Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

dude, you didn't get it.. I don't think all of them want want to wear that stuff. I'm agreeing with you that Iran's government oppresses those women. but those women are now oppressed with both Government and FIFA. technically, FIFA wants to fix something "bad" by using a worse method.

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

Tots, I get where BBS is coming from in terms of the personal liberty of the players. (*Saxi hugs BBS*) The only reason that doesn't carry water for me is because the players - regardless of headwear regulations - are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntary participation in a football team. For instance, they couldn't elect to wear high heels and an evening gown during the match instead of their uniform. (*Saxi slaps BBS*)

That said, in terms of the Green Revolution ... I freely note I support most of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic so my view is, admittedly, a bit biased, however, Cyrus Safdari did a good breakdown of the false claims of Iran's elections being rigged - and how the US/Canada and European media-state worked to promote this myth to fill foreign policy objectives.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs ... fraud.html

As always, I WELCOME disagreement.

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

These are questions that need to be resolved by the people of Iran, not by banning a soccer team.

notyou2 wrote:The conservatives won the recent election in Canada. They won a majority and they are now pushing forward with their conservative platform, yet they won far less than 50% of the vote. They do not represent my views yet I have to live with it for 4 or 5 years or maybe more.

Is any government truly representative of the people?

I'm highly confident that you know that there is a huge difference between "Canadian conservatism" and "Iranian conservatism." You should also be aware of the degree of intervention on one's identity, which is employed by the Iranian government, is significantly different from the Canadian government's policies.


Does the Canadian government tell you that your wife should cover much of her skin because some book said so? If you fail to comply, does the Canadian government fine or imprison your wife?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Does the Canadian government tell you that your wife should cover much of her skin because some book said so?

Yes, in Chapter 7 - "What to Wear in Edmonton: August through June"

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

Tots, I get where BBS is coming from in terms of the personal liberty of the players. (*Saxi hugs BBS*) The only reason that doesn't carry water for me is because the players - regardless of headwear regulations - are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntary participation in a football team. For instance, they couldn't elect to wear high heels and an evening gown during the match instead of their uniform. (*Saxi slaps BBS*)

Even if the player's participate voluntarily, that doesn't make it right or fair.* For example, one could use your argument to positively defend "capitalist pigs" who give their laborers "terrible wages and poor working conditions" because those laborers "are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntarily participation in [working for that company]." (hat tip to Libertarianism).


The players' options are unfairly limited because of the domestic policies of their government, but I would never take the position that FIFA should be the crusader of human rights on such issues (@everyone: inb4 "omg, BBS, but didn't you say otherwise?" BBS: "Of course, not. See: "Essentially, FIFA is boycotting the repressive policies of the Iranian government, so why are some people upset about that?").


(Yeah, I know, here we go with the normative approach.)

saxitoxin wrote:That said, in terms of the Green Revolution ... I freely note I support most of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic so my view is, admittedly, a bit biased, however, Cyrus Safdari did a good breakdown of the false claims of Iran's elections being rigged - and how the US/Canada and European media-state worked to promote this myth to fill foreign policy objectives.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs ... fraud.html

As always, I WELCOME disagreement.

That's interesting information about the alleged fraud.


I stumbled upon co-editor Danny Postel during a discussion on his book The People Reloaded: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Iran's Future . I asked him about the possibility of CIA, Mossad, or that kind of involvement, and he vehemently disagreed--stating that it was a domestic movement--a movement which wasn't as united as it seems through the media. (I'm not using this to discount what you're saying. That book may provide some enlightening answers to your standpoint. Much of the excerpts, essays, and articles in there are translated from Farsi, so rest assured, it's probably not too biased.)

______________________________________

(On a tangent: Danny Postel during the discussion was comparing Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. He called Ahmadinejad a fascist, and for Hugo Chavez, he said, "He's a... a..."

