Ari Siletz

Fantasmic! :-)

  "Just less than 4 billion years have passed since life began on Earth in the hope that it would quickly invent religion and say God did it."

      Enjoyed it. Brilliant!

A Rebuttal to the Evolutionary Theory!

by me..

//iranian.com/main/blog/faramarz/origin-s...

Ari Jan I think you still don't fully grasp it.

If
you read Mr. Ahmari's writings that would leave no doubt that he
is anti-MKO. It is not “debatable”.
//www.rferl.org/content/moral_convolution_grips_the_organized_iranian_american_community/24298534.html
He wrote:  “Left-leaning members of the organized
Iranian-American community were right, then, to cry foul in response
to renewed congressional efforts to remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq
(MKO, or MEK), the Iranian opposition sect based in northern Iraq,
from the U.S. State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist
organizations (FTOs)." and ." The
MKO is indeed a bizarre, Islamo-Marxist cult with a long record of
gruesome terrorist attacks against civilian targets and little
support among Iran's young democrats.”

If
that is not evidence that someone is anti-MKO then please let me know
what is. 

I
also find it strange that if a neoconservative website publishes your
article that automatically makes you a neoconservative. Does that
logic apply to proIRI websites too? In other words if they publish an
article by an NIAC member then that is proof enough that person is
pro IRI?

So
don't you think Mr. Marashi owes Mr Ahmari an apology for calling him
a supporter of MKO terrorists?  Frankly I think Mr. Ahmari could
have a libel case against Mr. Marashi if he wanted too.

Thank you Ddph

To Mr. Reza Marashi: you seem to be half right and a debatable half wrong in your "Neocon MEK terror group supporter" description of Mr Ahmari. He does contribute to the neonconservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard edited by William Kristol , a frequent guest on FOX. However according to one of Mr. Ahmari's past writings he recognizes that the MEK is a terrorist group. It is unclear whether he actually supports the MEK despite recognizing that it is a terrorist group because he may view the MEK as a counter to IRGC--which he considers to be another terrorist group.

Is this specific enough?

Again Reza Marashi is NIAC's Director of Research. If this is not specific enough please list the criteria you use to define "specific". 

//twitter.com/#!/rezamarashi

@rezamarashi Reza Marashi Neocon #MEK terror cult supporter reviews @tparsi's new #Iran book for @WSJ. Surprisingly, he didn't like it://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577156850984253714.html?mod=googlenews_wsj 23 Jan via web

Thanks MM

I'm not sure I understand my own review. What did I say?

Ddph: An undocumented quote fragment doesn't qualify as a source. Full quote, and link please. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that your standard of proof may be lower than what a journalist would demand  (FOX News, Kayhan, Press TV, etc. don't count as journalism).

The most recent case

The most recent case of NIAC official labeling a critic an MKO supporter is the attack by Mr. Parsi’s NIAC colleague and research director Reza Marashi who used Twitter to denounce Ahmari as an “MEK terror cult supporter.” The details are here: //iranian.com/main/blog/peter-kohanloo/attack-all-iranian-americans

This is very specific. And there is ample evidence that Mr Ahmari is deeply critical of MKO so the charge is entirely bogus. I am surprised you did not see this.   

Ari

Ari,

Welcome to the critics corner of the ICanDoNoWrong IC reviewers.  I have no idea what "the origin of species" is or what this Darwin guy tried to say, but your review is real damning of this whole area of science and I congratulate you wholeheartedly on your unbiased final word on the subject of whatchamacallit.

PS, how is your twin reviewer buddy; Sorkhaab Ahmaghi? BTW, I am watching your Twicker account very closely, so you better not say anything bad about me or I will register in numerous Iranian sites and cry.

Ddph

My silence on the recent MKO label claim comes from not knowing anything about it beyond the claims of NIAC opponents, and they aren't helpful with independent source citations. So from a journalistic point of view it's one of those neither-here-nor-there items that doesn't make the grade for publication.

In priciple though, unsubstantiated labeling is harmful to the problem solving process, and we shouldn't do it. The other side of this principle coin is that folks who publish in support of organizations they are affiliated with should identify their affiliation to the reader explicitly and therefore self-label. 

Sure

Ari Jan you can certainly write your own review of the book and I will certainly read it. But since you are an NIAC supporter I still am still deeply puzzled by your utter silence when it comes to their labeling their opponents MKO supporters. That is not just their supporters here on the web but actual NIAC officials who do that. Even when there is ample evidence to the contrary. And this has been a pattern. Not a one time thing. Isn't that Kayhanequ to you? Doesn't it make you leery?  

Ddph

Interestingly the Amazon reader reviews either give 5 stars to the book or 1 star, no in betweens so far! This stat is an indiactor that the book is a politcal football. I plan my own article on the book in the next few weeks and hopefully can stay more respectful of readers who just want to know what the book has to offer, where it scores and where it has shortcomings.

I am truly surprised

Very cute. And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle. All kidding aside, I am really surprised by your reaction here. We have a cogent review of a book. Unlike me you do not like it and find it too critical. But the tone of the review is not rude or Kayhanesque. I am surprised that you even mention Kayhan. As a matter of fact it is NIAC that repeatedly uses IRI methods and logic in branding their opponents MKO supporters when there is ample evidence to the contrary. They just did to the reviewer by calling him an MKO supporter. Now in all honesty which one is closer to IRI logic and methods? 

Thanks for the great quote, incognito

I too have learned not to argue directly with creationists. It is pointless! 

Straight from the horse's mouth

"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion." Charles Robert Darwin (1809 – 1882)

reader1

Yes, it's a few loose-pen paragraphs for fun, written after I read this review of Trita Parsi's "A Single Roll of the Dice."

The writer, Sohrab Ahmari, indulges in Kayhan style narrative where he feels no obligation to the reader to at least split the difference between pushing his agenda and giving the reader some takeaway with substance. Please note that in my silly review above, I have included two items of real information from Darwin's biography. This is in fulfillment of a writer's ethical obligation never to take the reader's time to push his personal point without giving him/her something of certain value in return. Breach of this obligation is the equivalent of a verbal mugging. Daily, this is what Kayhan Newspaper does to its readers.

What intrigued me is that Wall Street Journal editors agreed to publish a review in this overtly Kayhanesque mugging style. The WSJ has its biases but I have rarely seen it put its reputation on the line to this extent except in  major league power play commentaries by writers with large followings whose political affiliations are nationally known (in which case the writer has put his/her reputation on the line, not WSJ). Feels like someone(s) in the big league have pulled strings or called in favors to get this review published in WSJ. I sense a worry that Parsi's viewpoint has become influential in U.S. policy and poses a serious threat to its opponents.

Good read, no sure what point you’re trying to make

Are you just letting your pen loose  for a trance dravishy dance  for fun? Or perhaps you are just teasing this simple soul of a reader?