May 21, 2006

Drudge Keeps Trying to Fan "Iran Badges" Story

Share
(New York) The Drudge Report continues to try to breathe life into a debunked story about the Republic of Iran passing legislation forcing Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities to wear colored clothing badges, reminscent of Nazi Germany.

Drudge is now running a link with the headline "Canadian Prime Minister says Iran 'capable' of introducing Nazi-like clothing labels..."

The problem with this is that this statement is taken out of context. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was ambushed by reporters on Friday with a loaded question about the false story, and he gave a conditional statement, adding that he had not been able to verify the story.

Today, then, Drudge is running as "news" a two-day-old, discredited story with a quote from the Canadian PM that is misleading and non-contextual.

Numerous websites - including the Drudge Report - ran this piece of disinformation about the government of Iran on Friday that was likely hatched by Iranian exiles in Canada.

Matt Drudge's site blared the headline "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS, CHRISTIANS" from about 11:00 am until 5:00 pm EST on Friday May 19. The site removed the link to the original article, but did not provide an acknoledgement of its error.

My requests for a statement from the Drudge Report have not been answered.

Continuing...

Addendum, 4:32 pm: The Drudge Report no longer has the link to the discredited "Iran Badges story." Still no response to my requests for a comment, and I am not holding my breath .

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Drudge is a willing participant in the attempt to swing public opinion toward an Iran war.

historymike said...

Either that, or he just likes sensational headlines, regardless of whether they are truthful and accurate.

Mike's America said...

You folks are really showing your hand in this story. Glad to know the appeasement at any price crowd is alive and well.

Iran is debating dress code laws. I doubt you'll dig too deep to learn whether or not the story about requiring non Muslims to wear identifying insigna has been discussed.

Furthermore, it's just a shame that Mike didn't begin his blog earlier. I would really love to go back to his archives and read his defense of faked National Guard documents.

The underlying assumptions in the National Guard story (Bush used family influence, special treatment, blah, blah, blah, had no supporting evidence).

On the contrary. In the Iran story, there are so many parallels between what Iran's President and Hitler did in the 30's as to be downright scary.

And yes, we have you practioneers of appeasement to thank for the death of nearly sixty million people in a world war which could have been rather easily prevented with a small show of force after Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland.

I would think you folks would learn from histories lessons. But then, that might require THINKING.

Dariush said...

Shorter version of post by "Mike's America":

"blah blah Hitler blah blah appeasement blah blah Hitler blah blah Chamberlain blah blah Hitler blah blah facts are un-American blah blah Hitler blah blah Bush Rocks blah blah Hitler"

historymike said...

Ah, if we expect the media to tell the truth, we are "appeasers."

In "Mike's America," we are apparently expected to accept lies as truth, or be branded as traitors.

This poster is obviously another drive-by flamer, because if he actually spent a few minutes on the site, he would see that I am not the caricature of a liberal weenie he wants to believe I am.

Of course, in a world like that of "Mike's America," there is only good and evil: "good" being those who agree with him, and "evil" being those who do not.

historymike said...

(laughing at the Dariush summation)

Anonymous said...

Drudge doesn't have to answer to an insignicant liberal puke like you. If you had any talent tyou wouldn't be playing journalist on this blog.

Mike's America said...

Is it "good" to ignore the danger posed by a nuclear Iran just as it was a rearmed Germany?

Easy to toss those words around "History" Mike. Hard to pair them up with reality.

The bottom line is that whether or not this story is true, Iran is on a campaign that leads only in one direction: massive death if not stopped.

But you want to deny the dangerous nature of this regime?

Even if you care little for genocide against Jews...
Did you miss the stories of the two teenage boys who were executed for being homosexuals?

Your moral compass is broken and apparently history has given you no guide for repairing it.

I suppose you find it easier to attack me than face unpleasant realities like the nature of those who would sooner kill you AND me than listen to your histrionics.

historymike said...

Hmmm, where to begin...

1. I am not ignoring any danger in my posts about the Iran Badges story. I am pointing out that many media outlets ran a piece of garbage disguised as "news."

2. Israel has, by many accounts, over 100 nuclear weapons, and it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Do you believe it is acceptable for Israel to have nukes, but not for any other Middle Eastern states? Is Israel on a campaign of "massive death" because it has nukes?

3. You are attempting to mix the nuclear debate with this discredited badges story. One issue at a time.

4. I care very much about any form of genocide, sir. Nice try at making me look like an apologist for genocide, though.

5. As far as "attacking" you - YOU showed up here, sir, and went on the attack. I merely refuted your drive-by arguments.

Again - if you show me the text of the law, and its supposed badge requirement - then I will join you in condemning Iran.

historymike said...

Thanks, anonymous, for the kind words.

We do agree on one thing - I am isignificant.

As is Drduge and every other one of the six billion people on this planet - the world will continue to turn with or without us.

Dariush said...

A good example of histrionics:

"They're gonna kill us ALL I tells ya! Unless we git dem first."


"Even if you care little for genocide against Jews..."

Oh, brother. (rolling my eyes) And what, pray tell, does this have to do with Iran?


"Did you miss the stories of the two teenage boys who were executed for being homosexuals?"


Leaving aside the question of the fate of those poor little pederasts/child rapists, I find it curious that folks who would just as soon do away with homosexuality, care soooo very deeply about gays in Iran.

Frankly, I can't think of a single traditional society that doesn't look down on and discriminate against homosexuality. In tribal areas of southern Africa, for example, it is considered the responsibility of the head of the family to kill anyone who is discovered to be gay. Openly gay tourists don't even go to Jamaica anymore, for fear of what will happen to them. And as down as the machos are on fags, I'm surprised that "Mexican homophobia" perhaps in some combination with anti-Catholicism, hasn't been picked up and wielded as a weapon by the anti-immigration movement.

Mike's America said...

Well I see you and your readers lurch from one morally precarious perch to another.

If you do recognize the danger of a crazy with nukes, I missed it... My apologies.

If you have an effective plan for dealing with said crazy and I missed it, my apologies.

But if all you do is mutter the John Kerry line about "doing it better" in managing these problems, then I didn't miss anything.

And I find the comments by Darius, describing the tendency of cultures to murder homosexuals to be abhorrent.

I realize you are just sitting out there on the banks of the Maumee River, but your words and those of your readers have consequences. And it's past time to move past the gameplaying over the veracity of specific stories and work towards building unity for action both in terms of Iran (and I have NOT supported attacking, YET) and Iraq, where our policy continues to bear fruit.

I would offer you more isights into the lessons of history but time is short. More lefties to educate and only so much time.

Do me a favor and see UNITED 93.

