No offense

No offense
by Jahanshah Javid

I got an email today from the U.S. Central Command. I'm not kidding you:

to me

8:21 AM


What do we need to do in order to have some of our articles posted on your site.  Please let me know.




I just replied that we don't publish articles from government/military sources. Then I got a thank you message back and I said: You're welcome, thank you for asking. I mean really, the U.S. Central Command was actually very polite to ask. And I'm flattered (little scared!). 

Truth is that I have tried to keep free of any government influence. There are always articles from people who take the side of this or that government, but they are individuals who believe in what they are saying. 

I do not know 99 percent of the people who write articles or blog on But I can tell that the same 99 percent are "real" individuals. They may have nutty ideas sometimes (often) but a lot of my own ideas are off the chart too, so I'm not going to judge anyone (there are exceptions!).

So I'm sorry to be turning down the U.S. military, but I don't believe they should be writing articles for the independent media. I do publish articles from analysts who work for pro-U.S. think tanks. They present U.S. policy much more effectively and genuinely. It's a matter of legitimacy and integrity. 


Recently by Jahanshah JavidCommentsDate
Hooman Samani: The Kissinger
Aug 31, 2012
Eric Bakhtiari: San Francisco 49er
Aug 26, 2012
You can help
Aug 23, 2012
more from Jahanshah Javid

I know why they want to write here!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

I bet they want to write articles here in order to convince war monger community (extremist Zionists, extremist Monarchists, ..., etc.) not to drag U.S into another senseless war in the Middle East.


Now slogan changes

by XerXes (not verified) on

Now that Zion is tsion then the new slogan is:
(I assume that ts is the German pronunciation of Z, like Tset, but a rose with any other name smells the same, so here it is:

tsionism is Terrorism



by Lefty Lap Poodle (not verified) on

"I’ll be honored to have half of Zion’s knowledge and a tenth of his/her eloquence in debate and reasoning."

Which "eloquence" are we talking about?! Do you see her speaking softly, humbly or patiently anywhere?!

You can have whatever perception of yourself as you want but in terms of being worse, worser or worst the scale doesn't go downward! When you aspire to be a tenth of her "eloquence" it means you are trying to be ten times worse than she is!



by Hairy (not verified) on

Paris Hilton is superficial? From the beginning she has exhibited herself as a dumb blonde with tons of money. That is real!

I take superficial to be a wannabe. Besides do you think she is ever going to loose money? That is like saying Reza Pahlavi is going to run out of money ;)


Mash a'n ast ke khod bebuyad na anke attar beguyad.

by MeyBokhor_Manbarbesuzan on

And the stench of US government is horrible enough as it is.

The US government screws the world but wants to put a nice glazing on top of the s*** they call foreign policy.  Which reminds of the Persian joke about a man whose beutifull wife got ill and went to a doctor ... and the "mast-mali" thing. I am sure most of you know the joke. Anhayi ke midanand be anhayi ke nemidanand began. :)


Dear Bijan

by tsion on

I don't know what to say, that was very kind of you. All I I can say is the feeling is mutual.

As for the psych-op, I still don't see the point. If they perform psych-ops, people like Q will have ample opportunity to expose it. If they are allegedly so skillful that even Q can't find the faults in the argument, then how does he, or others of like him, know it is a psych-op and not a legitimate argument in the first place? How can they know that their cherished ideas are not already planted there by other people's clever psych-ops for that matter? These atr just childish excuses to avoid arguments. It basically boils down to this. Some believe something and using power deprive others of getting the chance to ascertain stances and positions for themselves. Simple as that.

Kaveh's objection has a point, but again as I said, it is easily avoidable if the sides involved are already aware of the possibility and willing to act vigilantly and intelligently. So to argue that it should not be even ventured only for something that might happen is a fallacy. A famous one actually, and specially liked by religious and socially conservative forces. Something very similar is put forward against legalizing homosexuality for instance. They argue that they see nothing wrong with what two consenting adults do, but that any move in this direction will open the gates and put society on a slippery slope that would lead to same demands for incest and pedophilia or whatever in the future. It's a fallacy of course, because if the present case, whatever it is, is legitimate by itself, then why can't they raise the objections they are raising now in the future if and when the actual objectionable demands start to pop up? Actually Q's psych-op fallacy is in a sense another a variation of this as well, for it is demanding a limitation for something now that is only about to happen some time in an alleged future.

Anyway, no point arguing with intellectual cowardice. This was an opportunity for all to communicate, debate and interact with decision makers directly and especially to be able to tell them what you dislike, what you object you and what you disagree with to their faces. You've lost it now. I say only this though, I am not surprised same people are so obsessed with their "palestinians". they clearly share an important trait with them. To never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Well you know..

