It is not about protecting the rights of the majority that is important but protecting the rights of EVERYONE, including the minority that is far more important. Iran just needs to tip over, and let freedom ring !! DD
this hole hijab issue is blown way out of proportion, the law is hardly even enforced anymore....anybody who has visited iran recently will tell you that, thus, it's a moot point
yet you still continue to respond to me after all the times you said you wouldn't....does that make you a liar? i've demonstrated my extensive knowledge and expertise on iran plenty of times on this board the article is written english, which means somebody translated the statements, because the iranian govt only gives press conferences and things of that sort in persian, thus, there were terms lost and distorted in translation the only exception to this is javad zariff, iran's ambassador to the un, who routinely gives interviews and press conferences in english
iran today has more freedom than it has ever had so your iran bashing and attempts at providing us with propaganda are useless
http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/index.php 'office of the supreme leader' and i for one dont think iran oppresses women all that much. i just think your hysteria at realizing that the most power is in the hands of the supreme leader is stupid.
must you continue to be so juvenile? even after other posters have called you out for it? it doesn't increase your credibility. i suspect you're a just graduated poli sci student who did a paper on the middle east or iran - that hardly qualifies you to declare every source about iran written in english is mistranslated, lol (among your more absurd claims - of which there are a few). in your own mind, buddy. that doesn't mean the translator lost or distorted the terms. that's your assertion. its called a claim without a warrant.
you been researching all night....lol it's a poor and factually incorrect translation no matter who uses it...the correct one is Guardianship of/by the Jurisconsult one of the news agency of the islamic republic (irna.com) uses this as well and i've emailed them pointing out their mistake also, there is nothing 'supreme' or 'absolute' about his position, the jurisconsult is the chief of state and the assembly of experts, which has some of the most vocal critics of the government in it like the rep. from esfahan, has oversight powers over the jurisconsult and, as i've mentioned before, the assembly of experts is a body elected by the iranian people and anybody can run for it and they elect and can either reconfirm or vote out the jurisconsult you can choose to selectively read what i say, but it doesn't change the facts...the iranian system doesn't lend itself to authoritarianism
i also heard you're a supporter of death squads and torture....these things coupled with your penchant to use other people's opinions and fake photos as evidence doesnt do too much for your credibility and you have the nerve to call others childish or juvenile when you engage in more name-calling than anybody else here....now thats rich go look at my posts on iran holistically...they demonstrate my knowledge and expertise....you on the other hand, have time and time again demonstrated your ignorance about the middle east in general, but thats what i would expect from somebody who gets all his info from googling it's not my assertion, it is fact...no matter who uses the term 'supreme leader', it is a poor and factually incorrect translation, the correct one is guardianship by/of the jurisconsult not to mention iranian women have been attending soccer matches for as long as i can remember....lol i still think all this is irrelevant, but i enjoy the posts of you iran bashers
no, it is only using a poor and incorrect translation when it comes to the position of the velayat-e faqih go and learn persian and then you'll understand
so why must there be an exact literal translation? perhaps the supreme leader is more apt interms of the position he holds?
Sorry, friend. You continue to be unable to distinguish the difference between fact and assertion. Unless you can back up your assertions - they don't approach fact. Other than that there isn't much to say. You assert you are an expert, but won't disclose how. You assert everything is a mistranslation, but can't cite any source that backs you up. Until you do one of those things you can't expect anyone to give you a shred of credibility. I would be seriously suprised if ONE other poster would say they don't think you have a burden to cite some authority that backs up your assertions. You need to lookup the word 'fact.' Doc, don't waste your time. Creepyfloyd has already stated that the Iranian regime is 'progressive' and continues to (without support) assert any information that puts the regime in a negative light is either a mistake or propoganda of the Great Satan.
i could really care less what you think and maybe you should follow through on your previous promise to not respond to anything i say...i dont make assertions, i only deal with the facts...you can accept that or reject it, but it doesnt change anything, everything i say is factually correct...i never said everything is a mistranslation, just that one term and i've already explained why...you need to visit iran
its not about it being a literal translation, it's about it being correct and accurate (go read Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Government) and i've already explained how the position is not 'supreme' or 'absolute' twice already
That certainly was a quick dismissal. The State Department is a big place, and not everyone in the government is a tool of the administration. They continually quote UN sources for much of the information in the report. Please provide some source of information that can contradict what is presented if you believe it to be incorrect.
I don't know Persian or that much about Iran so I can't say that you're wrong. But what I find somewhat perplexing is the standard for what constitutes a "fact" and what is just a mere warrantless "assertion" or a "biased" source. Someone quoting the state department about Iran is automatically flawed even though it actually is fairly well warranted. The source automatically makes the position irrelevant. Granted there are significant misconceptions in terms of what Iran is and how it treats women (and I agree it generally is more progressive than much of the Middle East, although it is by no means fair or acceptable). But the actual piece of literature does cite specific dates and incidents and unless you can somehow prove to me that the State Department is just making all that up, I think we can all give it some level of credibility. The State Department is different from a lot of government agencies in that many of its members carry over from previous administrations and as a result has a very diverse group of employees with different political viewpoints, so to automatically label it a tool of the Bush administration seems rather rash. Even if they are just editorializing, at least they're citing information, statistics, and yes even "facts" to justify their position. On the flip side, you make some claims about translations in which there are no qualifying authors or articles to confirm your argument, and yet that is enough. You say you only deal with facts but fact or no fact, if the state department gets thrown out, then so do you.
the st dept also calls iran the 'leading st sponsor of terrorism', but doesnt provide any hard evidence to back-up these serious claims so i apologize if i view what they say about iran pessimistically (sp?) iran has problems just like any other country, but there seems to be a tendency to single-out the islamic republic and focus solely on the negatives while ignoring the positives, which really isnt a useful approach other than for those with an agenda (not saying that you have one) for good first hand accounts of iran see: anything written by mohsen milani, kamran aghaie, wilfred buchta, hamid algar, and there are a few others
