This has to be a joke: Proposed Iranian law requires minoriities to wear colour bands

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Oh, and by going to the National Post's web site I know see they are a Canadian paper and not American.

DUH! Does Review even sound remotely like Post?

[DaShi]

Canadian papers! Will news ever be safe?

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Ned
Even if the story is a hoax, the Iranians hatred of Jews is as virulent as Hitler's.

That's another Zionist disinformation hoax too:

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html

[Zevico]

I'm surprised, really. Didn't expect the Jerusalem Post to print stuff like that. They're not a very tabloidish paper. Right wing, yes, but excellently written (even when one might disagree with some of their writers' opinions).
As for the Canadese, I'm with DaShi here--what do Canadians, right wing or not, have to exaggerate the ME conflict for? Just seems wierd to me.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Zevico
I'm surprised, really. Didn't expect the Jerusalem Post to print stuff like that. They're not a very tabloidish paper.

The Jerusalem Post was so eager to portray Christian Zionists in a positive light that it published a completely fabricated article about Jerry Falwell changing his views on the need for Jews to convert to Christianity.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49063

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Evidently you haven't witnessed their baby eating ritual?

They are tender.

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Fascism is socialist because germany was ruled by the national socialist party.

Like wise, Stalin was a republican because he ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Does that mean that the USA is stalinist, because it's lead by republicans?

Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. One is about Nationalism. The other about state ownership of the means of production. In Islamic countries, you have both.

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Fascism is socialist because germany was ruled by the national socialist party.

Like wise, Stalin was a republican because he ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Does that mean that the USA is stalinist, because it's lead by republicans?

And there are people who also pretend to be educated by pointedly misunderstanding their oppenent's arguments.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer


That's another Zionist disinformation hoax too:

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durable...ntl/intl.3.htm

Slaughter-your-member, the link is no longer valid. But what I said can be inferred from the public statements of Iran's current Fuhrer about wiping Israel off the map, etc. I also infer it from what al Qa'ida did to that Jewish-American reporter they caught in Pakistan. They had him admit he was Jewish, then slowly cut his head off while he screamed and scream and screamed....

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Ned


Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. One is about Nationalism. The other about state ownership of the means of production. In Islamic countries, you have both.

So fascism consists of nothing but nationalism now?

[Ned]

Originally posted by civman2000

So fascism consists of nothing but nationalism now?

Obviously not. The other premise is that the Nation is superior to the individual.

All one-party states have this premise as well, which is why both Fascism and Stalinistic socialism are so much alike. The differences appear to be in the "internationalist" ideal of socialism and the "nationalist" ideal of fascism.

I would say that many if not most Islamic countries are both fascist and socialist. Nazi's.

[lord of the mark]

The Jerusalem Post sourced the story to the National Post. The National Post sourced the story to Iranian exiles.

One wouldnt have to listen to Iranian exiles for events in Iran, IF Iran had a free press. Which it does not.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Well, the real story has come out. It targets women, trying to undo some of the work done by the once-strong reformists. Not shocking in the least.

Jpost:

"Laws in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution require women to wear charor, meaning a headscarf to cover their hair and a long overcoat to hide their figures.

But in the past decade, enforcement has grown lax and women - particularly in Teheran - commonly wear scarves that leave almost their entire heads bare and short, form-fitting jackets instead of overcoats.

The bill makes no specific mention of women but says it aims to "encourage the public to abstain from choosing clothes that aren't appropriate to the culture of Iran."

It tasks the Culture Ministry and state media with promoting Iranian styles of dress and discouraging clothing "that does not conform with Iranian-Islamic culture." The bill would also give economic incentives to producers of Islamic-style clothing and impose tariffs on clothing imports.

The bill does not call for police or other bodies to enforce stricter styles of dress for women. In the past, religious police and paramilitary militias would castigate women in the streets if any of their hair was showing or if their clothes were too revealing, though such enforcement has been rarer in recent years. "

Ahmadinajad, trying to push things to the "right", but without starting a backlash.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The Jerusalem Post sourced the story to the National Post. The National Post sourced the story to Iranian exiles.

One wouldnt have to listen to Iranian exiles for events in Iran, IF Iran had a free press. Which it does not.

Iran is not a totalitarian state. Besides, if the conservatives wanted to pass such a law, they would advertise it in the press Iran does have.

[notyoueither]

Theocracy is soo much better than totalitarian.