or Korea I might think I'd be next. Then I'd think I better do whatever is necessary to protect myself and rally the people.

If we don't understand what's going on in Iran maybe we oughta look in the mirror. It may be happening on a totally different scale but it's similar, IMO. Nationalism, marginalizing, religious fundamentalism, and exploiting an enemy in order to expedite the consolidation of power.

Oh well. This administration has never been accused of smarts or pragmatism when it comes to policy. Unless, of course, the policy is to intentionally accomplish exactly what they have accomplished for their own purposes.

Ugly Duck
05-20-2006, 10:31 PM
I hold my judgement until I know more about the qualifications of this source.I hold my judgement until I hear the neocon cabal denounce it. Then I'll know its not true.

Ugly Duck
05-20-2006, 10:37 PM
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that this nutjob president of Iran is a direct result of the Bush Administrations sabre-rattling and over the top rhetoric?I have. The Stooges cabal is making a national hero out of the guy. Their anti-Iran rhetoric has made Mr. Nutjob a saviour when there would otherwise be solid opposition to him. Nothing like an enemy to rally the patriotic fervor, and our cabal is so dumb they play right into his hands. Why do you think he thumbs his nose at the Bushron gang every chance he gets? Thats whats propping up his popularity.

CHIEF4EVER
05-20-2006, 10:48 PM
For every action their is a equal or greater reaction. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that this nutjob president of Iran is a direct result of the Bush Administrations sabre-rattling and over the top rhetoric?

You know.....the Axis of Evil speech and then promptly invading a country that didn't attack us. If I were Iran or Korea I might think I'd be next. Then I'd think I better do whatever is necessary to protect myself and rally the people.

If we don't understand what's going on in Iran maybe we oughta look in the mirror. It may be happening on a totally different scale but it's similar, IMO. Nationalism, marginalizing, religious fundamentalism, and exploiting an enemy in order to expedite the consolidation of power.

Oh well. This administration has never been accused of smarts or pragmatism when it comes to policy. Unless, of course, the policy is to intentionally accomplish exactly what they have accomplished for their own purposes.

Dude, take off your Dem Blue colored glasses for a minute and leave the Administration out of this. Read a bit of history. Hardline Muslims have placed these restrictions on non Muslims since the 8th century....a bit before the 2004 election doncha think?

Logical
05-20-2006, 11:47 PM
Dude, take off your Dem Blue colored glasses for a minute and leave the Administration out of this. Read a bit of history. Hardline Muslims have placed these restrictions on non Muslims since the 8th century....a bit before the 2004 election doncha think?Do you have a link to source this statement?

penchief
05-21-2006, 06:30 AM
Dude, take off your Dem Blue colored glasses for a minute and leave the Administration out of this. Read a bit of history. Hardline Muslims have placed these restrictions on non Muslims since the 8th century....a bit before the 2004 election doncha think?

I'm less concerned about the specifics of these particular restrictions as I am the direction Iran is trending. I believe that this administration has stoked the fires which has led to a more militaristic, more intolerant, more exteme, and possibly nuclear Iran.

In short, this administration's behavior has helped make the world more dangerous. Much more dangerous.

StcChief
05-21-2006, 07:22 AM
Our turn we badge everybody here.

CHIEF4EVER
05-21-2006, 07:33 AM
Do you have a link to source this statement?

