No Pink Triangles?

While the American Left nitters and natters about how our nation is on the road to fascism and President Bush is merely a reincarnation of Hitler, Iran and its maniacal leader are simply going ahead and doing it:

Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear a yellow, red or blue strip of cloth, respectively, on the front of their clothes

Though my initial impulse is to scream about the discrimination of it all (as there will be no special minority laws crafted without the gays, damnit! See: California schools), I realized, oh yeah, they just hang us over there.

So really, if our typically quiet gay rights groups could lobby for an Iranian pink triangle, it would actually be a step up for those beleaguered folks.

h/t Chad

Update: The National Post apologizes and retracts its original story. So, Iran only wants to exterminate the Jews and hang homosexuals as a matter of course. Nothing at all like Nazi Germany. Very much my grievous error for implying otherwise. Tch.

Comments

[Aatom]

i just love that there are still Zoroastrians in the world.

And at this point I'm beginning to suspect that another holocaust could happen and some people would still be tsk tsk'ing American foreign policy.

[Scott A]

Yes, it's horrible what these people are doing in Iran, but I'm not going to stop looking at the silent bush boa constrictor waiting to take a tighter grip. [ Please forgive the bad analogy. ;-) ]

[Queer Conservative]

Mark my words, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will be blaming America for this within the next 3 seconds... And Noam Chomsky will write an apology for it...

[The Rev. Jack Malebranche]

Wow...Iran so wants to get bombed it's not even funny. And they will.

If only our fearless leaders could figure out how to deal with what happens after the fact, instead of helping them create the same thing over again...

Really, the best solution is just bombing more thoroughly. Sometimes you just have to start from scratch.

[Queer Conservative]

There's nothing like starting over on a fresh patch of melted sand...

[anapestic]

And at this point I'm beginning to suspect that another holocaust could happen and some people would still be tsk tsk'ing American foreign policy.

Does the existence of an atrocity mean that anything less than an atrocity is fine, even if it's in an unrelated area? Are we allowed only one thing to decry at a time? Is "better than Iran" really the standard we should be shooting for here?

[Aatom]

no, anapestic, but don't you think it should be possible to have a discussion about Jews being branded for annihilation again without the inevitable "Yes, but...BUSH!!" comment. (see above)

[J Kevin (aka QC)]

Is "better than Iran" really the standard we should be shooting for here?

It sounds like a damn fine goal to me.

And please, let's lose the moral equivilency rehtoric. America is nothing like Iran, even on bad day.

[anapestic]

don't you think it should be possible to have a discussion about Jews being branded for annihilation again without the inevitable "Yes, but...BUSH!!" comment. (see above)

Certainly, it should be possible, but when the post is set up the way this one was, that sort of comment is encouraged. It is deplorable that the Iranians are marking their citizens, but rather than start out with that, Robbie chose to minimize and largely mischaracterize valid concerns about the erosion of civil liberties. If we see that the Iranians are taking away what little liberty remains to a segment of its population, shouldn't we respond by being more of an example, rather than less?

I believe that the comment that you're complaining about is mostly a response to your comment, which preceded it. You didn't really deplore the Iranians, either, you took a cheap shot at people who disagree with our current foreign policy.

I am very troubled by actions reminiscent of the Nazis taken by an administration that is headed by a Holocaust denier, but I don't see how not ensuring our own liberties is going to help that situation.

[Tommy]

Sick, sick, sick.

[anapestic]

And please, let's lose the moral equivilency rehtoric. America is nothing like Iran, even on bad day.

Who said anything about America being anything like Iran? Weren't you complaining earlier today about strawman arguments?

[Chad]

Ace is saying that the story has yet to be confirmed. Just FYI.

[parisa]

First of all, Queer Conservative, i'm really tired of these played out, inaccurate references to deserts, particularly as an Iranian-American. Believe it or not, the Middle East is not just one big desert, and it makes me nuts when people characterize it as such.

Second of all, the even more extremist direction that Ahmadinejad is taking is sickening in general, and this is just the latest example. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think bombing them will help things, particularly given the history of American involvement in Iran. Just a thought...

[Jamie]

Wasn't that a song by the beach boys?

Bomb-bomb-bomb
Bomb-bomb-Iran

[QC]

Anapestic, it appeared to me you were saying that any action we take against the Mullahs in Iran will make us as bad as they. I disagree with that. If I read you wrong I apologize.

[QC]

First of all, Queer Conservative, i'm really tired of these played out, inaccurate references to deserts, particularly as an Iranian-American. Believe it or not, the Middle East is not just one big desert, and it makes me nuts when people characterize it as such.

