Quintessential Questions
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
A case-study in defamation and slander
17-Nov-2009
This was written as a comment about another blog in which both Fred and Darius Kadivar made some statements claiming to be fair and objective critics of NIAC.
This is a case study of how Fred and Kadivar slander and defame even while pretending they are fair-minded judges of NIAC and Trita Parsi. All in the context of another defamation case, that of Hassan Daioleslam against NIAC.
Fred has a literal conflict of interest (he is pro "airtight" sanctions and NIAC is against). But he cunningly pretends he is fair minded and evidence driven. So, he graces us with this "fair" position:
Should NIAC lobby turn out to be not what evidence point to as I stated in the last exchange on the subject we two had, your posting on NIAC visit, I will publically apologize and do all that I can to make up for my mistake and furthering NIAC lobby’s agenda.
This position lacks integrity and morals. It's only designed to sound like a fair and objective stance but it is not. Here are the reasons:
1. Fred considers NIAC "guilty until proven innocent": So, there is some fact out there that Fred is supposedly concerned about. There are accusations that Fred himself has made toward NIAC and other pro-peace people. However, he doesn't care about his own accusations being proved, he will "apologize" if only NIAC disproves his baseless allegations. This is what's known as a fishing expedition and the equivilant move in any legal system will be laughed out of court.
First you prove the allegations, then judgement is rendered and only last you can pass it off as true.
2. Fred is Anonymous. When he says "I will apologize" is that supposed to be meaningful? He's a attack machine with no personal stake. He can (and may already have) made other fake accounts with fake name and fake "concerns". So he has no stake and no risk in what he's saying personally. What's the worst thing that can happen to him? "Apologize" as "Fred" the Iranian.com fake account? Who is supposed to even enforce that? What's to say that when he is finally disgraced and proven wrong, he will not disappear like his sister Zion did a while back? Nothing of course. So the conclusion is that this "apology" business is meaningless.
The point is further driven home by this:
Till then I and it seems many others need to be convinced and if the price of it is to be called names, so be it.
Of course this is not ethical either. You don't "need to be convinced" of someone's innocense, you need to be convinced of someone's guilt. You are assuming guilt until proven innocent just like I said. I nthe mean time you claim the license to carry out these baseless allegations until... YOU consider the matter closed.
So as we see here, this point is also meaningless. But I still find it funny how at least rhetorically, Fred is playing the victim in this whole process (so typical).
if the price of it is to be called names, so be it.
Fred is basically saying, I will continue to defame and slander real people with unproven allegations, but I will accept the sacrifice of being called "names" for my fake persona
Wow, I'm really in awe of the sophistry and self-righteous arrogance.
Darius Kadivar, on the other hand is not a fake persona so he is to be commended for writing under his real name. However, he, too is being unfair and abusive performatively, perhaps even without his knowing.
I have no definitive judgment on NIAC or its people or on Trita PArsi who has EVERY right to defend his honor at court in this legal affair and I will only wait for the conclusion of the Court on this controversy to draw my own conclusions.
OK, this sounds reasonable. Kadivar says he has no judgement, that he's "neutral" in other words. He will reserve the judgement and "wait" for the conclusion of the court. But does Kadivar really believe it?
It becomes clear that the answer is no. Kadivar writes for about 5.5 lines about how he will wait and reserve judgement. But spends the next 95 lines NOT waiting, NOT reserving judgement and NOT being neutral. Even if he wants to say he's reviewing the fact, why so one sided?
The simple conclusion is that Kadivar is not truthful when he says he has not drawn a conclusion and will "wait for the courts", etc. He just said that to make himself sound credible, but it's obvious from the 95:5 ratio of his own writing that he, too, is considering "guilty until proven innocent". But unlike Fred, he's just not that blunt about it.
Furthermore, on the specific things he mentions, he is being one-sided and biased. I eliminate ignorance because I have personally answered some of these points and he continues to pretend like they are real controversies. Let me show you:
I have never found that NIAC was ever speaking on behalf of Iranian Americans as such because it was simply taking upon itself a political role such as demanding the US Congress to stop financing the Iranian Opposition in Exile.
Darius Kadivar must know by now that a majority, perhaps even a large majority of Iranian Americans do not trust these US-funded "opposition", part of this distrust is the "US funded" part. He knows how Green leaders and other freedom fighters like Shirin Ebadi have specifically decried US meddling or funding of opposition. He also knows that 30 years of such funding hasn't produced the slightest result.