A bit of history for you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi


Distinctive clothing

See also Yellow badge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge) For dhimmis to be clearly distinguishable from Muslims in public, Muslim rulers often prohibited dhimmis from wearing certain types of clothing, while forcing them to put on highly distinctive garments, usually of a bright color. To increase the debasement of non-Muslims, the clothes usually had to be made of rough fabrics and were often incongruous. Although distinctive clothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law) for non-Muslims was not spelled out in Islamic holy texts, Muslim scholars still agreed that dhimmis must not wear the same clothing as Muslims do; frequently, these scholars cited the Pact of Umar in which Christians supposedly took an obligation to "always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and ... bind the zunar [wide belt] round our waists". Al-Nawawi required dhimmis to wear a piece of yellow cloth and a belt, as well as a metallic ring, inside public baths.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#_note-73)
Regulations on dhimmi clothing varied frequently to please the whims of the ruler. Although the initiation of such regulations is usually attributed to Umar I, historical evidence suggests that it was the Abbasid caliphs who pioneered this practice. In 807, Harun al-Rashid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_al-Rashid) ordered that Jews should wear high cone caps and yellow belts, the first prototypes of the yellow badge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge); Christians had to wear blue belts. These distinction marks became obsolete in 849 when al-Mutawakkil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mutawakkil) ordered dhimmis to put a yellow veil on their heads and shoulders and wear a wide belt. He also required them to wear small bells in public baths. In the 11th century, the Fatimid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid) caliph Al-Hakim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah) ordered Christians to put on half-meter wooden crosses and Jews to wear wooden calves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf) around their necks. In the late 12th century, Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqub%2C_Almohad_Caliph) ordered the Jews of the Maghreb to wear dark blue garments with long sleeves and saddle-like caps. His grandson Abdallah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah%2C_Almohad_Caliph) made a concession after appeals from the Jews, relaxing the required clothing to yellow garments and turbans. In the 16th century, Jews of the Maghreb could only wear sandals made of rushes and black turbans or caps with a red piece of garment on it.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#_note-cloth)
Ottoman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) sultans were similarly diligent and inventive in regulating the clothings of their non-Muslim subjects. In 1577, Murad III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_III) issued a firman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firman) forbidding Jews and Christians from wearing dresses, turbans, and sandals. In 1580, he changed his mind, restricting the previous prohibition to turbans and requiring dhimmis to wear black shoes; Jews and Christians also had to wear red and black hats, respectively. Observing in 1730 that some Muslims took to the habit of wearing caps similar to those of the Jews, Mahmud I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_I) ordered the hanging of the perpetrators. Mustafa III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_III) personally helped to enforce his decrees regarding clothes. In 1758, he was walking incognito in Istanbul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul) and ordered to beheading of a Jew and an Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians) seen dressed in forbidden attire. The last Ottoman decree affirming the distinctive clothing for dhimmis was issued in 1837 by Mahmud II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_II). Discriminatory clothing did not exist only in those Ottoman provinces where Christians were in majority, e.g. in Greece and the Balkans.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#_note-cloth)

patteeu
05-21-2006, 07:47 AM
If those people (including me) were defending Iran's action in this thread that would make sense. Since I don't see that happening I wonder who Stevie is referring to with his comment. I appreciate your interpretation though, because in all honesty I could not even get that out of it.

I think he's probably referring to the difference between taking a wait and see approach when the alleged transgression is perpetrated by Iran against nonmuslim religious people versus jumping in with both feet if the allegation were a transgression against homosexuals by a christian conservative.

patteeu
05-21-2006, 07:48 AM
For every action their is a equal or greater reaction. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that this nutjob president of Iran is a direct result of the Bush Administrations sabre-rattling and over the top rhetoric?

You know.....the Axis of Evil speech and then promptly invading a country that didn't attack us. If I were Iran or Korea I might think I'd be next. Then I'd think I better do whatever is necessary to protect myself and rally the people.

If we don't understand what's going on in Iran maybe we oughta look in the mirror. It may be happening on a totally different scale but it's similar, IMO. Nationalism, marginalizing, religious fundamentalism, and exploiting an enemy in order to expedite the consolidation of power.

Oh well. This administration has never been accused of smarts or pragmatism when it comes to policy. Unless, of course, the policy is to intentionally accomplish exactly what they have accomplished for their own purposes.

She was asking for it?

CHIEF4EVER
05-21-2006, 07:50 AM
She was asking for it?

She shouldn't have been dressed that way.