Dariush said...

"...I find the comments ... describing the tendency of cultures to murder homosexuals to be abhorrent."

Yes, it's already been established that you find the concept of facts and objective truth to be "abhorrent."


"I realize you are just sitting out there on the banks of the Maumee River..."

translation: "Who the hell do you think you are, you little pissant?"


"...but your words and those of your readers have consequences."

translation: "Shut up. Do as you're told. Do not question."


"And it's past time to move past the gameplaying over the veracity of specific stories..."

translation: "Who cares if the story was true or black propaganda? That's completely irrelevant."


"work towards building unity for action..."

"Strength Through Unity. One voice, one mind, one fist."


"...both in terms of Iran (and I have NOT supported attacking, YET)..."

Dear Leader has not yet sounded the reveille signalling the attack. When he does I will heel, as every good little dog should.


"...Iraq, where our policy continues to bear fruit."

Which fruit would that be? Killing Iraqi families "in cold blood"?; Baghdad militias issuing death sentences for gays, liberals and booksellers? Or perhaps indiscriminately dropping "Willy Pete" on to entire neighbourhoods in Fallujah?

Brian said...

Dariush,

Don't like America or Bush? It would be my pleasure to purchase your one way ticket back to the Middle East.

Who the hell invited you here anyway?

I've never been one of those "Love it or leave it types," except when it comes to immigrants. Who the hell are you to criticize who we are, what we do, and how we do it when your native land is the most shameful on the planet?

-Sepp said...

I kinda like my perch on the maumee river just fine!

Dariush said...

"If you do recognize the danger of a crazy with nukes, I missed it..."

On the subject of crazies with nukes see here, here, here and most especially here.


"Don't like America or Bush?"

And conflating this nation with one man and the actions of him and his minions is "American" in what way, precisely?


"I've never been one of those 'Love it or leave it types,' except when it comes to immigrants."

So immigrants should just keep their heads down and not utter a peep in protest about anything? How about those of us who happen to be citizens? The same applies?


"Who the hell are you to criticize who we are, what we do, and how we do it..."

I'm a citizen with rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no matter how much it irks state-worshipping, authoritarian jerkoffs with visions of detainment camps dancing in their heads.

And btw this identification of "we" with the people running the US that folks like yourself are fond of employing is self-delusion. They (the people running the US) are not even remotely running it in the interests of you (the ordinary citizen). You may think of yourselves as a consumer, but as far as "our" leaders are concerned you are consumable parts for their machine and nothing more.

But far it be from me to come between anyone and the delusions that they take comfort in. If it pleases you to cast your gaze on the collection of kleptocrats, perverts and powermad nutjobs running the show out of La Cesspool Grande (aka D.C.) and adoringly refer to them as "we", then knock yourself out. But don't expect those of us who haven't elected to shut off our critical thinking faculties to follow suit.

Anonymous said...

Good lord,

Dariush, you do seem to have a way of making folks feel pretty hostile.

I think I'll give you a pass this time.

Take care,

"EB"

Hooda Thunkit said...

Yawn...

Yeppers, by MY watch 15 minutes and more.

Anonymous said...

One question though:

Why does Iran, a country that is floating on an ocean of oil and natural gas, specifically want nuclear energy anyway?

The only conceivable reason I can think of is that they are intent on developing nuclear weapons.

This fact, coupled with the absolutist mentality of the Islamic government would, IMHO, make such an empowered enemy a formidable threat.

A better position in which to hold democratic nations hostage to a burgeoning Islamic militancy is the only possible incentive Iran could have in seeking, in such a belligerant fashion, to nuclearize, despite the objections of the rest of the world.


But this was all about yellow badges. Well, not sure if I believe it either, but it would, you must admit, seem to be in character with everything else that is coming from the regime, as of late.

"EB"

Brian said...

Again, Dariush, if America is so bad and its leaders regard you as a consumable, vacate it buddy. We don't need you and sure as hell don't want you.

You chose to come here. We didn't ask you. Don't like America? go to France or visit our little cousins to the north. You ought to quit criticizing the government that let you immigrate from the God-forsaken hell hole you call home.

McCaskey said...

Ummmmm.....exactly what country is Dariush from anyway?

Anonymous said...

Also, I suppose one of the greatest points of consternation I feel is concerning the active support the idealogical Left wishes to lend Islamic militancy; a philosophy that, by any logical measure, is completely and diametrically opposed to every facet of Leftist idealogy.

While Leftists scream "racist!", "sexist!", or "homophobic!" at every Right-leaning foe, they nonetheless opt to throw their resources and reputations into a sordid comradery with activists and militants that can, in no wise, view them as anything more than "useful idiots".

After all, while it has become socially unacceptable to hate Jews, particularly if you identify yourself as a "Rightest", it seems to be the "chic" or "hip" position to take if you are a screed-spewing, sign waving, "anti-Zionist".

So, in effect, the Left has embraced racism every bit as fiercely as the extreme Right ever has; only, in a narrower sense.

The moral inversion involved in equating militant Islam with a "persecuted minority" is startling; after all, the Islamicists control one, many countries, as well as armies, governments, much of the world oil supply, and vast wealth.

Essentially Mr. Brooks, what you told me in your post last night, was that , as long as a person was idealogically "correct", whatever racism or anti-Semitism they proffered was "okay" as long as it supported "the cause".

And, no Mr. Brooks, one does NOT embrace anti-Zionism without embracing anti-Semitism. Dariush is the best example of this, and I could pull up MANY of his highly-offensive, racist posts and re-post them as proof, if you disbelieve me.

Neuteri Kartei notwithstanding, "anti-Zionism" is a code word for "anti-Semitism" for the most part.

It's funny: the neo-Nazi Right, the Socialistic Left, and Militant Islamics have all found a common meeting ground in this evil Year of Our Lord 2006. They must, themselves, find it really confusing as they are all, superficially, opposed to one another.

These days they're ALL saying the same thing.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

And, what of the Islamic treatment of women? Hardly a "feminist" culture.

What of their treatment of homosexuals? Human rights? Religious freedom?

What of their comittment to terrorism and "Jihad", and "spreading Islam through the world" by force?

What of their anti-Semitism, their hatred of Christians, their intolerance of ANY religious faith outside their own narrow spectrum of belief? What of their executions, tortures, and beheadings?

What of their totalitarian mindset?

Are all these "liberal" ideals?

One would have to assume they were, inasmuch as the Left, in this country, has throw it's idealogical lot in with the Arab militants.

It makes NO sense at all.

historymike said...

Phew - leave for a couple hours, and the comments roar in...