BBS: "Fascist?" + coolface.jpg

Danny Postel continued without correcting that response.
____________________________________________

[Danny Postel labeled himself as an egalitarian and a socialist. His mentor is this professor who is a outspoken anarcho-communist, whose name I can't recall. :/

BigBallinStalin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:The conservatives won the recent election in Canada. They won a majority and they are now pushing forward with their conservative platform, yet they won far less than 50% of the vote. They do not represent my views yet I have to live with it for 4 or 5 years or maybe more.

Is any government truly representative of the people?

I'm highly confident that you know that there is a huge difference between "Canadian conservatism" and "Iranian conservatism." You should also be aware of the degree of intervention on one's identity, which is employed by the Iranian government, is significantly different from the Canadian government's policies.


Does the Canadian government tell you that your wife should cover much of her skin because some book said so? If you fail to comply, does the Canadian government fine or imprison your wife?

I wasn't comparing the policies of the two governments, I was simply pointing out to you that the vast majority of governments around the world represent somewhere less than 50% of their people.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

Tots, I get where BBS is coming from in terms of the personal liberty of the players. (*Saxi hugs BBS*) The only reason that doesn't carry water for me is because the players - regardless of headwear regulations - are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntary participation in a football team. For instance, they couldn't elect to wear high heels and an evening gown during the match instead of their uniform. (*Saxi slaps BBS*)

Even if the player's participate voluntarily, that doesn't make it right or fair.* For example, one could use your argument to positively defend "capitalist pigs" who give their laborers "terrible wages and poor working conditions" because those laborers "are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntarily participation in [working for that company]." (hat tip to Libertarianism).


The players' options are unfairly limited because of the domestic policies of their government, but I would never take the position that FIFA should be the crusader of human rights on such issues (@everyone: inb4 "omg, BBS, but didn't you say otherwise?" BBS: "Of course, not. See: "Essentially, FIFA is boycotting the repressive policies of the Iranian government, so why are some people upset about that?").


(Yeah, I know, here we go with the normative approach.)

saxitoxin wrote:That said, in terms of the Green Revolution ... I freely note I support most of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic so my view is, admittedly, a bit biased, however, Cyrus Safdari did a good breakdown of the false claims of Iran's elections being rigged - and how the US/Canada and European media-state worked to promote this myth to fill foreign policy objectives.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs ... fraud.html

As always, I WELCOME disagreement.

That's interesting information about the alleged fraud.


I stumbled upon co-editor Danny Postel during a discussion on his book The People Reloaded: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Iran's Future . I asked him about the possibility of CIA, Mossad, or that kind of involvement, and he vehemently disagreed--stating that it was a domestic movement--a movement which wasn't as united as it seems through the media. (I'm not using this to discount what you're saying. That book may provide some enlightening answers to your standpoint. Much of the excerpts, essays, and articles in there are translated from Farsi, so rest assured, it's probably not too biased.)

Your disagreement with me is unwelcome.

*tickle tickle*

*Saxi tickles BBS*

Anyway, if a player for the Chicago White Sox felt that they might prefer to wear an Arizona Diamondbacks jersey during a game as they liked the colour scheme more, would you support that player's decision or would you believe team management would have a right to mandate a uniform standard for all players?

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

Tots, I get where BBS is coming from in terms of the personal liberty of the players. (*Saxi hugs BBS*) The only reason that doesn't carry water for me is because the players - regardless of headwear regulations - are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntary participation in a football team. For instance, they couldn't elect to wear high heels and an evening gown during the match instead of their uniform. (*Saxi slaps BBS*)

Even if the player's participate voluntarily, that doesn't make it right or fair.* For example, one could use your argument to positively defend "capitalist pigs" who give their laborers "terrible wages and poor working conditions" because those laborers "are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntarily participation in [working for that company]." (hat tip to Libertarianism).


The players' options are unfairly limited because of the domestic policies of their government, but I would never take the position that FIFA should be the crusader of human rights on such issues (@everyone: inb4 "omg, BBS, but didn't you say otherwise?" BBS: "Of course, not. See: "Essentially, FIFA is boycotting the repressive policies of the Iranian government, so why are some people upset about that?").