Frankie
05-21-2006, 09:56 AM
For every action their is a equal or greater reaction. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that this nutjob president of Iran is a direct result of the Bush Administrations sabre-rattling and over the top rhetoric?

You know.....the Axis of Evil speech and then promptly invading a country that didn't attack us. If I were Iran or Korea I might think I'd be next. Then I'd think I better do whatever is necessary to protect myself and rally the people.

If we don't understand what's going on in Iran maybe we oughta look in the mirror. It may be happening on a totally different scale but it's similar, IMO. Nationalism, marginalizing, religious fundamentalism, and exploiting an enemy in order to expedite the consolidation of power.

Oh well. This administration has never been accused of smarts or pragmatism when it comes to policy. Unless, of course, the policy is to intentionally accomplish exactly what they have accomplished for their own purposes.
Excellent post. On the money!
:clap:

Frankie
05-21-2006, 10:00 AM
I have. The Stooges cabal is making a national hero out of the guy. Their anti-Iran rhetoric has made Mr. Nutjob a saviour when there would otherwise be solid opposition to him. Nothing like an enemy to rally the patriotic fervor, and our cabal is so dumb they play right into his hands. Why do you think he thumbs his nose at the Bushron gang every chance he gets? Thats whats propping up his popularity.
What I have highlighted in your post is exactly right. I am hearing more and more indications of this. Folks who hated him when he was "elected" are starting to talk positive about him now.

Adept Havelock
05-21-2006, 10:09 AM
What I have highlighted in your post is exactly right. I am hearing more and more indications of this. Folks who hated him when he was "elected" are starting to talk positive about him now.

And if we are dumb enough to attack Iran, the entire country will rally around him and embrace his nutjob ideas.

Far better to try for a repeat of the '54 playbook. At least it worked for a few decades.

banyon
05-21-2006, 10:11 AM
I have. The Stooges cabal is making a national hero out of the guy. Their anti-Iran rhetoric has made Mr. Nutjob a saviour when there would otherwise be solid opposition to him. Nothing like an enemy to rally the patriotic fervor, and our cabal is so dumb they play right into his hands. Why do you think he thumbs his nose at the Bushron gang every chance he gets? Thats whats propping up his popularity.

This dynamic is also in play every time the Administration tries to smear/coup-d'etat Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Frankie
05-21-2006, 10:27 AM
"Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said."
Ali Behroozian. Now that's definitely an Iranian name. I personally haven't heard of the guy. But didn't Ahmad Chalabi feed this administration full of BS information about Saddam and Iraq to expedite his own political agenda? This administration is so blind and narrow focused that they are willing to buy any junk info as long as it gives them an excuse to attack. This Behroozian guy strikes me as an Iranian version of Ahmad Chalabi.
:shake:

banyon
05-21-2006, 10:39 AM
Iran dress code law does not target minorities - MPs
Sun May 21, 2006 7:09 PM IST


By Parinoosh Arami

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's new dress code bill is aimed at encouraging designers to work on imaginative Islamic clothing, lawmakers said on Sunday, dismissing a report that the bill sought special outfits for religious minorities.

Canada's National Post on Friday reported the draft bill approved last week would force Jews, Christians and other religious minorities such as Zoroastrians to wear colour-coded clothes to distinguish them from Muslims.

A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities.

Senior parliamentarian Mohsen Yahyavi described the Canadian report as "completely false".

"The bill aims to support those designers that produce clothes that are more compatible with Islam, but there will be no ban on the wearing of other designs," he told Reuters.

Iran's Jewish MP Moris Motamed also agreed the bill made no attempt to force special garments on the minorities.

"There is no single word in the bill about a special design or colour for the religious minority groups," he said.

"Our enemies seek to create tension among the religious minorities with such news and to exploit the situation to their benefit," he added.

The parliamentary bill follows a call from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who said two years ago Iranians should design a national costume and not take their lead from Western fashion magazines.