1. Agreed about the cheap shot on we Midwesterners. It's a good thang we gots intuh-lectual types to straighten us by visitin' 'round heeyah. BTW - I have lived many places, so do not assume that because I currently reside here, I have no perspective beyond the nearby cornfield.

2. I do not buy the "love America or leave it" argument, even for someone who emigrated to the US. If anything, someone who has viewed the US from the outside might just have a perspective from which we could learn.

3. Dariush is from Iran originally, MCcaskey.

4. One can indeed oppose militant Zionism without being an anti-Semite. Taking the contrary view is like saying anyone who opposed the Soviets must hate Russians (and no, I am not espousing any policy for or against Israel - I am merely commenting on the earlier poster who claimed that anyone who questions the politics of Israeli imperialists is, ergo, an anti-Semite). Some of the best people I know are Jewish and - GASP - many Jews are appalled at some of the things the Israeli government has done.

5. I despise Islamic extremists as much as I do Christian extremists, or any other intolerant fringe elements. However, most Muslims do not embrace fanatical Islam, and most Christians do not embrace extremist Christianity.

historymike said...

Insert "fundamentalist Christian" in the last anonymous comment (in place of Islamic extremists) and see how well it fits.

Dariush said...

"Ummmmm.....exactly what country is Dariush from anyway?"

That would be Iran.


"Who the hell invited you here anyway?"

That would be Sen. Jesse Helms


"if America is so bad and its leaders regard you as a consumable, vacate it buddy. We don't need you and sure as hell don't want you."

It bears repeating that America does not equal its "leaders", no matter how vehemently you insist otherwise.


"Don't like America? go to France or visit our little cousins to the north."

I like America fine. I like France and Canada as well. But American is what I am, whether you like it or not.


"You ought to quit criticizing the government..."

I can't think of anything more un-American than this statement, but that's just me. Real Americans like Brian know best.

Anonymous said...

"Insert "fundamentalist Christian" in the last anonymous comment (in place of Islamic extremists) and see how well it fits."--Mike Brooks

---

Fortunately, not very bloody well. Last time I checked, there were no beheadings or cliterectomies taking place at the Vatican.

The Christian world has moved on in the last century; sadly, the Islamic world has not.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Anonymous said...

"I am merely commenting on the earlier poster who claimed that anyone who questions the politics of Israeli imperialists is, ergo, an anti-Semite). Some of the best people I know are Jewish and - GASP - many Jews are appalled at some of the things the Israeli government has done."--Mike Brooks

---

My only reply to this Mike, is a slogan I saw in a protest photograph posted to the net the other day. It read:

If Arabs put down their guns tomorrow, their would be no more war.

If Jews put down their guns tomorrow, their would be no more Israel.

...Or something to that effect. I think that pretty much sums up my view of the Arab/Israeli conflict nicely.

Take care, all.

M A F said...

Mike, noting your coverage of this story and the interesting (to say the least) comments left by your visitors (myself included) I found the following information about the National Post at Informed Comment.

"We do not run in our newspaper Op Ed pieces that express criticism of Israel"

Dariush said...

M A F,

Here's the correct link to that post on Juan Cole's blog.

Both the post and the commentary left by readers are very informative.

Dariush said...

"A better position in which to hold democratic nations hostage to a burgeoning Islamic militancy is the only possible incentive Iran could have in seeking, in such a belligerant fashion, to nuclearize, despite the objections of the rest of the world."

That's quite a vivid fantasy life that neokahns have. The very fact that Iran's government is Shia limits the spread of its brand of militancy rather severely. Iran, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, the eastern (oil-producing) provinces of Saudi Arabia, maybe the Hazara of Afghanistan... that's about it.

And actually, Iran has failed to export its "revolution" to Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- tried but failed.

I'm guessing here that by "burgeoning Islamic militancy" you mean Islam as a whole -- a ridiculous statement since the schisms and divisions within Islam are as vast and deep as those within Christianity -- been paying attention to what's been happening in Iraq lately?

Protestations of the government aside, I do agree with you that it's quite likely that Iran is interested in developing its own nuclear weapons program. But how such a program, still a decade away from reaching fruition by all accounts, will pose any threat to Israel (with its arsenal of 400 nuclear weapons) or (an even more laughable assertion) the U.S. is beyond me. Such weapons will be used as they are by all countries which have them. As insurance against either invasion or a devastating attack of some sort.

Also, it's not exactly "the rest of the world" that's objecting, now is it?

And as far as "hold[ing] democratic nations hostage" goes I can think of no better description for statements such as these:

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force....Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under."

Van Creveld may be latest prominent Israeli to make such a claim, but not the first, as Seymour Hersh detailed in his book "The Samson Option". Israel, of course, has no intention of actually launching nukes at Rome or anywhere else. But the point of nuclear blackmail is not actual intent, but who blinks first.

Dariush said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dariush said...

"The moral inversion involved in equating militant Islam with a 'persecuted minority' is startling; after all, the Islamicists control one, many countries, as well as armies, governments, much of the world oil supply, and vast wealth."

What's startling is the number of false assertions contained in just this one paragraph. Even the loosest definition of "Islamicist" doesn't mesh with the fanciful scenario you've painted above. "Many countries, armies and governments"? It's Iran and now, with the blessings of the U.S. gov't and military, Iraq that is controlled by "Islamicists" period. Unless by "Islamicists" you actually mean "Muslims". Which, of course, isn't the case, because you're no bigot, are you EB?

What's startling is portraying folks who divide their time between Capitol Hill, K Street think tanks and gated communities in Potomac, MD and McLean, VA as a "persecuted minority". Quite startling actually, and indicative of the level of indoctrination that is at work here.

As far as actual persecution goes, I think Trish Schuh's article lays everything out perfectly:

************

As a free speech crusader, Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's editor behind the Muhammad cartoons (and ally/author of a Daniel Pipes profile "The Threat from Islam"), had earlier refused to publish denigrating cartoons of Jesus, fearing it would "offend readers." Jylland-Posten also rescinded sponsorship of a Holocaust cartoon contest for the same reason. Kurt Westergaard, Jylland-Posten's 'Muhammad bomb' illustrator even transcribed a Koranic verse onto Muhammad's turban to reinforce his message. Westergaard later admitted to The Herald of Glasgow, Scotland that "terrorism" which he said got "spiritual ammunition" from Islam was the inspiration for that message.

If propaganda is a weapon of war, Islam is under carpet bombing. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels described the methods, which define those used today: "Concentrating the fire of all the media on one particular point- a single theme, a single enemy, a single idea- the campaign uses this concentration of all media, but progressively..."

....

