Should we attack Iran?

Great Debates
141

My apologies, I remember reading an article about women not being allowed to ski without a male relative, and assumed it applied everywhere. And I think my confusion is that women are not allowed to mix with unknown males without a relative present. Is that correct?

But you are right, I am wrong to group Iran with places like Saudi Arabia. In Iran, Women are only required to cover everything but their hands and face, can’t wear bright colors, and can’t wear too much make up. Such an enlightened place.

142

Fair enough. I over-reacted and for that I’m sorry. You made some comments that were over-the-top, but you’re hardly the first person to make unwarranted assumptions about Iran.

Also, fwiw, it’s worth, I apologize for overreacting to the “hijab” comment. Yes, lots of Iranians don’t like the mistake, but it’s an extremely common one and if you go by the broadest definition of “hijab” as opposed to the way it’s commonly used not a mistake, but the next Iranian who refers to the outfit Iranian women are forced to wear as a “hijab” as opposed to a “chador” will be the first. That said, you’re hardly the first westerner to make such a mistake and you meant no harm.

As regarding women not being allowed to “mix with unknown males without a relative present”, the answer is I don’t think so.

Iranian women work so I don’t see how that could be avoided.

I’m not a fan of the government and am very happy my parents removed me from there when I was two, but there’s more than enough wrong with it without exaggerating.

And yes, Iran has a restrictive dress code for its women, but it should be noted that it’s even more restrictive for men.

There’s a reason the unofficial dress code for high-ranking Iranians isn’t robes but shirts buttoned all the way too the top without any tie.

Iran is vastly more complex than people think and it’s not just a Shia version of Saudi Arabia. Amongst other things, one can make an extremely strong case that women are better off in modern day Iran than they were under the Shah.

143

Kind of silly to continue this argument as I am not interested in the least in fashion wear for women in Iran. But I guess pedantry begets pedantry.

Here’s what Leila Mouri, a Persian women’s rights activist, has to say on the matter:

Compulsory Hijab in Iran: There Is No Room for Appeasement

– guess whose highlights? :wink:

So, again, both prior points seem to hold.

1-“Hijab” appears to be a commonly accepted word for the Islamic dress code of the same name.

2-It is indubitably mandatory garb to be worn by woman in Iran, under penalty of law.

3-A chador, could be said to be a distinct Persian interpretation of said garb. IWO, it serves the same purpose, it’s just tailored differently.

If you are fine with that, so am I.

But the finer point is that I think you went way overboard in saying what you did to Treis – after all, he was correct in the main point as I’ve just shown.

Moral of the story? We – and yes, I include myself as I just did the same – sometimes lose sight of the forest due to getting stuck on mere branches in a minuscule tree. So perhaps a bit less intellectual posturing would do us all some good.

144

Yes. No. Maybe. Whatever floats your boat.

May I suggest you get some rest so you can come up with a whole new line of insults for tomorrow? Bored with the current ones. Thanks in advance.

ETA: Ibn, good on you for retracting your comments. I have no more to say on the issue.

145

Holy shit… you really are serious. You’re not poking folks with a stick, you honestly don’t understand the nature of factual citations. My apologies, if you don’t understand after more than ten years on the Dope then I was wrong to try to teach you.

146

Sigh.

Leila Moury is writing for a western audience(hence the article in Huffington Post) and hence using terms they’d be familiar with. It’s similar to the way some Arab feminists when talking to western audiences refer to “the veil” when “the Niqab” or “the burka”, depending on the situation would be more proper.

The Chador refers to a very specific type of clothing that covers the whole body

When people refer to “Hijabs” in the Arab world, they’re referring to headscarves.

There’s a pretty significant difference.

And yes, the broadest translation of the Arab word “Hijab” means “covering” which would include what Iranian women wear, but that’s not what peoe inIran say, anymore than Palestinians refer to “the veil”.

Beyond that, while it was a mistake on Treis’ part, it’s not a big deal and more showed ignorance of the subtleties of the region rather than mean-spiritedness on his part, which is why I apologized for over-reacting.

147

You’re still listing a subset of clothing that falls under the – WARNING! Wiki cite ahead – List of types of sartorial hijab.