The bill has only been approved as an outline. The details must be agreed then sent to the Guardian Council, Iran's constitutional watchdog, for approval.

Iran has strict Islamic dress codes under which women must cover their hair and hide the shape of their bodies with loose-fitting clothes. Police and Islamic basij militias intermittently clamp down on women who flout the rules.

Religious minorities are largely tolerated in Iran, have freedom of worship and some exemptions from the Islamic Republic's strict rules in the private spaces of their own communities.

There are, however, certain military and medical jobs they are barred from and there are occasional scares for the 25,000-member Jewish community which has expressed its fears about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust.


http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-21T190011Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-250326-1.xml&archived=False

BucEyedPea
05-21-2006, 02:05 PM
...Iran's new dress code bill is aimed at encouraging designers to work on imaginative Islamic clothing...

Lol! ROFL

Ugly Duck
05-21-2006, 02:19 PM
A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references.
So what if its not true? False accusations didn't stop us from invading Iraq. Why should we all of a sudden start paying attention to whether something is true or not? Let's bomb 'em anyway.

Logical
05-21-2006, 02:54 PM
So what if its not true? False accusations didn't stop us from invading Iraq. Why should we all of a sudden start paying attention to whether something is true or not? Let's bomb 'em anyway.

UD just curious, I am definitely against invading Iran, but I draw a distinction and feel that if we were to stategically bomb their facilities that are providing them the ability to manufacture Nuclear materials/weapons grade plutonium then I would not be against that. What are your feelings?

Frankie
05-21-2006, 08:15 PM
UD just curious, I am definitely against invading Iran, but I draw a distinction and feel that if we were to stategically bomb their facilities that are providing them the ability to manufacture Nuclear materials/weapons grade plutonium then I would not be against that. What are your feelings?
What if they are decoy facilities? (Per rumor)

Logical
05-21-2006, 08:50 PM
What if they are decoy facilities? (Per rumor)
If it was any administration other than this one I admit I would have much more faith. Hopefully the Mossad still has reliable intelligence data to share with us.

jAZ
05-21-2006, 08:58 PM
UD just curious, I am definitely against invading Iran, but I draw a distinction and feel that if we were to stategically bomb their facilities that are providing them the ability to manufacture Nuclear materials/weapons grade plutonium then I would not be against that. What are your feelings?
I've yet to hear any argument against bombing facilities that makes sense to me. I'd be OK with this in the same sense that I was supportive of bombing in Iraq.

unlurking
05-21-2006, 10:57 PM
I've yet to hear any argument against bombing facilities that makes sense to me. I'd be OK with this in the same sense that I was supportive of bombing in Iraq.
How about we get our troops back here first?

You think Iraq is bad now, wait until we attack another ME country. Bombing nuclear arms facilities in Iran and North Koreas are options, but not while our forces are in the engaged elsewhere.

Ugly Duck
05-21-2006, 11:04 PM
UD just curious, I am definitely against invading Iran, but I draw a distinction and feel that if we were to stategically bomb their facilities that are providing them the ability to manufacture Nuclear materials/weapons grade plutonium then I would not be against that. What are your feelings?My feelings are that if the neocon cabal is saying Iran is building a weapon, then they probably are not building a weapon. The Bushron gang lies so consistantly that its a good bet to believe the opposite of what they say.

Frankie
05-22-2006, 06:33 AM
How about we get our troops back here first?

You think Iraq is bad now, wait until we attack another ME country. Bombing nuclear arms facilities in Iran and North Koreas are options, but not while our forces are in the engaged elsewhere.
There is no proof of any nuclear arms work being done there. It's all speculation presented to us as fact. Much like the pre-Iraq war "slam dunk facts."

CHIEF4EVER
05-22-2006, 07:04 AM
There is no proof of any nuclear arms work being done there. It's all speculation presented to us as fact. Much like the pre-Iraq war "slam dunk facts."