Is Islamophobia de facto state policy? Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi declared in 2001 that Western civilization is superior to the Islamic World: "We should be confident of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights." He added that this superiority entitled the West to "occidentalize and conquer new people." Another Italian official MP Roberto Calderoni flaunted his Muhammad cartoon T-shirt on TV, warning of an "Islamic attack on the West." French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy pronounced Muslim immigrants "gangrene" and "scum," and one Danish MP labeled Muslims "a cancer in Denmark."

In America, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk commented: "I'm okay with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states." Texas Congressman Sam Johnson bragged to a crowd of veterans that he had advised Bush to nuke Syria, and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo advocated wiping out Mecca to get even with Muslims for terrorist attacks. Recently the Bush administration itself revealed its plans to "nuke Iran" with bunker buster bombs.

Zionist Daniel Pipes, a representative at the Congress-sponsored think tank US Institute for Peace, (who was appointed by Bush despite heavy public protest against Pipe's racism) recently diagnosed Muslims as carriers of a sinister, latent psychopathic contagion: "Individuals may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers... This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homocidal rage?"

Muslims' angry reactions to the cartoon provocation unwittingly served a goal of Pipe's Anti-Islamist Institute: "the delegitimation of the Islamists. We seek to have them shunned by the government, the media, the churches, the academy and the corporate world." For once, Israel, America and Europe were united to protect civilization's free speech virtues against "crazed, rampaging", "dirty arabs" or, as Pipes himself once remarked, "brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene."


******

"Read the whole thing."(c)(tm)


"Neuteri Kartei notwithstanding, 'anti-Zionism' is a code word for 'anti-Semitism' for the most part."

Speaking of "self-hating Jews", the Israeli "anti-Semitic cartoon contest" really surprised the hell out of me. I thought it would be filled with self-pitying caricatures, instead the degree of genuine humour and occasional brutal self-critique has been a surprise. Not only to me, but also to folks like Art Spiegelman and Michael Lerner, both of whom originally endorsed the idea with much gusto, only to silently back away when they witnessed the results. Here are a few: Der Sturmmer, American Flag, The Professor, Israeli Flag,
The Last Supper.

Brian said...

Ah, Dariush. I see you have mastered the art of taking quotes out of context.

You quoted me as saying "You ought to quit criticizing the government," to make it appear that I am intolerant of dissent.

What I actually said is that you ought to quit criticizing the government that let you immigrate from the hell hole you used to inhabit.

Seems to me you'd fit right in in Iran. You could be their Minister of Misinformation.

Kate said...

I didn't read anything here that would lead me that lead me to think anyone's not concerned if a sign of pre-genocide behavior would show up in the world again, as in forcing populace segments to be defined by a marker - such as a yellow star.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't be alarmed about this. I took the original comments to be aimed more at the Drudge Report and it being the only source who claims this has actually started to happen.

The only story that the AP has does not mention stars or religious isolation tactics.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_DRESS_CODE?SITE=ILEDW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

But to extrude this conversation from a questioning of a journalists' intent to a broken moral compass makes no sense at all.

Dariush said...

"You ought to quit criticizing the government,"... unless you were born here.

Sorry Brian, but I had the context right.

Also, since I'm almost 100% certain that you never have, and never will, set foot outside the borders of the U.S. I thought you might like to see what "the God-forsaken hell hole" that you've been so successfully indoctrinated to hate actually looks like.

Enjoy.

M A F said...

Here's the correct link to that post on Juan Cole's blog.

Thanks for providing the proper link Darius. I'll need to watch what I right-click in the future.

Dariush said...

EB: "And, what of the Islamic treatment of women? Hardly a 'feminist' culture."

Forced marriage, female circumcision and the oppression of women is not exclusive to the Islamic world. Women's liberation is also not exclusive to the West.

Some Sikhs practice forced marriage and many Sikh women suffer violence from their husbands, despite the fact that Sikhism explicitly supports the total equality of the sexes. To abuse and misrepresent the Guru Granth Sahib on the basis that many Sikh women are abused and forced to marry would be an anti-Sikh message, would it not?

I also know of many Hindu marriages which were forcibly arranged. I know one teenage Hindu woman from the slums in Kolkata whose drunken father forced her to marry a man who was evidently mad and who beat her. She managed to have the marriage annulled, but her father (a former soldier) beat her mother for supporting the divorce and she ended up on the streets destitute. Sadly, her mother had a nervous breakdown and died after living a couple of years on hand-outs from the temple. The girl got married again to a fisherman but divorced him. She's now happily married to a bicycle repairman who treats her well and has a son by him. Many Hindu women are not so fortunate - some are burnt to death by their husbands or tortured by their in-laws if the woman has come with an insufficient dowry. This is a problem with South Asian society, not just Muslim society.

If a man abuses a woman by calling her a "slut" or a "bitch", the Qu'ran demands that he be whipped 80 times. Sura 4:19 states: "live with [women] on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." I would be surprised if you can find a scholar from the Al-Azhar Institute who would state that men have the right to punish their wives. Shariah demands that people be tried in qualified courts and Islam does not permit individuals to take unilateral action - particularly action taken in anger - against others without explicit religious sanction. There is no place for wife-beating in Islam even if there are plenty of Muslim wife-beaters.

I agree that the issue of the treatment of women in Muslim society - and in Hindu society and even in Buddhist Sri Lanka and Thailand as well as Christian Mexico and atheist China - is important. Women's empowerment is important and shouldn't be just a cheap gimmick to throw at particular religions.

But are we to say the fact that cuckolded husbands in Latin America are allowed to murder their cheating spouses, whilst the law and society in general condones such behaviour by looking the other way, are we to say to such cultural practices have root in Paul's letter to the Corinthians? You know, how women should be silent in church, how they should cover their heads and how "Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ"?

This is what the Muslim Women's League has to say on wife-beating: "Islam's mandate of equality between women and men necessitates that all forms of violence against women be eradicated, for so long as women suffer abuses, women cannot achieve their full potential as free and equal members of society."

They also have a wonderful page deconstructing the myth of the "beat your wife" verse in the Qur'an. File it under "things David Horowitz and Robert Spencer never mentioned".

EB, do you even know any Muslims? Why not talk to a Muslim woman? You know, some of the most eloquent, intelligent and out-spoken women I have met have been in hijab. This is one of them.

Many of the most outspoken women I have met are also the most religious. They see Islam as a panacea for social ills not as a war against the West. They also find it ironic that while Muslims are vilified for the supposed oppression of women, surveys have found that Western non-Muslim teenage girls are forced into sex and do not feel in control of their sexuality. While I do not doubt that there are many misogynistic Muslim men and that Saudi Arabia is perhaps the worst violator of women's rights, many Muslim women think they can make their case for liberation based on the Qu'ran and not on Western concepts.