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

dead horses don't tell tales..  :o)

nighty night. sleep tight.

Bijan A M

Rosie, azizam..

by Bijan A M on

I have nothing against your arguments about free press and specifically free from government. The whole existence of testifies for free press. The publisher is free to criticize (or even demonize) the government, or provide venues for even extremists to post articles against the government. It is all under JJ’s control.


I think we have beaten this horse to death and I doubt if extension of this exchange would add any value.


I want to finish the article that Mr. Duke has posted on your other blog “So where do I go….”


Sweet dreams




by Hajminator on

Why not!? Look at Paris Hilton!

rosie is roxy is roshan

Okay Bijan I'll try again.and try to be very succinct..

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

it all DOES boil down to the fourth check and balance. The pure conception of the function of a press within a democracy that began with the American and French Revolutions. A check and balance on government FOR the electorate to LIMIT ABUSE OF POWER of all branches of the government.

THE VERY MEANING OF THE TERM FREE PRESS MEANS FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Not from the private sector, not from religious instutions, from GOVERNMENT.

There are a million arguments as to how the government could infiltrate anyway and perhaps they do, I'm SURE the site is VERY CLOSELY MONITORED anyway...these arguments are real but they are beside the point.

The point is to take a concrete firm stance: Yes, I still believe in the purest concept of journalism within the framework of a working democracy. To limit abuses of government power through informing the electorate.  Hence;


Now of course we could argue about the high school principal and some nurse in a public hospital and Vali Nasr and so on..but those are gray areas. The black and white stance taken as a framework is the ethical one.

Am I making ANY sense?

Oh and btw, I wouldn't speculate that Jahanshah has lack of confidence in much of anything if I were you..especially screening for propanda...don't forget..he's the one who telexed the fatwa to Salman Rushdie. He has LOADS of knowledge of what propaganda looks like, smells like and tastes like...the nose knows..




by Agha Mooshe (not verified) on

You surely haven't read "Jerusalem Chronicles Volume Iii The Dawn Of Redemption" by Dr. Mooshe Aumann...

Don't offend please!

Bijan A M

What am I missing?

by Bijan A M on

1-There is a private site completely under the control of its publisher. He can do whatever he wishes with any submittal and he has the resources to know who is the real submitter.

2-The site proclaims to be open to any point of views.  

3-People can submit articles and comments anonymously or under fictitious ID’s.

Given these data, why would any person, group, agency, or government be prohibited from submittal? Where is the logic?  

This has nothing to do with checks and balances. The assumption is that this medium will not be controlled or even influenced by anyone but the publisher (big daddy as AF puts it). I have no knowledge of Journalism, but only a little bit of common sense.

IMHO, news goffer has had the most meaningful and relevant response in this thread. But it still doesn’t give a straight answer to my question?  

If an agency wants to run paid advertisement on the site, it obviously is JJ’s decision to accept or decline. I personally support his decision to decline such advertisements (CENTCOM, IRI, FBI, or whatever…). However, if these same groups or people would like to submit articles or comments, like anyone else, I have hard time understanding why should they be excluded. The only logical reasons I can think of are:

a-      The publisher’s lack of confidence in his ability to screen propaganda

b-      Fear of psych Op

I never got an answer from Q for an example of Psych-Op.

This lengthy debate is only about the principles and has little to do with CENTCOM or any other agency, for that matter.


P.S. To the mouse who thought is offending me by his Zion comment:

I’ll be honored to have half of Zion’s knowledge and a tenth of his/her eloquence in debate and reasoning. Sir, you did not offend me, you praised me.  

rosie is roxy is roshan

Na na na na na na AnonFish, not confusing, I'll clarify

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

You see what I was saying was simply that EVERYTHING that comes from these types of agencies is by definition done by or approved through committe to "toe that line" to use the expression you didn't like.  :op

However the HEAD of the agency wouldn't have to go through that process necessarily because he's the top dog right? He's the one who gives the ultimate stamp of approval on what goes out and so if he writes it HIMSELF it IS the party line and needs no modifications to ensure that it be.

I wouldn't like to see anything here signed FBI OR signed by ANY official in the FBI INCLUDING the head. I was just talking about the internal process of how these kinds of propaganda are generated.

However in thinking about the head of the FBI has to go to someone on top of him to release many communiques, but in the case of i.c. I think Obama might let it slide.  :o0

I agree, it's a moot point in terms of what the publisher will do but I think it's an interesting discussion anyway.