Riiiiiiiiight. The Holocaust was just speculation presented to us as "slam dunk" fact too right? Actually, Ahmadenijab is a pussycat who likes kittens and puppies and flowers and hugging trees. And he always tells the truth too. :rolleyes:

stevieray
05-22-2006, 07:58 AM
My feelings are that if the neocon cabal is saying Iran is building a weapon, then they probably are not building a weapon. The Bushron gang lies so consistantly that its a good bet to believe the opposite of what they say.

I can relate, when UD's reasoning is based soley on party affiliation, it's a pretty good bet his opinion is partisian BS.

Loki
05-22-2006, 08:36 AM
If it was any administration other than this one I admit I would have much more faith. Hopefully the Mossad still has reliable intelligence data to share with us.

of course they would... if we're going to do their dirty work for them.
in those cases, they've always been willing to share intel.

Frankie
05-22-2006, 08:38 AM
Riiiiiiiiight. The Holocaust was just speculation presented to us as "slam dunk" fact too right? Actually, Ahmadenijab is a pussycat who likes kittens and puppies and flowers and hugging trees. And he always tells the truth too. :rolleyes:
Neither of the above was implied in my post. Your point is weak and irrelevant. :rolleyes:

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:10 AM
There is no proof of any nuclear arms work being done there. It's all speculation presented to us as fact. Much like the pre-Iraq war "slam dunk facts."
While I see a parallel here, as with Iraq, I'm supportive of an effort to selectively bomb any targets we think involve nuclear research.

Cochise
05-22-2006, 09:30 AM
Iran dress code law does not target minorities - MPs
Sun May 21, 2006 7:09 PM IST

By Parinoosh Arami

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's new dress code bill is aimed at encouraging designers to work on imaginative Islamic clothing, lawmakers said on Sunday, dismissing a report that the bill sought special outfits for religious minorities.

Hopefully this is the case. I think it's encouraging though that the report generated so much international attention. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened in that part of the world from what I understand (going back many years) so hopefully the world will be vigilant.

vailpass
05-22-2006, 10:37 AM
Iran's leadership is CRAZY. They are oh-so-close to crossing the line that will force China and Russia to say "man, even we can't back you now".
Soon after Iran will get a look at Jewish and Christian insignia's up close and personal as they come whizzing in at 1200 mph and detonate all over their parched piece of god-forsaken country.

I pity the sane portion of the Iranian population; especially the youth. They must get awfully ****ing nervous when they hear stuff like this.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 10:55 AM
The neocon front group "The New York Post" is still spreading the bogus story.

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/68850.htm

Duck Dog
05-22-2006, 11:03 AM
It was a Canadian news paper that broke the story first.

Link to Canada Free Press. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb052206.htm)

Last Friday, Canada’s National Post broke a story that the government of Iran had passed a law that would require its non-Muslim citizens to wear a strip of cloth on their clothing that would denote their religion.

After the Post’s report had gone around the world, the newspaper backtracked saying that the journalist’s sources were Iranian dissidents. No one in Iran, including a Jewish member of parliament said that the story was true, although it was conceded that the wearing of coloured pieces of cloth by Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians may have been discussed during the last two years when the dress code law was being devised. It came down to the fact that there was no real proof that religious minorities would have to wear the offensive material.

banyon
05-22-2006, 12:40 PM
:cuss: Canadians.

Go home you hosers, eh?

Frankie
05-22-2006, 08:41 PM
There is no proof of any nuclear arms work being done there. It's all speculation presented to us as fact. Much like the pre-Iraq war "slam dunk facts."
OK Iowanian, the fact that you gave me a neg rep for this post with the comment "good grief, what an idiot" tells me you are aware of a proof that blows my statement out of the water. Would you provide the rest of us with this proof? Maybe we will learn something from your vast knowledge of international politics.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:05 PM
OK Iowanian, the fact that you gave me a neg rep for this post with the comment "good grief, what an idiot" tells me you are aware of a proof that blows my statement out of the water.
No it doesn't. It just shows that Iowania Jones gets a woody every time he clicks the rep button.