I think one of Jesus' greatest teaching was: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Anyone who thinks the violent abuse of women has anything to do with religion has rocks in their head. Misogyny is endemic in all cultures, including "secular" and "atheist" ones. The ideology that justifies and masks violence against women is deeply encoded into human culture generally. Those who are serious about tackling this problem understand that it is a political question requiring a political response, not some pisspoor, illiterate and fundamentally malicious "critique" of ancient religious texts.

Brian said...

Dariush,

Thank you for the view of Iran. I did not know it was so urbane.

Once again, you are drawing on stereotypes of conservatives like you did about my views of gays. I have a few stamps on my passport.

You're intellect is obviously limited by your prejudice. But that prejudice is ok with the Left who are just as quick as you to bandy non-words such as "neocon".

You are here because of a privilege my government extended to you. You did not have a "right" to immigrate.

If you love Iran so much, perhaps you should return. If not, quit complaining about the American government. You are here because of it.

Everrets Brevard said...

"EB, do you even know any Muslims?"--Dariush

---

Yes, actually, I've known several in college, including one (a doctor of English literature) who use to visit campus every summer--a fellow from Saudi Arabia who, sadly, I don't think has been back in recent years.

And, considering that my own religious experiences revolve around various dreams depicting the Kaaba (not sure that that is spelled right)in Mecca and the "Black Stone", I should say Islam (as well as Judaism) is on my mind quite abit.

But I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew specifically.

There was one incident several years back where Dr. Al-Watban and I were having coffee, and I began to describe to him some of my dreams. As soon as the subject touched upon the Black Stone, and Mecca, he got a very nervous look in his face. Suddenly, I felt incredibly uncomfortable myself, and the subject had to be steered in a different direction.

Make of that what you will.

Anyway, you judge me far too harshly, I think. It is not Arabic people I dislike, or even Islam specifically--it is militant anti-American sentiment and MILITANT Islamic terror which chiefly concerns me.

BTW, I've read Autobiography of Malcolm X and found it be one of the greatest books I've ever picked up. Plan on tackling the Koran and Hadith as soon as I get the time.

Take care, Dariush.

historymike said...

Yes, Dariush, a truly beautiful photographic tour de force.

Is the snow-capped mountain in the Tehran photos Mount Damavand?

historymike said...

Agreed about the Biography of Malcom X, EB. His metamorphoses are fascinating, and we never got a chance to see the next phase of his life.

I think he was headed to a middle ground between MLK and the Nation of Islam.

McCaskey said...

Dariush: I'd like to add my thanks for the lovely photos of your native country. Interesting architecture....and beautiful women.

ToledoNative said...

anonymous (EB) typed--
'Why does Iran, a country that is floating on an ocean of oil and natural gas, specifically want nuclear energy anyway?'

Ever heard of peak oil?

Durruti said...

Why would Iran want nuclear power? The country has substantial domestic uranium reserves and would prefer to earn hard currency by selling more of its gas and oil abroad.

The US and France happily helped Iran under the Shah to develop its nuclear power programme before 1979. But now the Bush administration is claiming that the only rational reason for Iran to develop nuclear power is to make nukes. Go figure.

Dariush said...

Brian: "Once again, you are drawing on stereotypes of conservatives like you did about my views of gays. I have a few stamps on my passport.

"You're intellect is obviously limited by your prejudice."


Perhaps. Besides, whatever your views are on homosexuality, mine are, in all likelihood, harsher.


"You are here because of a privilege my government extended to you. You did not have a "right" to immigrate.

"If you love Iran so much, perhaps you should return. If not, quit complaining about the American government. You are here because of it."


No one has the "right" to emigrate anywhere, agreed. But my family and I did emigrate, legally, and 15 years later I became a citizen. Unfortunately for you, the idea that immigrants shouldn't have any rights went out with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Nowadays immigrants, even illegal ones, do not shut up, keep their heads down, keep their opinions to themselves and do as they're told.

Not least when they see the American Republic making a headlong descent into Empire and threatening to annihilate their homeland at the behest of partisans of a third country.


"But that prejudice is ok with the Left who are just as quick as you to bandy non-words such as 'neocon'."

Sorry but neocon is an actual word with a very definite meaning. Here's the link I posted in this thread earlier, from the Christian Science Monitor. It does a more than adequate job of briefly and succinctly summarizing the history and ideology of the neoconservative movement.

What's ironic here is that the Old Right, the actual conservatives, were the foremost opponents of an interventionist foreign policy and the greatest obstacle to the idea of an American Empire, rightly believing it to be the death knell of the Old Republic -- both positions placing them squarely at odds with the Wilsonian liberal internationalism that was deadset on transforming America into an Empire.

Such voices of actual conservatism, nowadays often referred to as "paleoconservatism", still exist today in publications like The American Conservative, Chronicles, The New American, Culture Wars and Sobran's.

I also recommend that you check out "Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism" by Ronald Radosh, for an outstanding overview of the foreign policy of the Old Right.

The writings of Joseph Stromberg are also invaluable. "Empire As a Way of Death" is a good place to start, as is Murray Rothbard's "The Foreign Policy of the Old Right". [.pdf file]

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps. Besides, whatever your views are on homosexuality, mine are, in all likelihood, harsher."--Dariush

---

Why?

Dariush said...

EB: "Anyway, you judge me far too harshly, I think. It is not Arabic people I dislike, or even Islam specifically -- it is militant anti-American sentiment and MILITANT Islamic terror which chiefly concerns me."

No, I don't think I judge you too harshly at all. Anyone who buys into the Horowitzian "Unholy Alliance" thesis as thoroughly and completely as you do doesn't just have a problem with this or that Muslim, or this or that variety of Islam, but with Islam and Muslims per se.

It's not only evident in the comments you've left here, but in just about everything of yours I've read that has touched on the Middle East, war, or Islam.

For example:


"...the Islamicists control...many countries, as well as armies, governments, much of the world oil supply, and vast wealth."

As I said before this statement either equates all Muslims with al-Qaeda (since Jihadists don't control any countries), or else it simply sees the existence of Muslim countries and independent Muslim wealth as something inherently sinister. Either way, it speaks to a deep-rooted fear and hatred of an entire religion and the many and varied cultures, nationalities and ethnicities which make up that religion.


"Last time I checked, there were no beheadings or cliterectomies taking place at the Vatican."

The ease with which you demonise the dreaded "other" is one thing. But the way you play fast and loose with the facts in order to do so is what's so telling.