If you think/feel this is such an important point of contention in understanding political issues in Muslim countries, you’d be doing the world a favor by editing said Wiki entry.

148

It doesn’t matter what the “correct” word is. The use of hijab in the manner I used it is well established in the English language, as evidenced by use by the NY Times, Washington Post, Economist, et al. So while it may be a mistranslation or misapplication of a word, it is firmly established as the word used to describe the head covering worn by women in Iran. You are free to fight against it, but be aware that it is a battle that is already lost.

149

The issue is more that you’ve chosen to take positions and hold them with great vehemence when, time and again, it’s been shown that you don’t know the basic facts that you’re talking about. I mean, hell, you read a quote about two groups of Al Quaeda operatives and thought it was about a single man. If that wasn’t the history in this thread, people probably wouldn’t point out other, minor, factual errors you were making. But at the end of a long laundry list of truly jaw dropping bits of willful ignorance, even commonly-accepted-western-errors can serve as the straw that broke the camel’s back.As you’ve been told, you could swallow your pride and admit that you were wrong on pretty much every single point you made in this thread. And it’s easier still not to post on a subject until you know about it, or you’re at at least willing to actually read the thread for content and comprehension so that you don’t have people pointing out things like, yah… multiple people in seperate groups really are not accurately described as one single dude.

There’s a reason I don’t post in threads about competitive figure skating.
It’s the same reason why you probably don’t have a single argument you’ve advanced in this thread that didn’t contain, or was actually predicated on, willful ignorance and factual error.

150

Sigh.

I apologize for expecting us to use the terms properly understood by the actual residents of the countries as opposed to those used by ignorant Westerners.

You’re certainly correct that Westerners have regularly used their own definitions and imposed their own views on the region.

That’s why Westerners for centuries referred to Muslims as “Mohammedans” because they stupidly insisted on believing that just as Christians were the followers of Christ, Muslims were the followers of Muhammad.

Similarly, it’s why western newscasters used to regularly mispronounce the name of the country Saudi Arabia.

As someone who has made a point of complaining about how the west picks on Iran I would have thought you wouldn’t want to join in this sort of ignorant behavior, but apparently I was wrong.

It’s quite sad, but hardly unsurprising since I’ve often found that a little scratching under the surface reveals that many western critics of Israel’s actions against the Palestinians or the US’ actions against other Muslim nations is motivated not so much by sympathy for those ME countries but animosity towards the Jews, Israel, or America.

It’s why you find so many western critics of Israel who trip over themselves to bitch about how horribly the Jews are treating the Palestinians, but when one brings up the vastly worse treatment the Palestinians faced at the hands of the Kuwaitis those same people suddenly give you puzzled looks and say “what the fuck are you talking about.”

As a Palestinian once said, “they don’t care about us, they just love a chance to sock it to the Jews and forget the fact that they’re currently sitting in their mother’s basements trying to find ways to make themselves feel meaningful.”

For now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that doesn’t apply to you(and I’m being sincere), but such arguments where you basically say, “I don’t care what the Iranians think” do little to help your cause.

Beyond that, I really can’t emphasize just how much most Middle Easterners would be offended by your extremely arrogant claim,

Sorry, but to us, it very much does.

151

I guess I will just have to console myself knowing the difference between “corroborated” and “attempted to corroborate”.

152

I’m not the arbiter of the English language, just a user.

Besides, I’m pretty sure you’re wrong here. The Chador isn’t what is required. What is required is the Hijab, or other suitable head covering, and dressing modestly. So my original statement “forcing women to wear the Hijab” is correct. No one is forced to wear a Chador. Typically that is what Iranian women wear, but it isn’t the requirement.

153

We’re not talking about the English language, but the proper terms that are used by actual Middle Easterners.

Moreover, considering that you’ve admitted you’d. Ever heard the phrase Velayet-e-Faqih prior to today and knew so little about Iran that you thought that it’s government was a “fundamentalist Shia” government which prohibitted women from going out in public without a male family member present, you’re being extremely presumptuous.

All that’s been established is that you’ve made a common western mistake, as has been shown, but your response to finding out about the mistake has been to say, “I don’t care what the ragheads say, we Americans dictate the truth.”

