National Post = National Disgrace.

[KrustyKidd]

Every post you've made in this thread has blown the importance of this story way out of proportion.

I did agree somewhat that this was overplayed but, the new development associated with this story that Gerry posted in the International forum certainly does warrent some investigation and, revives this story to be more than a simple mistake on the NP part.

[gerryhatrick]

Turning this into a Jewish conspiracy does kind of make sense, though. I get the feeling it might have been your underlying motivation all along.

Oh yeah, I'm out to get the Jews.

Dare I ask how I'm turning this into a "Jewish conspiracy"?

I think it's bizarre that the National Post would reach out to the SWC - an American Jewish organization - for confirmation of details on a new Iranian law. Don't you?

I also think it's on public record that the National Post is owned by the Asper brothers and that the Aspers are on record for saying they will never be critical of Israel.

A "conspiracy" is something secret. CanWest Global and it's flagship paper the National Post are openly Israel-centric.

Nothing wrong with that, so long as it doesn't cloud your judgement. In this case it obviously did.

[BHS]

In this case it obviously did.

Thanks gerry. I don't think I need to post any more here at this point.

[BubberMiley]

Thanks gerry. I don't think I need to post any more here at this point.

Then why are you posting?

I don't think it's overblown when a rookie prime minister shows his lack of discretion in international relations by commenting on a poorly sourced, ultimately fictional story as if it were true, and jeopardizes a touchy diplomacy.

[Rue]

This is the most insidious damage of blatant falsehoods or outright dis-information.

It is established this story is false, however that belies the fact that there are Iranian jews who have lived in the remote north for ages. They are barred from work unapproved by the Iranian government. They have, on occasion been unjustly labelled as spies and sentenced to death. And I believe (less sure about this one) they are disallowed form owning their own property.

So a jack-ass, non-factual, irresponsible story is made up and then exposed and suddenly people have no reason to believe the opposite, to believe what this whole scenario begs to suggest which is maybe the Iranian governments' view past or present towards jews or Israel is "not that bad really".

itza cryin' shame.

Its interesting how you were ignored. I would add to your comment that Bahaiis have also been seriously discriminated and like the Jews of Iran been singled out ofr horrendous treatment. There are of course other minorities in the country who find themselves with 95% unemployment and completely and utterly discriminated against. Having dhimmis or second class citizens who are forced to live in ghettoes and who are discriminated against is ancient in the Middle East and still continues. Certain ethnic groups may not be required to wear yellow or blue sashes any more like the Jews and Christians, but the discrimination continues. That seems to have been missed. I am glad you raised the point you did!

"Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. "

--Buddha

[KrustyKidd]

I think we all know that the Iranian Council would do this if they could. That isn't the point of the thread. The point is the NP got the info from some sources that now are blaming the NP for their error. We also have a PM who ran with the story as well. In short, a lot of people went down with this and, the sources are trying to blame the users for the error.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist so am just trying to sort out what is at the heart of this matter. The NP in my mind is not greatly at fault as explained in their appology, they had three or four sources, the PM should have been a bit more prudent but, given the recent rhetoric from Tehran and the fact the story came from the NP and not a ranting blogeer, is also understandable but unfortunate. Which leaves the origional listed source as the mystery. What's up with them? Why did they tell the NP this was a fact and now, are saying the NP was their source for the info?

[BHS]

Then why are you posting?

I don't think it's overblown when a rookie prime minister shows his lack of discretion in international relations by commenting on a poorly sourced, ultimately fictional story as if it were true, and jeopardizes a touchy diplomacy.

Presumably, for the same reason you're posting. To be a nuisance.

Refresh my memory: was Harper asked about the story, or was he just commenting out of hand? If he was asked, and he'd said, "No comment", would you appreciate his tact or would you rag on him for being secretive? I mean, aren't you one of the people beaking about him not talking to the media?

Also, who gives a rat's rectum what Iran thinks? "Touchy diplomacy" my foot. When did their opinions, and our diplomatic relationship with them, come to be of any significance whatsoever, aside from us keeping them from nuking Israel and Western Europe, and not killing our reporters? How come our Prime Minister can't make comment about a newspaper article that illustrates what a bunch of troglodytes they have for a government in Iran, but the Amadinejhad can rail on endlessly about how evil Western civilization is, how we're all the Little Satans to America's Great Satan? Why are you defending these people? It's almost like you'd rather be over on their side.

[gerryhatrick]

Refresh my memory: was Harper asked about the story, or was he just commenting out of hand? If he was asked, and he'd said, "No comment", would you appreciate his tact or would you rag on him for being secretive? I mean, aren't you one of the people beaking about him not talking to the media?