FGM is a cultural practice that extends virtually the length and breadth of the African continent.... and nowhere else. All it takes to prove what I just said is to find a map of Africa, point to any spot on the map, and Google "FGM" along with the name of the country your finger landed on. For example I just Googled "FGM" in conjunction with "Liberia" and this is what I found:

"Exact figures are difficult to ascertain, but a significant portion of the female population has undergone Type II. Some estimates are that, in rural areas, approximately 50 percent of the female population between the ages of eight and eighteen had undergone this procedure before the civil war began. It was practiced within some, but not all of Liberia's ethnic groups. Not all girls in those ethnic groups that practice Type II, however, participate in the rites associated with it. For those who do, it is their passage from childhood to womanhood. (See section on Attitudes and Beliefs that follows.)

"The major groups that practice it are the Mande speaking peoples of western Liberia such as the Gola and Kissi. It is not practiced by the Kru, Grebo or Krahn in the southeast, by the Americo-Liberians (Congos) or by Muslim Mandingos."

Here's a listing of all countries where FGM is practised. Here's the entry on Ethiopia:

"FGM is practised among most of Ethiopia's 70 or more ethnic groups, including Christians, Muslims and the minority Ethiopian Jewish community (Beta Israel), formerly known as Falasha...There is no law specifically prohibiting FGM although the Constitution prohibits harmful traditional practices."

Not that what I'm saying is going to have any effect here. It's quite clear that you care as much about the victims of FGM, as you do about the alleged "plight" of Muslim women. Which is to say not all, aside from employing them as weapons in your arsenal of anti-Muslim agitprop. Otherwise, one would think that someone who cared so deeply about FGM would have at least a basic knowledge of what it is and where it is practised.


"And, what of the Islamic treatment of women? Hardly a "feminist" culture.

"What of their treatment of homosexuals? Human rights? Religious freedom?

"What of their comittment to terrorism and "Jihad", and "spreading Islam through the world" by force?

"What of their anti-Semitism, their hatred of Christians, their intolerance of ANY religious faith outside their own narrow spectrum of belief? What of their executions, tortures, and beheadings?

"What of their totalitarian mindset?"


It is quite clear from this list that you view Islam (note the lack of a qualifier in conjunction with "Islamic") as a unique evil in the world. I've already answered the "treatment of women" accusation to the best of my ability, and I simply don't have the time to respond to each and every portion of this bigoted, ignorant and defamatory nonsense in an equal manner.

It is deeply frustrating having to write what amounts to a short essay in order to refute each and every one-liner spouted off by a fear-stricken bigot.

But, as I said before, none of this matters. If Hindus rather than Muslims had the misfortune of inhabiting territories where three quarters of the world's petroleum reserves were located, if Gujaratis rather than Palestinians had been driven from their homeland in order to create lebensraum for the Holiest of Holies, the "Western" press, and folks like yourself, would likely be howling about the prohibition of cow-slaughter or the Hindu caste system or bridal-burnings or the BJP's connections with Nazism or what have you.

However, I do find it ironic that, considering all that you're committed to, you have the gall to complain about anyone else's "commitment to terrorism".

And fyi, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world, including the U.S. It is growing due to voluntary conversion, not by force.

Dariush said...

Sorry, but there are a couple of more points that have to be addressed before I kiss this thread goodbye, for good. First some unfinished business, in reply to your comments.


EB: "It is not Arabic people I dislike, or even Islam specifically -- it is militant anti-American sentiment and MILITANT Islamic terror which chiefly concerns me."

You've made it clear in previous discussions that you equate America with the State and "Americanism" with an imperial and Israel First foreign policy, and that any dissent from this line is "militancy", "anti-Americanism", "militant anti-Americanism" and "treason". Sorry, I'm not buying it, and neither are on ever-increasing number of Americans of all faiths and ethnicities.

Also, over the years I've known many Iranians and Iranian-Americans who actively work against the Iranian government, protesting and exposing its actions domestically and abroad... I have yet to find one that has ever been referred to, even by defenders of the Islamic Republic, as "zed'e Irani" (anti-Iranian). Why do you suppose that is? Hmmm?


"What of their totalitarian mindset?"

Personally, I think that this "totalitarian mindset" of which you speak is exemplified by one who jumps up and down in glee over the imprisonment of thought criminals and dissident historians in Europe and who envisions an America wherein "we" get "serious" about the "War Against Global Islam" (or whatever) by imprisoning and/or deporting dissidents... sorry, sorry "traitors".

In any case, I think you've got quite a "long, hard slog" ahead of you before any of that happens since, as of this moment, Bush's approval rating is at 28% and showing no signs of doing anything but continuing to drop (even among Republicans), and 62% of Americans believe the Iraq war was not worth fighting, while 76% believe the costs in blood and treasure are unacceptable.

Furthermore you're going to have to deal with the rise of "isolationist" (i.e. non-interventionist) sentiment among the American public.

"A 47% plurality believes the U.S. should be no more or less assertive than other nations, while 10% think we shouldn't play any leadership role at all."

....

"Following a spike in internationalist sentiment in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, public skepticism about becoming too involved with world affairs has returned. The percentage of Americans who say the U.S. should 'mind its own business internationally' has risen to 42%; just 30% expressed this opinion in December of 2002."

See here for more.

Just imagine the logistics involved in "detaining" and deporting 150 million people. Oy, the headache.

Everrets Brevard said...

Dariush,

Once again your hypocrisy in regards to racial bias is, truly, appalling.

While condemning me for, ostensibly, being a "bigoted, defamatory" and altogether not-very-nice fellow, you once again resort to the "meretricious use of hyperlinks" to bolster your unbelievably one-sided arguments.

I don't know, at this point, whether I should be amused, or offended. A raving, self-confessed anti-Semite is accusing ME of being a bigot? Now there is a sterling example of psychological projection I must say...

Have you ever considered that, were it not that you come off , in every single argument, as a histrionic, hate-filled, snot-spewing, venomous little brat, you might go a darn sight further in convincing others to at least consider the relevance of what you are trying to express?

You alienate those you should be trying to curry support from. However, if you care not a whit for our opinions, then why do you spend so much time typing posts, linking propaganda, and generally trying to unsettle the feathers of fellow bloggers?

I don't think it makes any logical sense.

Now, this:

"As I said before this statement either equates all Muslims with al-Qaeda (since Jihadists don't control any countries), or else it simply sees the existence of Muslim countries and independent Muslim wealth as something inherently sinister. Either way, it speaks to a deep-rooted fear and hatred of an entire religion and the many and varied cultures, nationalities and ethnicities which make up that religion."--Dariush

Is simply editorializing based on what you believe my opinions to be, and to a great extent what your own opinions TRULY ARE; inasmuch as, if you simply exchange the word "Muslim" for "Jew", you have succinctly described your own fire-breathing brand of anti-Semitic swill. Tell me: does the accusation of bigotry fly both ways?