It’s a surprising attitude to take for someone who earlier was standing up against American imperialism.

Do you honestly give a shit about us, or do you just like to use us to take shots at your political enemies and possibly feel better about yourself?

154

Before I respond, are you saying that the Chador, and not the Hijab, is what is required in Iran?

155

Unfortunately, that too is a problem Treis. When you are proven to be ignorant about basic facts, willfully ignorant about things you are educated about, unwilling or unable to read for comprehension to the point where you describe two separate groups of people are a single individual… and your reaction to that is not just to change the subject for the n[sup]th[/sup] time, not just to resort to such obviously puerile, vacuous insults, but to actually ignore the argument showing you’re wrong in favor or slinging such juvenile nonsense? Seriously, it just makes your argument look worse than worthless. Your argument is actually actively detrimental to anybody reading this thread who wanted to know more and understand more when they were done reading it.

For instance, here, since you were proven wrong you are yet again pulling a “I know you are but what am I!?!?!?” bit. The fact is that you don’t understand what the word “corroboration” means. I pointed this out to you, and you then tried to claim that in the 9/11 Commission Report’s context, somehow “attempt to corroborate” is semantically different than “corroborate”. It isn’t. I explained that to you, and you ignored it because, as you’ve done roughly a dozen separate times in this thread, you were proven wrong and refused to admit error. You can still salvage your argument and prove that your posts here are part of a debate and not just you trying to argue with me.

Yet again, I was kind enough to provide you with the definition of the word “corroborated” since you apparently only knew the connotation and not the denotation. There’s no shame in not knowing what it means, Treis, you’re in the same company as most folks who think they know what “condone” means, but don’t, because they think it means “endorse”. It’s your willful ignorance that’s the issue, not the fact that you were ignorant before I educated you. If you want to actually attempt to build a cogent point instead of just spewing nonsense, you need to at least attempt logical analysis and refutation, not “U kno no English!”.

Here, I’ll start you off:** explain exactly what you believe the semantic variation is between “to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect” and “to act in order to cause”. ** If you are unable to answer this question, then there is no actual difference between attempting to corroborate findings and acting in order to corroborate findings. If you are unable to answer that question, as you certainly seem to be as so far you’ve only ignored it or tried to change the subject, then you will tacitly be admitting that you’re wrong, you know you’re wrong, and you’re trying to cover that fact by going on the attack. Even if you truly believe that there is a semantic variation between the two, then it becomes mandatory that you actually attempt to explain why the 9/11 Commission deliberately included a clause that meant that they tried and failed to corroborate evidence and decided to include it anyways. You’ll need to explain why professional politicians would admit something in writing rather than it being a maladroit use of verbiage. You’ll need to explain that massive hole in your rationalizations as well.

But you and I both know that you can’t do any of the above, because you’re wrong and I’m correct. If you could have proven me wrong, you would have done it by now. You haven’t because you can’t. But you can reiterate your nonsense about how despite the fact that you confused an individual with two groups of multiple people, your argument is credible enough that by just saying “LOL u do nut undurstand ROFL!” you’ve debunked the actual denotation of a word. Give it up and cleave to the board’s mission statement. We’re here to fight ignorance, not fight in defense of our right to remain ignorant. It’s never too late to start.

156

What the hell are you talking about? The difference isn’t between “attempting to corroborate” and “acting in order to corroborate”. The difference is between “attempted to corroborate” and “corroborated”.

157

They certainly wouldn’t say Hijab in Iran. As to the question as to whether a woman could get away with wearing merely a headscarf without violating Iranian law, I don’t know for sure, but every woman I’ve met who’s been there, including reporters, wear the Chador.

That said, is it possible that a western woman could get away with wearing just a headscarf, so long as they had their arms and legs covered.

Sure.

A) I haven’t seen the law itself, either in Farsi or a translation, nor have you. I’ve only seen commentary on it, much of which has been by westerners who probably don’t read or write Farsi. There are exceptions like Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian artist, and the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran who repeatedly talk about women being required to wear the Chador, but they might miss a slight subtlety.