(Yeah, I know, here we go with the normative approach.)

saxitoxin wrote:That said, in terms of the Green Revolution ... I freely note I support most of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic so my view is, admittedly, a bit biased, however, Cyrus Safdari did a good breakdown of the false claims of Iran's elections being rigged - and how the US/Canada and European media-state worked to promote this myth to fill foreign policy objectives.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs ... fraud.html

As always, I WELCOME disagreement.

That's interesting information about the alleged fraud.


I stumbled upon co-editor Danny Postel during a discussion on his book The People Reloaded: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Iran's Future . I asked him about the possibility of CIA, Mossad, or that kind of involvement, and he vehemently disagreed--stating that it was a domestic movement--a movement which wasn't as united as it seems through the media. (I'm not using this to discount what you're saying. That book may provide some enlightening answers to your standpoint. Much of the excerpts, essays, and articles in there are translated from Farsi, so rest assured, it's probably not too biased.)

Your disagreement with me is unwelcome.

*tickle tickle*

*Saxi tickles BBS*

Anyway, if a player for the Chicago White Sox felt that they might prefer to wear an Arizona Diamondbacks jersey during a game as they liked the colour scheme more, would you support that player's decision or would you believe team management would have a right to mandate a uniform standard for all players?

I would support that decision in favor of the team management if you supported that it is acceptable for "capitalist pigs" to give their laborers "terrible wages and poor working conditions" because those laborers "are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntarily participation in [working for that company]."





(Your move, saxi.)

notyou2 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:The conservatives won the recent election in Canada. They won a majority and they are now pushing forward with their conservative platform, yet they won far less than 50% of the vote. They do not represent my views yet I have to live with it for 4 or 5 years or maybe more.

Is any government truly representative of the people?

I'm highly confident that you know that there is a huge difference between "Canadian conservatism" and "Iranian conservatism." You should also be aware of the degree of intervention on one's identity, which is employed by the Iranian government, is significantly different from the Canadian government's policies.


Does the Canadian government tell you that your wife should cover much of her skin because some book said so? If you fail to comply, does the Canadian government fine or imprison your wife?

I wasn't comparing the policies of the two governments, I was simply pointing out to you that the vast majority of governments around the world represent somewhere less than 50% of their people.

Politically, sure, but I'm talking about strong state intervention of one's culture and identity.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:How "unpolitical" can a game be when it has national v national games? =P


How do do you know that all of those Iranian soccer players want to wear head scarves? Socially, Iran was a much more liberal country before the revolution. Their state has imposed regulations to make their country more conservative. That's the "culture" of Iran--it's not representative of its people, but rather representative of an all-male, socially conservative, religious elite. If you want a great idea of what an actual police state is, then look at Iran since the revolution.

Does anyone here seriously think that Iran's state-imposed culture is truly representative of its own people?

Why is it necessary to support "Iran's" culture? Why is it necessary to condone the actions of that oppressive government?

Wasn't their Green Revolution enough to convince you that maybe something is wrong with their government?

Tots, I get where BBS is coming from in terms of the personal liberty of the players. (*Saxi hugs BBS*) The only reason that doesn't carry water for me is because the players - regardless of headwear regulations - are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntary participation in a football team. For instance, they couldn't elect to wear high heels and an evening gown during the match instead of their uniform. (*Saxi slaps BBS*)

Even if the player's participate voluntarily, that doesn't make it right or fair.* For example, one could use your argument to positively defend "capitalist pigs" who give their laborers "terrible wages and poor working conditions" because those laborers "are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntarily participation in [working for that company]." (hat tip to Libertarianism).


The players' options are unfairly limited because of the domestic policies of their government, but I would never take the position that FIFA should be the crusader of human rights on such issues (@everyone: inb4 "omg, BBS, but didn't you say otherwise?" BBS: "Of course, not. See: "Essentially, FIFA is boycotting the repressive policies of the Iranian government, so why are some people upset about that?").