If you tell me I am "anti-Arab", although I assure you I am not, while, only several weeks ago you yourself confessed to being an "anti-Semite" ( I will dig up the post again for future reference, but it will take me some time), then which individual is truly, worthy of being labeled a "bigot"? The man who takes every attempt to belittle his adversaries, spew racial epithets, mock ethnic idiosyncrasies, and flaunt the fact that he is an "anti-Semite", or the individual that tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to reaffirm the basic humanity of those who have, from a cultural or political standpoint, largely called for his obliteration?

You can’t have it both ways: you cannot , on the one hand, condemn me as an ‘anti-Arab”, while, on the other, giving vent to a form “Jew-hatred” that would make Streicher blush. You cannot condemn the Israelis for protecting their own interests, while advocating that Arabs be allowed to protect and further their interests, no matter the methods employed. You cannot strike out , then hide behind a moral scapegoat, point, and shout “See! They’ve been unfair to us all along! We demand justice! Now-- take that!”

You cannot mewl over the “media silence” surrounding atrocities on the battlefield in Iraq, while then applauding the duplicitous methods employed by Holocaust-deniers, nor our attempts as a cultivated, and educated people, to protect the historical record from frauds, propagandists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and those whose ‘revisions” of history border on the blatantly absurd.

In YOUR worldview, the Islamic world can do NO WRONG. Ipso-facto, the Jewish state, and by extension their American allies, can do no right. Do you realize the irrationality of that position? Do you realize the moral quandary in which you’ve painted yourself? If you want to support the Arab world in all of it’s manifold blunders, bombings, bombast, and beheadings--then, by all means, please do so. That is where, undeniably, your heart beats the quickest and strongest.

But don’t pretend to be something you’re not; don’t chafe at the “splinter” of bigotry in my eye, until you have the temerity to question your own motives, consider your own racism, and come to terms with it.

And, one last thing: there is nothing in the least impressive about your volley of hyper-links. You insert them merely to give the impression that your arguments are backed by hard data and research. Nothing could be further from the truth. The articles you link are, the great majority of the time, simply further extrapolations on your own already firmly-entrenched beliefs; in short, you link to propaganda to give propaganda a superficial measure of legitimacy; the unwary may be momentarily taken aback, but in time, your methods become transparent.

One wonders why you even bother. Your presentation is so abrasive, so over-the-top hysterical, and so utterly hypocritical you serve only to widen the gulf between yourself and your ideological opponents. I would hazard a guess that you haven’t managed to change one mind that wasn’t already firmly rooted on a given slope of the political divide. Your arrogant attempt at pedagogy amounts to little more than withering insult, and though it might have some effect upon a class of undergraduates, most of us have already heard the same tripe repeated endlessly, ad nauseum, from a number of radical, far-left sources.

And, contrary to your belief, America, while she may wax and wane in her moods and opinions, will NEVER fall for much of this rhetoric. In short: you ‘ve failed.

Brian said...

I know what you mean EB. The guy is a prejudiced bigot. He's ready to assign all kinds of beliefs to me because I don't like immigrants coming in to our country from a country run by a totalitarian, theocratic regime, and telling us how badly we are screwing up our country.

Man, if he knew my last name, he'd probably really hate me.

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed he is a prejudiced bigot--and not apparently, strictly toward Jews alone, either.

Also, his hyperlinks are, quite often, simply link-ups to trash websites that tout, among other things: New World Order conspiracies, UFO cults, Sasquatch sightings, "Bush did 9/11", Reptillian aliens, and alot of other tabloid, moronic drivel (i.e. that Truth Teller website he linked to in his previous post).

I , myself, like reading some of this material, strictly for entertainment purposes--but I don't live and die by the veracity of its claims.

EB

Anonymous said...

For instance, one of the articles he links to includes this telling sentence at the end:

"Always looking for the bright side of things: now the Europeans do not have to worry about the dark prophecy of the Protocols. The rule of the Elders of Zion is already upon us, and egad! -- it is not half as bad as we feared. At least, not yet."--Israel Shamir (?)

Of course,Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is one of histories great forgeries, plagiarized and published by a Czarist official as a political weapon , and has inspired a century of Jew-baiting, anti-Semitism, and brain dead conspiracy mongering. It originally appeared as a portion of a novel called Machiavelli in Hell, sometime in the late eighteenth century.

That Israel Shamir chooses to vouch for the veracity of that particular hoax, speaks volumes about him as a researcher.



EB

Anonymous said...

"The biggest problem in the world is Judaism…and how it creates misery and exploitation wherever it spreads"--John Kaminski

---

Another one of Dari Dearie's favorite internet peaceniks.

Truly, the Left-leaning mind is a repository of racial harmony and progressive goodwill.

Anonymous said...

Yoo hoo, luvy duvy! Wherefore art thou, mien Kommaraden?

Maybe he's at the "brownshirt and swastika soiree"...I hear Bill White's back in town, and his bumps have learned how to do tricks.

Note: that was DO tricks. NOT, turn tricks...

(Get yer filthy rassodocks out of the gutters, oh my brothers!)

Thy Little Alex

Dariush said...

EB: "You cannot mewl over the "media silence" surrounding atrocities on the battlefield in Iraq, while then applauding the duplicitous methods employed by Holocaust-deniers, nor our attempts as a cultivated, and educated people, to protect the historical record from frauds, propagandists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and those whose 'revisions' of history border on the blatantly absurd."

"Our attempts"? Who's "our," EB? Are you an Austrian or French prosecutor? Should everyone who writes or says anything that is, according to you, "blatantly absurd" be locked up? I did not realize that "cultivated and educated people" thought in such a manner.

You however, without the shield of any "our", most certainly do, as your jubilation over the Irving verdict, and your tut-tut finger-wagging reply to Mike re: his post on the subject, indicated.

My view on the "revisionists" (nice smear-term devised by court historians) is that they are the canary in the coal mine. The harbinger of what awaits all of us who don't go along with the program, if we remain passively resigned to our fate. (Note how I actually defined "us" and "we" here) That's why they get my support.


"I don't know, at this point, whether I should be amused, or offended. A raving, self-confessed anti-Semite is accusing ME of being a bigot? Now there is a sterling example of psychological projection I must say..."

Oh, brother. Yes, love thy executioner lest thou be deemed a bigot.