Allow me to answer.

It's a little dishonest to throw the "aren't you one of the people beaking him not talking to the media" out on this. The issue is not him not talking to the media, it's him trying to control who asks questions.

On your main question, he was asked I believe. It was a press conference with the Austrailian PM, so he was asked. I would have respected him a great deal more if he had said "If that's true...." (he DID say that, to be fair) "then it's very unfortunate. I haven't heard about or seen the reports so I can't comment on that much more than that"

No, instead he used the opportunity to rag on another nation and compare them to Nazis.

As Condi would say, it's not helpful.

Defend him if you like, but it was an inexperienced move...period.

Why are you defending these people? It's almost like you'd rather be over on their side.

Was he defending them? No. Typical rightwing tactic. Rise up out of the muck BHS.

[Charles Anthony]

No, instead he used the opportunity to rag on another nation and compare them to Nazis.

I think you are very right. He should have stopped his statement short at "I have not seen the report." and refused further comment. As Prime Minister, it behooves him to be more astute when it comes to responding.

I would have respected him a great deal more if he had said "If that's true...." (he DID say that, to be fair)

He did qualify his statements and repeat "If that's true..." more than once. Maybe he deserves an inch of slack...? maybe just a little bit?

Looking back with hindsight over recent events:

- national newspaper prints shocking story

- reporter asks Prime Minister of Australia to comment on story before he sees it

- reporter asks Prime Minister of Canada to comment on story before he sees it

- inflammatory story turns out to be false

- we blame Prime Minister of Canada for his comments

- we blame Prime Minister of Canada for refusing to answer questions from the press gallery

- we blame Prime Minister of Canada for refusing to give enough time between the release of a bill and a press conference

I find it all quite humorous.

[BHS]

Was he defending them? No. Typical rightwing tactic. Rise up out of the muck BHS.

I stand by my remark. Stating that Harper's response to this story jeapordizes Canadian/Iranian diplomacy makes a number of assumptions, all of which favour the Iranian position. It assumes that only Harper's actions have consequences, regardless of what policies Iran may enact or how it reacts to this story. It sets up in advance the assumption that Harper was to blame, if the diplomacy degenerates further. I call that taking Iran's side on this issue.

So what that about muck? Care to come up with a more thoughtful reply than ad hominem mud-flinging?

[BubberMiley]

sets up in advance the assumption that Harper was to blame, if the diplomacy degenerates further. I call that taking Iran's side on this issue.

Under that bizarre logic, Harper can do no wrong. He can run through Tehran with no pants on cursing Allah and criticizing him would be taking Iran's side.

[BHS]

sets up in advance the assumption that Harper was to blame, if the diplomacy degenerates further. I call that taking Iran's side on this issue.

Under that bizarre logic, Harper can do no wrong. He can run through Tehran with no pants on cursing Allah and criticizing him would be taking Iran's side.

What are you talking about? If anything, you've gotten it completely backward. Look at what you quoted me saying. My conjecture is based entirely on events that have already occurred and doesn't involve any future speculation. I'm saying: that your earlier statement paints Harper alone as being responsible for maintaining the status quo of a shakey international relationship without regard for what the other party does; and that your doing so sets Harper up to take the fall should that relationship deteriorate; and that your taking this position puts you squarely on the side of the Iranians.

If Harper were to engage in the lurid activities you fantasize for him, he would most certainly be in the wrong, but it would also be an entirely new situation. Indeed, if a semi-naked tax fetishist of a Canadian Prime Minister is seen howling obsenities at God in downtown Tehran, please, criticize away.

[BubberMiley]

Hypothetical or not, criticizing him in this situation paints Harper alone as being responsible for the shakey international relationship without regard for what the other party does. This sets Harper up to take the fall should that relationship deteriorate. That position would then put you squarely on the side of the Iranians.

[BHS]

Hypothetical or not, criticizing him in this situation paints Harper alone as being responsible for the shakey international relationship without regard for what the other party does. This sets Harper up to take the fall should that relationship deteriorate. That position would then put you squarely on the side of the Iranians.

Holy. Funhouse mirrors. I think I'm having an acid flashback. Could you please reply with some original content?

[BubberMiley]

Holy. Funhouse mirrors. I think I'm having an acid flashback. Could you please reply with some original content?

You get those too?

See, your argument works (or doesn't work) for both situations. Criticizing your own government never means you are taking the side of the enemy; it means you are engaging in a free society. Using treason accusations because your debating skills are half-assed jeopardizes a free discussion of ideas, and that's bad for all of us.