Whatever. Don't be pissy. Or if you are at least don't piss in the sandbox...LOL

PS Fish, it's no longer a sandvbx for me. It' longer a sandbox. NOTLOL


Farhad Kashani - personally ....

by Lefty Lap Poodle (not verified) on

یک کلمه هم از مادر عروس!

Farhad Kashani

The fact of the matter

by Farhad Kashani on

The fact of the matter is that there has been a horrible monopoly on media in the U.S, Europe and elsewhere by leftist media and ideology, specially in the last 8 years, which only enforces one point of view and one side of the story. Everyone who disagrees with them, or who has been advocating for Democracy in countries like Iran, is labeled “extremist”, or “NeoCon”, and things like that. The other side’s point of view never got out. Everything that Bush said was immediately met by shortsighted bullies like the Jon Stewarts and Noam Chumskys of the world. That’s why regimes such as IRI have gotten the upper hand in the propaganda war. Its not because something they do, its because their leftist allies in world media and some universities in U.S and Europe justify and apologize for them.

It is time to break that grip on the voice of people.

It is only fair to let everyone speak out, although JJ aziz, you obviously don’t have to, and that wont make you any less fair. You’ve been great so far. I know you were concerned, like the rest of us, about the infiltration of IRI sympathizers into your website. You have kept a good balance though, but definitely do consider taking this to the next level and have them voice their side of the story also.

At the end of the day, we all love you JJ aziz!



by Hairy (not verified) on

Someone who is 'superficial' doesn't have any money to begin with! Never had never will. The gold digger discussion is on another blog!

anonymous fish

i'm confused

by anonymous fish on

in one comment you say "Of course it's different if it's the HEAD of an agency. He can speak for himself because he knows the party line. No one has to check his letters to the editor".

and then you say "I would argue, VERY forcefully, that any article put forth by an official of organizatios such as CENCOM, FBI etc. is fundamentallly ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT from an article contributed with just the name of the organization."

it seems to imply that the "official" is speaking FOR the organization, not as an individual, whereas the "head" is speaking for himself, AS an individual.

IRregardless, it's fairly moot.  i just think it's opening pandora's box.  

actually, i'm just being pissy because i hate big brother and i don't want him playing in our sandbox.  :-)


Good decission

by capt_ayhab on

Journalism must be kept clean from any influence, military or otherwise.

It is not say that there might be any wrong doing in the part of the gentleman of the publisher[JJ] however, his impartiality might come under question if he allows for US military to post articles. 

capt_ayhab [-YT]


Q and Rosie,

by Hajminator on

Very beautifuly said. By the way, being superficial doesn't make one loose money?

rosie is roxy is roshan

Exactly, AnonFish,

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

that's the point, imagine if every Tom, Dick or Harry from the government were speaking their minds to the media (oh and btw the same can be said of Procter & Gamble).  So that's where I kind of indicated below that while at the one extreme, CENCOM w/NO NAME is a no no, and on the other, every raving lunatic here is a yes yes...there does lie a gray area in terms of what exactly constitutes a gvernment agency and an individual voice within it that moves it further to the one side or the other.

I would argue, VERY forcefully, that any article put forth by an official of organizatios such as CENCOM, FBI etc. is fundamentallly ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT from an article contributed with just the name of the organization. I'm sure of it. Those people don't say ONE WORD publicly that isn't official propaganda, and if they aren't barred then neither can the ones signed CENCOM be. And both should IMHO.

But then you get the gray area. Like I said, a public high school principal is a member of a government organization but he also has loads of autonomy, Vali Nasr currently works with the State Department but he was chosen BECAUSE he's such a great and widely published independent scholar on the region. Should he now NOT be published because FINALLY Obama is putting the intellectuals into the positions where they should be?

So as always there's a spectrum, one larger than I'd thought at first, and quite a few submissions would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

In any case I'm sure Mr. Javid is on top of things.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Mind if I join? --From Thomas Paine

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.


Hajiminator, another apropriate quote

by Q on

"It's difficult to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair


Mark 8:11-21

by Hajminator on

Obstinate unbelief will have something to say, though ever so unreasonable.

anonymous fish

i just don't think that "toeing" the line

by anonymous fish on

is the same thing as repressing their opinion.  and of course they can't release information to the public without it being approved!   can you just imagine if every tom, dick and harry in the government was speaking their mind to the media.  holy moly!  talk about a cluster!

listen.  it's another fact of life that pressure is usually brought to bear on members of ANY group... be it governmental, social, or religion... to at least be circumspect about voicing or publizing a view that is different from the "party line". 

that's WHY we have the media.  to snoop all the goodies out.  :-)