EB, it's obvious from every one of your posts what you are. It doesn't take me to point it out. But I enjoy doing so, in any case. :)


"Have you ever considered that, were it not that you come off , in every single argument, as a histrionic, hate-filled, snot-spewing, venomous little brat, you might go a darn sight further in convincing others to at least consider the relevance of what you are trying to express?

"You alienate those you should be trying to curry support from. However, if you care not a whit for our opinions, then why do you spend so much time typing posts, linking propaganda, and generally trying to unsettle the feathers of fellow bloggers?"


Have you ever considered that the "opinions" and "support" of you, and whatever imaginary "our" it is you claim to speak for, has nothing to do with why I blog?

Or has your narcissism finally run its course?

And seriously now, who is this "our" of yours? The neocon blogosphere? Austrian prosecutors? All of America? Or dost thou now deign to speak for all of Western Civilization itself?


"Is simply editorializing based on what you believe my opinions to be..."

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You said "the Islamicists control many countries, a great deal of wealth, much of the world's oil reserves" (this isn't the actual quote, but a reasonable summation -- the actual quote being in your first post in this thread). Since this is a complete inversion of the truth, my interpretation of your actual meaning is quite reasonable.


"If you tell me I am 'anti-Arab', although I assure you I am not..."

Assure away, sire. Meanwhile, it was "only several weeks ago [that] you yourself" stated "the world has had enough of Arab aggression." Not "Salafist", not "Wahhabi", not "Islamist", not "Jihadi", just "Arab." Unlike you, however, I'm not obsessive enough to bother digging through Nikki's archives for days on end trying to find it.


"...the individual that tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to reaffirm the basic humanity of those who have, from a cultural or political standpoint, largely called for his obliteration?"

Oh thank you, most gracious sahib, for "trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to reaffirm the basic humanity" of those who are less than human. One might even say sub-human. Thank you also, for the "obliteration" comment, which both stands reality on its head, and reaffirms what I said about you being a fear-stricken bigot.


"One wonders why you even bother. Your presentation is so abrasive, so over-the-top hysterical, and so utterly hypocritical..."

You're doing it wrong, EB. When you look in that mirror, you're not supposed to make a list of your own shortcomings. You're supposed to make a list of what you like about yourself and why other people like you (you shouldn't have any trouble... at least with the first part). That's the whole point of a daily affirmation.


"you serve only to widen the gulf between yourself and your ideological opponents."

I assure you that I have no interest in narrowing the gulf between me and you, nor those who are of like mind to you.


"And, contrary to your belief, America, while she may wax and wane in her moods and opinions, will NEVER fall for much of this rhetoric."

Unlike yourself, I'm not arrogant or foolhardy enough to believe that my "rhetoric" influences "America." It's actually the rhetoric of your side that is influencing America, only not in the way that you perceive.

Frankly the more the American people are exposed to those who sincerely believe that politically incorrect historians and dissidents of all stripes need to be caged up or deported, and that (as the Bonehead-in-Chief reaffirmed just yesterday) Americans must fight to the death for the sake of Israel, the more results like these seem like a mere sampling, a little taste, of what is to come.

As for the rest of your histrionic, strawman-ridden posts...I'll leave those be as an eternal monument to your "genius."

Dariush said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dariush said...

"Yoo hoo, luvy duvy! Wherefore art thou, mien Kommaraden?

"Maybe he's at the 'brownshirt and swastika soiree'...I hear Bill White's back in town, and his bumps have learned how to do tricks.

"Note: that was DO tricks. NOT, turn tricks...

"(Get yer filthy rassodocks out of the gutters, oh my brothers!)

"Thy Little Alex"


Wow... Somebody's got some issues they need to work out.

But at least you did manage to exercise enough self-control to refrain from any more forged posts or death threats. So kudos to you on that, kiddo.

Dariush said...

Oh, hey. It's just been brought to my attention that right around the same time that this fake "Iranian Nazi laws" story "came to light", something else was happening that, curiously enough, slipped right under the radar of the "western" media:

************

You have to wonder what the National Post was up to, when it published its amazing lying articles on alleged Iranian sumptuary laws involving identification of minority groups. By publishing the original front-page article with a huge picture from Nazi Germany (front page reprinted here and here, but the article itself appears to have disappeared; by the way, is there an uglier front page design in the world?), it explicitly connected the current Iranian government with Nazi Germany. Since the entire story was an outright lie, a fact which you could easily see from the preposterousness of the story as well as a fact which an editor at the Post could have instantly discovered with one phone call to the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, a Holocaust revisionist might use this incident as evidence that the entire story of German treatment of the Jews is also a lie. Two similar lies on the same front page! You would think the Zionists who run the Post would be a little more careful with the legacy of the Holocaust.

The original article by Amir Taheri (the article with the front page picture was by Chris Wattie, who also wrote the clean-up article – note another deceitful picture beside it!), which attempted to be a little more circumspect (but is still factually untrue), is obvious anti-Iranian propaganda, a fact made even clearer by the fact that the writer is associated with Benador Associates, the extreme right-wing political PR spinners. But why did the Post run it so ridiculously prominently, above-the-fold front page with a huge headline and a huge picture? My guess is that the fake racism-in-Iran story was intended to deflect attention from the real racism-in-Israel story. David Frum even apologized for the story on Iran by stating that the original idea for Nazi sumptuary laws came from Baghdad in the era of Charlemagne, so it is not unfair to Iran (wtf? – is David Frum on drugs?). The message is that Islam, and in particular this Iranian government, is racist.

Just before the National Post story came out, the Israeli Supreme court approved the Israeli laws barring family reunification for Israelis married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. Since it is only Arab Israeli citizens who marry Palestinians, it forces Israeli citizens to leave the country based entirely on their racial origin. It is an expressly racist law, and has an exact parallel in the first Nuremberg Race Law of 1935, in which Nazi Germany prohibited marriage between 'Germans' and Jews (see here with a handy German chart which the Israelis should translate into Hebrew and post in public places). This law is apparently deeply troubling for North American Jews, and it is impossible to explain how its approval by the Israeli Supreme Court can be consistent with the stories we hear of how Israel is a 'democracy' which supports human rights. This little lyin' story about Iran may be a clumsy attempt to hide real Zionist racism behind phony Islamic racism.

Kate said...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/24/canada.iran.reut/index.html

Newspaper apologizes for anti-Iran report
Tehran summons envoy to explain Canadian leader's remarks

Anonymous said...

"You however, without the shield of any "our", most certainly do, as your jubilation over the Irving verdict, and your tut-tut finger-wagging reply to Mike re: his post on the subject, indicated."--Dariush

---

What the hell are you talking about? I never posted to this thread.