(Yeah, I know, here we go with the normative approach.)

saxitoxin wrote:That said, in terms of the Green Revolution ... I freely note I support most of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic so my view is, admittedly, a bit biased, however, Cyrus Safdari did a good breakdown of the false claims of Iran's elections being rigged - and how the US/Canada and European media-state worked to promote this myth to fill foreign policy objectives.

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs ... fraud.html

As always, I WELCOME disagreement.

That's interesting information about the alleged fraud.


I stumbled upon co-editor Danny Postel during a discussion on his book The People Reloaded: The Green Movement and the Struggle for Iran's Future . I asked him about the possibility of CIA, Mossad, or that kind of involvement, and he vehemently disagreed--stating that it was a domestic movement--a movement which wasn't as united as it seems through the media. (I'm not using this to discount what you're saying. That book may provide some enlightening answers to your standpoint. Much of the excerpts, essays, and articles in there are translated from Farsi, so rest assured, it's probably not too biased.)

Your disagreement with me is unwelcome.

*tickle tickle*

*Saxi tickles BBS*

Anyway, if a player for the Chicago White Sox felt that they might prefer to wear an Arizona Diamondbacks jersey during a game as they liked the colour scheme more, would you support that player's decision or would you believe team management would have a right to mandate a uniform standard for all players?

I would support that decision in favor of the team management if you supported that it is acceptable for "capitalist pigs" to give their laborers "terrible wages and poor working conditions" because those laborers "are already subject to restrictions to which they've agreed by virtue of their voluntarily participation in [working for that company]."


(Your move, saxi.)

I'll think about it.

Is FIFA a government organization? Isn't participation in soccer/football voluntary? These women can either choose to wear headgear or choose to participate in the world cup, right? They have chosen to wear headgear (and therefore not participate). It seems pretty clear to me.

thegreekdog wrote:Is FIFA a government organization? Isn't participation in soccer/football voluntary? These women can either choose to wear headgear or choose to participate in the world cup, right? They have chosen to wear headgear (and therefore not participate). It seems pretty clear to me.

you missed the point that headgear is imposed by Iran's government... what I see is clear too. those women were oppressed by Iran government, but now, they are oppressed by both Iran government and FIFA.

Pirlo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Is FIFA a government organization? Isn't participation in soccer/football voluntary? These women can either choose to wear headgear or choose to participate in the world cup, right? They have chosen to wear headgear (and therefore not participate). It seems pretty clear to me.

you missed the point that headgear is imposed by Iran's government... what I see is clear too. those women were oppressed by Iran government, but now, they are oppressed by both Iran government and FIFA.

I don't see how FIFA is oppressing them. Perhaps the definition of "oppression" has lost some of its luster. In other words, "Oh noes, we can't play soccer... we're being oppressed" compared to "Oh noes, our leadership is killing us by the thousands... we're being oppressed."

thegreekdog wrote:

Pirlo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Is FIFA a government organization? Isn't participation in soccer/football voluntary? These women can either choose to wear headgear or choose to participate in the world cup, right? They have chosen to wear headgear (and therefore not participate). It seems pretty clear to me.

you missed the point that headgear is imposed by Iran's government... what I see is clear too. those women were oppressed by Iran government, but now, they are oppressed by both Iran government and FIFA.

I don't see how FIFA is oppressing them. Perhaps the definition of "oppression" has lost some of its luster. In other words, "Oh noes, we can't play soccer... we're being oppressed" compared to "Oh noes, our leadership is killing us by the thousands... we're being oppressed."

Because FIFA like to pretend it is external to national politics, is about "pure sport", etc. This rule, however, has nothing to do with sports and all to do with politics and freedom of religion.

EDIT: It might not be oppression, technically (not googling the term right now), but it absolutely is discrimination.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Pirlo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Is FIFA a government organization? Isn't participation in soccer/football voluntary? These women can either choose to wear headgear or choose to participate in the world cup, right? They have chosen to wear headgear (and therefore not participate). It seems pretty clear to me.

you missed the point that headgear is imposed by Iran's government... what I see is clear too. those women were oppressed by Iran government, but now, they are oppressed by both Iran government and FIFA.