OK Kaveh

by tsion on

So your main beef is the possibility that the site will be overwhelmed by such stuff, and not any of the stuff itself. I understand that. But then, it can be stated and agreed on at the onset that if such a thing happens, the deal is off. As for any other agency entering the scene, I don't know. I would assume only those who have a particular thing to say to Iranians or Iran related issues would want to contribute, and it load can be held under control. Needless to say, this too is just my opinion. :-P


rosie is roxy is roshan

It's not paranoid Fish, it's just that officials in government

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

agencies HAVE TO TOE THE PARTY LINE. They are not ALLOWED to send anything to the press until it's approved, nine times out of ten what they DO send to the press is written in committee...and if they say ONE WORD publicy that's not approved, they get FIRED. that's why all these CIA and other people come out and EXPOSE everything..AFTER THEY'RE RETIRED OF course that's an extreme example, it's a where DO you draw the line in the sand? No government agencies sounds good..

Of course it's different if it's the HEAD of an agency. He can speak for himself because he knows the party line. No one has to check his letters to the editor.

Not paranoid at all. When it comes to the press there are no individuals in government agencies. I don't mean like a HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL..I mean the real GOVERNMENT agencies..

So it was put here for discussion so I said what I thought so end of story? okay. end of story. 

News Goffer


by News Goffer on

Governments spend billions of dollars on reaching and influencing public opinion.  They generate publications, design and maintain websites, and maintain outreach programs which write directly to selected audiences or plant items on different media to meet their goals.  Paid advertisements by governments are a standard practice in major newspapers everywhere, most notably the New York Times.  When they ask directly whether they can publish their material on any medium, it is up to the medium’s publishing policies to accept or decline.  I am glad you declined.  I am also glad that you are cognizant of Google ads which try to do the same, passing on the revenue.

As for “gray areas,” this has been a source of growing concern for me on  Forget about the vicious accusations of some users against one another, calling each other “mouth pieces of this or that” when they disagree with each other.  In the past year I have observed users who are 100% in alignment with a specific government’s policies and ideologies, admitting to the same.  For the sake of argument, to review the behavior of such a user on the site, let’s imagine the example of a specific user whose presence on this site is to promote the ideologies of Islamic Republic of Iran.

This imaginary user blogs and posts news items from IRI sources, hailing IRI’s achievements in all areas.  When he posts news items pertaining to Israel or US, his super titles or comments are a complete replica of IRI’s stance vis a vis Israel and US, down to calling them “The Occupier of Qods” or “The Great Satan.”  This imaginary user goes to different posts and writes comments reflecting IRI’s points of view, chapter and verse, with respect to the issue under discussion.  He never visits any articles of a cultural, literary, nostalgic, or emotional nature, staying completely with political posts to repeat his party line.  To me this person does not appear as just a regular “hezbollahi.”  Is he that different than a Centcom representative on the site?

In reality, this gray area also includes people who do the same thing for the State of Israel, where their sole presence is to repeat Israel’s official stance and rhetoric, monitoring and addressing every comment and article which questions or criticizes Israel’s actions.  I don’t believe I have seen similar “rebuttals” from anyone defending US’ actions on this site.  Come to think of it, I haven’t seen such dedication among IRI supporters, either, but that might have to do with the fact that half the time they don't have a leg to stand on! 

I think you are right in not allowing any government’s presence on this medium, whether that presence is transparent through signed articles or paid advertisement or through appearing as a regular user but doing the same thing.  I think gray areas also need vigilance and careful attention to maintain the site’s integrity and objectivity and adherence to its ideals and goals of freedom of opinion and speech.

Kaveh Nouraee

There's nothing necessarily

by Kaveh Nouraee on

There's nothing necessarily wrong with it, except that this is not the appropriate place. At least that's what I think.

If this were allowed to begin, then what's to stop another entity from doing the same thing? And worse, when would it end? This is the government after all. Give them an inch and they'll snatch the ruler and smash you on the knuckles with it before taking a mile.

Instead of this being an Iranian-centric website that incorporates all of the elements found in the blue tabs at the top of this page, it would becomes a government propaganda website.

Hey, this is just my opinion, but if you ask me, I say thanks but no thanks.

anonymous fish

come on rosie

by anonymous fish on

that's a little paranoid as well.  "no individuals in most government agencies".  we're not talking about the IRI here.  i will respectfully disagree with that statement.

centcom... cia... fbi... tgif... whatever.  it's a government agency and this is not the correct forum for an AGENCY sponsored blog.

there is no diabolical agenda here.  they asked.  jj answered.  jj is offering to us for our opinion and discussion.  end of story. 

spies in training is exactly right.  jeez.


You'll never know ...

by Centcom agent (not verified) on

who our true agents are. Keep writing - we are watching you!