So, when he says "NIAC is taking it upon himself" he's distorting to be generous. NIAC is reflecting what most Iranian Americans want.
Even if you don't believe your own eyes in all the rally's, Kadivar, you can read the NIAC surveys to its own constituents which questions like this have been posed. They all confer the same thing.
The conclusion here is that Kadivar is simply upset that NIAC didn't honor his French-Iranian minority view rather than what its own members demand.
Before taking such a position did Mr. Trita Parsi bother to ask some of the Iranian American Families directly concerned ( and often for Good Reason) by such as initiative on their behalf ?
Yes, actually, it did. I don't know if by "directly concerned" you are saying that NIAC should have conducted a survey inside the Islamic Republic (where people like you would instantly call its accuracy into question), or you are saying that people "directly concerned" however that is defined, should have more of a say than others, which is not consistent with a democratic approach. Whatever it is, there's no wrong doing on behalf of NIAC that has occurred here, except the deadly sin of not having consulted Kadivar before hand.
He may have shared that view as an individual but to do so on behalf of the Iranian American community was not very Honest nor ethical ...
The Iranian-American community is not a monolith and NIAC never claims to reprsent the entire community. However, it is the biggest representative of the Iranian American community. Prior to NIAC the only voice in Washington calling itself "representative of the Iranian American Community" was the MEK.
The fallacy which is oft repeated here is simple:
NIAC is the biggest Iranian-American organization. It does not mean the "entire" community but it is a valid voice for the community.
The standards that "concern" critic such as Kadivar put forward are laughable. Does Barak Obama represent the "American" community? The answre is Yes, even though less than 30% of Americans voted for him. (he got 53% of the vote, where 55% of eligables voted). You can make this "case" about any group in NIAC's position. Even the largest groups like AARP in reality have memberships that are a fraction of the people in whose name they operate. Why is this a problem only when it comes to NIAC ? The answer of course is: bias based on ideological disagreement.
As Far as I understood NIAC was supposed to be a Community organization and Not a Political Party. As Such it Was not supposed to be involved in Iranian Politics but focused on Community work and eventually highlight Iranian Americans involved in the American Political Scene.
I'm not sure what you are basing this on. But community organizations can be very political. They often fight for what is best for their community, including legislation affecting their lives and the lives of their parents and loved ones. There are anti-poverty community organizations that routines mobilize for or against national legislation affecting the poor. Same with religious communities and ethnic ones. Only some of the larger ones are official lobbis but they all do political work to some degree.
I will chalk this up to Kadivar, simply not knowing enough about American politics.
Also NIAC was regularly asked to come and speak on VOA Persian to respond to it's accusers and contradictors BUT NEVER appeared in any of the debates prefering to call VOA Persian as a nest of Neo Con War Mongerers ...
I don't know what this is supposed to prove. President Obama doesn't appear on FOX news. What's your point? Anybody is free to accept or reject an invitation. VOA is far from balanced and objective and in this case it makes sense that they have huge animosity toward NIAC, being that NIAC is against funding of fossilized Iranian opposition groups.
The real question is that what kind of ethical journalist would put Hassan Dai on the air repeatedly when even YOU admit that none of his allegations are proven.
VOA persian and Radio Farda were VERY PROFESSIONAL in covering the Elections in Iran and Fair.
Actually US government statistics show that VOA audience in Iran is dropping in favor of BBC Persian, which is why incidently the IRI is very concerned about BBC again. But this is irrelevant, it's just your opinion. Peopls still are allowed to think differently about VOA and "professionalism" in your world, right Kadivar?
Even today while Jumping on the Green Movement Band Wagon which suddenly they claim to be it's spokesperson they have been indulging in creating divisions amongst Iranians by criticizing those who carry the Iranian Sun and Lion Flag.
Kadivar, that this is the source of your wound with NIAC is not lost on anyone. But even in your own video, can you count the number of people who cheered when Talebi said "get your own protest" ? It was the vast majority.
Mr. Trita Parsi aligned himself on the position defended by other Iranians who were Not even American such as Shirin Ebadi or Akbar Ganji regarding their opposition to financing the Iranian Opposition in Exile.
You know that these figures are highly respected by Iranian-Americans. They have sold out tours throughtout the United States routinesly. What is your poin here?
Your critique of Parsi's book is so meaningless, I won't even repeat it here. Trita Parsi is an academic with a PhD. He wrote the book based on his research not as a statement of NIAC's position. You don't like the book, don't buy it.