I don't see how FIFA is oppressing them. Perhaps the definition of "oppression" has lost some of its luster. In other words, "Oh noes, we can't play soccer... we're being oppressed" compared to "Oh noes, our leadership is killing us by the thousands... we're being oppressed."

Because FIFA like to pretend it is external to national politics, is about "pure sport", etc. This rule, however, has nothing to do with sports and all to do with politics and freedom of religion.

EDIT: It might not be oppression, technically (not googling the term right now), but it absolutely is discrimination.

and because FIFA stands for "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" and should have nothing to do with cultural stuff and shouldn't in any way get involved in politics.

But the decision has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with religion. Whilst the rules around allowable and non-allowable equipment are specified in the LotG, it is also stated in the decisions of the FA board that as a general principle religious attire would not be permitted as part of players' equipment.

Incidentally, it was due to the prominence of religious messages causing crowd trouble that led to the decision for removal of a players' shirt above their heads to celebrate a goal was a cautionable offence.

And what the heck is this about FIFA having nothing to do with politics? Of course FIFA has plenty to do with politics, but they are an apolitical organisation. FIFA is very strict on political interference in sport, and a number of countries have been temporarily suspended due to political interference in the national association (most recently Belize).

So what you are saying is that if government of country A decided that their national team MUST wear scarves as part of their national team jersey then it would be OK since in that case it would not be connected in any way with religion ?

No because the scarves are not part of the players' equipment within the LotG. However if an application was made to have them added, it would be declined because the scarves are religious in nature

Can we at least not use the term "oppression"? I don't use the term "oppression" when one of my clients makes me have a conference call at 10 at night.

thegreekdog wrote:Can we at least not use the term "oppression"? I don't use the term "oppression" when one of my clients makes me have a conference call at 10 at night.

I believe you are being paid?... and that such is a requirement of your job? In this case, these women were allowed to play, up to a certain point. Then they were denied a championship due to the ruling.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we at least not use the term "oppression"? I don't use the term "oppression" when one of my clients makes me have a conference call at 10 at night.

I believe you are being paid?... and that such is a requirement of your job? In this case, these women were allowed to play, up to a certain point. Then they were denied a championship due to the ruling.

So what?

Let's look at it another way - why didn't the women take off their head gear? Because they would be punished in Iran. THAT is oppression. What FIFA did is not oppression. Unfair? Yeah. Oppression? Of course not.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Can we at least not use the term "oppression"? I don't use the term "oppression" when one of my clients makes me have a conference call at 10 at night.

I believe you are being paid?... and that such is a requirement of your job? In this case, these women were allowed to play, up to a certain point. Then they were denied a championship due to the ruling.

So what?

Let's look at it another way - why didn't the women take off their head gear? Because they would be punished in Iran. THAT is oppression. What FIFA did is not oppression. Unfair? Yeah. Oppression? Of course not.

OK, here it is:
Definition of OPPRESSION
1a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2: a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression


By the above, it could be said that the FIFA and the Iranian government are each acting oppressively. The FIFA is being unjust. The government might be said to be using an excessive excercise of power.

Your client is not, because he is your customer, not your "boss". Your employer might be said to be oppressing you by putting on the requirement that you take calls at 10 PM (whether this is stated explicitly or whether the requirement is just to do as clients wish). However, I doubt you will get much sympathy, given that you are paid pretty well. Also, I don't believe that requirement meets the definition of being "unjust".

Fair enough... I have no sympathy for the Iranian women's soccer team with respect to not being able to play in the World Cup. I do have sympathy for the people in Libya getting their asses kicked.

jeraado wrote:No because the scarves are not part of the players' equipment within the LotG. However if an application was made to have them added, it would be declined because the scarves are religious in nature

I hope you recognize that "religious in nature" is rather subjective point of view. But just out of curiosity should FIFA then punish all the players who make religious gestures (e.g. making sign of the cross ) during games ?