Hi parisa! My reference to melted sand was a euphemism. As an Anglo - German - Dutch - Scot - French - Choctaw - Male - Homosexual - American, I know that the Middle East isn't one big desert. How about this then: "There's nothing like starting over on a fresh patch of melted dirt and rock..." There, every country has dirt and rock so that should suffice.

Second of all, the even more extremist direction that Ahmadinejad is taking is sickening in general, and this is just the latest example. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think bombing them will help things, particularly given the history of American involvement in Iran. Just a thought...

Bombing is never a good thing, but if it wipes out or even slightly hinders Iran's nuclear weapons program then I say we go for it - all out as hard as we can. And yes, I know that the post is about the Mullahs tagging their dhimmis for easier tracking and capture, not Iran and nukes. I was responding to Jack's comment. I'll try and stop drifting off-topic.

[anapestic]

Anapestic, it appeared to me you were saying that any action we take against the Mullahs in Iran will make us as bad as they. I disagree with that. If I read you wrong I apologize.

Wow, no. I don't have any idea how you get there from what I said. My point was that our protection of our own civil liberties should be based on our own values and wholly independent of what the Iranians do.

[QC]

Wow, no. I don't have any idea how you get there from what I said. My point was that our protection of our own civil liberties should be based on our own values and wholly independent of what the Iranians do.

I understand your point. Unfortunately our nation and its values don't exist in a vacuum. How do you propose to handle an outside force such as Iran that threatens not only our values but our existence. Do our values not allow us to defend ourselves from clear and present danger? If they do, then taking action against a murderous regime such as Iran is not only wise, but required of us. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

[Seanny]

Turns out its not true.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_dress_code;_ylt=AqaKPIhdl..zLsiFVidUUw9vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[QC]

It does appear that the story cannot be confirmed. If it isn't true, thank God.

Seanny, the link doesn't seem to be complete. Can you repost it - maybe using tinyurl.com ?

Thanks!

[Hass]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131043721479&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Hass]

THIS STORY NOT TRUE!
Iran: Lawmakers Debate Women's Clothing
Associated Press May 20, 2006

... Emad Afroogh, the legislator who sponsored the bill and is chairman of Parliament's Cultural Committee, said that the Canadian report was untrue and that the measure sought only to make women dress more conservatively and avoid Western fashions. Another lawmaker, Morris Motamed, a Jew, also said the Canadian report was false.

ALSO NOT TRUE Holocaust "historian" Edwin Black claimed that Iran was responsible for the Holocaust. But see Iran, Jews and the Holocaust: An answer to Mr. Black by Dr Abbas Milani of Stanford University.

More about Jews of Iran:
1- Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom, Christian Science Monitor, February 03, 1998
(http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html)

2- Polish Jews were given refuge in Iran during WWII
Associated Press
Thursday, November 23, 2000
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53268-2000Nov22?language=printer)

3- Iranian Jews PREFER Tehran to Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem Post Nov. 3, 2005
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131043721479&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

[QC]

Hass said: Emad Afroogh, the legislator who sponsored the bill and is chairman of Parliament's Cultural Committee, said that the Canadian report was untrue and that the measure sought only to make women dress more conservatively and avoid Western fashions.

Thank God! It's just regular old oppression of women. Sheesh...

[parisa]

What's up, QC! Perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but I'm not quite sure what your original statement was a euphenism for?
I totally agree with your assesment of the Iranian nuclear program-I'm among the last to approve of nuclear energy, let alone nuclear weapons. But again, if you look at what caused the orginal revolution in Iran (which was a coalition of leftist students and religious fundamentalists), namely the rule of the Shah (who was not any better than the current regime-SAVAC, anyone?) who we put into power in 1953 by assasinating an democratically elected, but socialist, PM, I feel that American intervention ultimately makes it worse.
Constant, colonialist intervention from Western Europe and the U.S. has created the modern Middle East; will further intervention, particularly viewed through the lens of those living in the Mid East, really change anything?
We contributed to this mess-will further military intervention make it better or make it seem that we are colonialist power seeking to gain control of their economic resources?

[QC]

Yes, I believe that you are being purposefully thick, parisa. "Melted sand" is a colloquialism for what's left after a nuclear explosion. The heat melts the earth into a sheet of glass. Simple as that. I hear it's a beautiful but terrifying sight.

We can't change the past in Iran - and you are correct, much of what it is today is our own doing. But the past has no bearing on the question at hand. Our only concern should be how do we control the mad Mullahs and destroy their dream of ever have nuclear anything - much less weapons? Personally, I don't want them to even have a "glow in the dark" wrist watch. The Islamofascist thugs understand nothing but force, so I say we show them we have more than they ever will.