In conclusion. I find Darius Kadivar to be every bit as biased and dishonest as Fred. He is certainly doing it for different reasons but just like Fred he tries to fool the audience into thinking he's being objective and fact driven, when the reality shows he has deep personal anger about NIAC and is in truth ideologically diven.
Evne for a clueless Patriot and Last Minute Opponent to the IRI Like Trita Parsi ...
Yea, "waiting for the courts" my ass Kadivar jan!
For background see here:
//iranian.com/main/blog/fred/niac-lobby-r...
//iranian.com/main/blog/q/who-attacking-t...
| Recently by Q | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Sahra Wagenknecht | 10 | Jun 12, 2011 |
| Iran-hiker Sara Shourd is singing for Shane and Josh | 9 | Dec 01, 2010 |
| Reza Pahlavi and the Neoconservatives | 16 | Nov 09, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
...
by ex programmer craig on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:52 PM PSTI have a problem both with your poetry and your politics.
Your attacks yesterday were character assassination. You were savaging her personality.
I don't really wish to engage with you at any level.
Maybe you should have thought about that before you decided to launch a full on unprovoked personal attack on her.
Anyway, I think its very appropriate we talk about Q and his tendency towards defamation, slander and character assassination in a blog where Q is accusing other people of doing that. You just can't help but make yourself look like a fool, can you Q?
Ebi jan,
by Hajminator on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:50 PM PSTChakeram.
Q,
by Hajminator on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:50 PM PSTYou're welcome, I know where such sickening allegations end. Experience has shown me that it's never early to rise against infamy.
Hajminator aziz..
by ebi amirhosseini on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:50 PM PSTI second Captain.
Ebi aka Haaji
Q
by Natalia Alvarado-Alvarez on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:46 PM PSTMany are already aware that NIAC and Trita Parsi have in the past, present and will in the future continue to defend themselves against anything that they deem as slanderous in a court of law.
NIAC and Trita Parsi are very assertive.
Now you may want to focus on the current alleged accusations about you on this web site.
As you are aware our reputation and words mean a lot on this web site.
Capt'ne,
by Hajminator on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:43 PM PSTMokhlessim.
FateHEAD
by capt_ayhab on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:39 PM PSTYou did not respond to anyone, because I doubt that anyone besides characters such as Craig the ex, Fred the hate master see you worthy of response any longer.
You opened your slanderous and vulgar typing[in lieu of mouth] and started thrashing everyone who sees you for what you are. Which is nothing but a pathetic hater and racist who has made his life's goal to hate Iran and Iranians.
So what are you whining about?? behet barkhord? Just deal with it, as they say you have laid your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
-YT
P/S Mr. Hajminiator made a perfect analogy, Kudos to him.
Mrs. Sheema
by capt_ayhab on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:25 PM PSTIt is a known fact that Ms. Souri hates my guts, but I have to agree with her 100%.
Both Mr. Q. and Ms. Souri have asked you to bring forth support of your accusations and [pornographic materials now being called inappropriate] emails and such.
What is your hesitation?
-YT
Hajmin
by Faramarz_Fateh on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:23 PM PSTI am already sorry that I have to respond to a low life like you.
Are you a 13 year old? You are making threats on the web?!! Get a life.
Sending Pornography?
by ramin parsa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:21 PM PSTIf this is true, that this person "Q" is sending pornography to people he disagrees with politically speaking, it is a despicable and criminal act, or should be.
Iranian.com should seriously consider taking action against this alledgedly odious character, at least blocking him permanently. To send vile matierial to someone is not only petty, but sickening and perverse.
And I don't know why Ms. Kalbasi would make up such a lie. Having read "Q's" responses to women on this and other threads, I tend to not dismiss the charge on its face. And this has nothing to do with his political views, which seems rather questionable.
Fateh,
by Hajminator on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:19 PM PSTI know that instead of a head you have a hazelnut and like Saturn the rest of your skull is fill with some nauseating gaz - hence your name.
But, you should understand that every action has a reaction - even bullocks know that. So be more cautious when you throw accusations, you'll be shortly sorry about that.
Sheema, you're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts
by Q on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:11 PM PSTand I can only imagine what Parsi must have been thinking when he made that statement to you!
I really do not see an argument.
I have a problem both with your poetry and your politics. However what I wrote last night in Anahid Hojjati's blog was about your poetry.