Frankie
05-23-2006, 08:40 AM
No it doesn't. It just shows that Iowania Jones gets a woody every time he clicks the rep button.
ROFL

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 08:46 AM
OK Iowanian, the fact that you gave me a neg rep for this post with the comment "good grief, what an idiot".

Stop crying, you menstruating sow.

Feel free to keep up with the "iran is fabulous" mantra. Its funny.

Ugly Duck
05-23-2006, 08:49 AM
Worse than the badges is the way Iran portrays Jesus to kids in school. Here's a short clip of what Iranian schoolkids are subjected to (may offend true Believers):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973

Radar Chief
05-23-2006, 09:05 AM
Worse than the badges is the way Iran portrays Jesus to kids in school. Here's a short clip of what Iranian schoolkids are subjected to (may offend true Believers):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973

:LOL: ROFL Oh, that's just wrong. :shake: ROFL

Frankie
05-23-2006, 11:52 AM
Stop crying, you menstruating sow.

Feel free to keep up with the "iran is fabulous" mantra. Its funny.
Oh I get it. When you are legitimately challenged you change the subject by screaming something even more stupid than your previous post. Good strategy.
:rolleyes:

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 01:14 PM
Hike up that skirt frannie, jump up and down and see if the sand will fall out.

waaaaaaahahaaaaaaaaah Farooq you.

go bowe
05-23-2006, 02:39 PM
heh heh, farooq, that's a good one... ROFL ROFL ROFL

Ugly Duck
05-23-2006, 03:44 PM
:LOL: ROFL Oh, that's just wrong. :shake: ROFL
Now you see the kind of anti-Christian hate that Iran is teaching. Now you know what we're up against.

stevieray
05-23-2006, 03:58 PM
Now you see the kind of anti-Christian hate that Iran is teaching. Now you know what we're up against.

your hate is much more legitimate.

Frankie
05-23-2006, 04:33 PM
Hike up that skirt frannie, jump up and down and see if the sand will fall out.Not very creative. You had the same exact comment on your SECOND neg rep for me on the same topic. jAZ is quite correct about you and neg reps.

:rolleyes:

Baby Lee
05-23-2006, 04:57 PM
Not very creative. You had the same exact comment on your SECOND neg rep for me on the same topic. jAZ is quite correct about you and neg reps.

:rolleyes:
Maybe you don't merit breaking out the good smaque, . . the Glengarry smaque!!

:p

Frankie
05-23-2006, 04:58 PM
Maybe you don't merit breaking out the good smaque, . . the Glengarry smaque!!

:p
I do, and you know it.

Iowanian
05-23-2006, 05:17 PM
no...not so much.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 06:45 AM
Now you see the kind of anti-Christian hate that Iran is teaching. Now you know what we're up against.

Is it anti-Christian hate, or Gloria Gaynor love? :hmmm: :shrug:

Ugly Duck
05-24-2006, 09:07 AM
Is it anti-Christian hate, or Gloria Gaynor love? :hmmm: :shrug:I had to google "Gloria Gaynor" to figure out what you were talking about. I had a feeling that wasn't really Jesus singing, and I guess I was right. Them Iranians is deceitful, despicable cretins.

Loki
05-24-2006, 09:25 AM
Worse than the badges is the way Iran portrays Jesus to kids in school. Here's a short clip of what Iranian schoolkids are subjected to (may offend true Believers):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973

lol... funny sh*t.

Radar Chief
05-24-2006, 10:05 AM
I had to google "Gloria Gaynor" to figure out what you were talking about.

Yea, I guess I just dated myself with that one. :redface:

Frankie
05-24-2006, 11:54 AM
Yea, I guess I just dated myself with that one. :redface:
You are no stranger to dating yourself, heh? :p