B)Even if the law requires a full Chador, which is what every woman that I’ve ever met, both Iranians and non-Iranians, has worn, it’s possible that western women could get away with wearing just the headscarf, so long as their hands and legs are covered as well, sure. Technically, the speed limit in the US is 55, but you’re usually allowed to go over it, and Iranians often care more about the spirit of the law than the letter. Moreover, treating guests extremely well is really, really important to Middle Easterners, whether Arab, Persian, Turkish, Muslim, or Christian.

Now, my initial question was, in retrospect, far too mean-spirited and probably due to the fact that I’m tired and putting off going to bed for work tommorrow.

For that reason, I’ll withdraw it and assume you’re genuinely concerned about us rather than just wanting to use us as a club against your political opponents. Besides all of us have a mixture of motives and I was being unfair.

I’ll merely recommend that before you make assumptions about the Middle East you recognize it’s vastly more complicated than people think.

It’s a place where radical Zionist terrorists collaborate with Nazis, where Communists pray to God and jail people for blasphemy, where Jews are treated vastly better in Iran, Israel’s mortal enemy, than they are treated in Jordan or Egypt, it’s allies, and where Christians flee every country in droves(including Israel) with the lone exception of Iran and where, with the exception of Israel and Turkey, the country with highest percentage of female college graduates is Iran, one of the few countries where women are legally inferior. Similarly, you won’t find a country in the ME, where religious minorities aren’t better incorporated into the society than Iran(excepting the Druze in Israel and, prior to the recent violence, Christians in Syria) yet its just about only one where they’re de jure as opposed to de facto inferior.

It’s also an area where the Muslim groups responsible for the highest number of honor killings are amongst the least likely to be radical Muslims and overall the most secular.

In short, it’s a land if contradictions and where assumptions go to die.

Finally, there’s a joke about Israel that also applies to Iran. Ask three different experts what they think, you’ll get five different opinions.

I recommend reading up on the situation before making assumptions.

Good night.

158

Although I didn’t think you’d finally address the facts or the logic, I’m honestly shocked that you don’t understand the fact that "acting in order to corroborate" means the exact thing as “to corroborate”. Unless of course now you want to dig your hole even deeper and attempt to argue that someone can somehow volitionally engage in the act of corroborating something without acting in order to corroborate that thing. Honestly, how do you think someone can choose to do something without acting in order to do that thing? And yet again, even if you weren’t wilfully ignorant about the vocabulary at use here, you still didn’t even attempt to explain why professional politicians would not be using the denotation but would be using a connotation that meant “tried and failed” and then publicly admitting that they deliberately included information in their report which they couldn’t corroborate. It’s okay Treis. Just like most people believe “condone” means “endorse”, many believe “corroborate” means “confirm”. Your error isn’t rare or novel, but it is simple to fix.

If you’d like to make your posts look like an attempt at debating and not just trying to argue with me, I’ll help you out. I’ll break up the logic into bits that should be manageable. I’d suggest that you try to analyze them in order systematically and logically, and make sure to read for content and comprehension. That should, ideally, avoid problems like you reading a passage about two groups of multiple people and you being convinced that it’s about a single individual.
Okay? Here we go :

If your next response is something else along the lines of claiming that there even exists a possibility that someone can voluntarily commit an action and at the same time somehow not act in order to cause that outcome? Well, it’ll be clear to folks reading the thread that this is just another variation on you reading a quote about two separate groups of multiple people, claiming it’s about a single individual, being corrected, having the source text to verify if you doubt the correction, and then continuing to repeat your belief that two separate groups of multiple people are really a solitary individual.

It’s up to you.

159

This is like bizzaro world. Are you seriously suggesting:

“The witness corroborated his story with documents” and
“The witness attempted to corroborate his story with documents”

Have exactly the same meaning?

What about: “I made a million dollars” an “I attempted to make a million dollars”?

160

This is why I’m very reluctant to participate in these threads. This sort of thing happens time and time again.

At very least, there really is a difference between a Hijab and a Chador; but when the thread descends as far as this, it’s beyond any meaningful hope. And we thought it was funny when it depended on what one’s definition of “is” is!

(What’s sad? This thread is so mired in this linguistic cesspool, I can’t even tell whom I agree with! The real issues have been so many times obscured, I honestly can’t tell if I agree with you or not!)