Except for one email last night after your baseless accusations, I have not sent you anything since the end of our long discussion in 2006. Not pornography, not "inappropriate material", nothing!
If you are once again accusing me of this, you are lying!
You seem to treat women as objects the
same way the regime does in Iran!
This is an absolute cheap shot in absense of anything substantive. Since you have backed off of repeating your big lie, this is a way to make the same sexual insinuation. It's of course false, but more than that, it is revealing about you.
I don't really wish to engage with you at any level. I have said so in my emails and I'll be glad to remind you. If you keep lying about me, I will respond of course.
inappropriate material
by Sheema Kalbasi on Wed Nov 18, 2009 03:05 PM PSTSouri khanoom-e aziz,
My issues with this fellow is not his right to express himself for or against me on Iranian.com or elsewhere. I had asked him to not send me another inappropriate material. Would you like to finish nursing your baby, without your contact lenses trying to check your e-mails and there... a big dick come into your face at five A.M.?
He even contacted my husband with his rubbish. Now that's funny:-)
Q
by ex programmer craig on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:55 PM PSTSo, you are discussing them in a biased way? Isn't that what you are just saying?
Excuse me? I hate your guts. I hate your guts BECAUSE OF your abusive behavior and your constant dishonesty. What does the fact that I loathe you have to do with your behavior? I suppose anybody who dislikes you isn't allowed to say so and to give the reasons why because they are biased against you? So when you tell lies about me and when you make abusive personal attacks on me, I can't complain about that because Q says I can only complain if I'm neutral - after he has made sure that i'm anything but neutral? Too funny :p
Do you have any idea how pyschopathic that sounds? To try to come up with some twisted logic that in your own mind denies your victims their right to complain about what you do to them?
FateHEAD
by capt_ayhab on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:54 PM PSTSo tell me, has opposing your hate mongering and criminal racist propaganda by yours truly been a thorn on your side?
Good!! live with it and grow up[or at least try].
-YT
Qumars Blourchian, Q or
by Sheema Kalbasi on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:53 PM PSTQumars Blourchian, Q or whatever your real name is! Your friend Trita
Parsi once wrote to me that I approach issues as a poet unlike him who
is a political scientist. If I have to use his argument for you to
grasp it then I have to say you are not a literary critic to write
literary criticism. Your issues with me are not about my poetry but my
stand against the regime in Iran or you wouldn't send me inappropriate
material and insults since 2006! You seem to treat women as objects the
same way the regime does in Iran!
Q Hajminator Molanasredeen mammad JalehO Capt_Ah
by Faramarz_Fateh on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:39 PM PSTAs you know, Iranian.Com is blocked by the IRI. Not too many Iranians inside Iran are able to view its contents because not everyone is computer savvy and has access to "filter shekan" as they say in Iran.
IRI has somewhere around 80-100 paid agents that are assigned to monitor popular web sites that cater to Iranians. Its the job of these paid operatives to disseminate mis and disinformation, cause confusion, spam blogs, and basically divert attention of readers from main points of blogs that are not pro IRI and Islam.
I have gone back and created some statistics regarding these soul-less individuals. Whenever there is an anti IRI or anti Islam blog on i.com an average of 62% of all responses are from 6 individuals.
There is no converting people like this so long as they get paid or there is a personal benefit to them. Once there is a regime change there folks will change their tune as fast as you can blink and eye.
Ms. Sheema Kalbasi
by capt_ayhab on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:21 PM PSTWith all due respect, I am neither member of NIAC, nor do I agree with all of Mr. Q's political views.
But what you have posted here and on your blog[that one is purely your own business] is very vicious and totally uncalled for.
To accuse some of sending you pornographic images based on your political differences has grave consequences on accused person's life. You seem to be an articulated person, although I am not familiar with your work, but person of your caliber should not resort to this type of tactics if she knows to be false.
Respectfully
-YT
P/S I am sure our resident Craig is going to have something to say about this post. Its called love I suppose.
Azarin aziz
by Souri on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:17 PM PSTI don't know Ms KAlbaasi and her works, and I am not here to judge anybody. My respect goes to her and Q equally, I don't have any problem with any of them. But here there's something I want to say as a neutral observer: When someone makes an accusation to someone else in public, they have to bring proofs for that.
Q, had asked Ms Kalbaasi many times last night, to bring those proofs on the table. She didn't reply, just went on accusing him over and over. Then Q posted those two blogs last night (which have been deleted today)
Having said that, I still don't see a relation between your anger toward Q and your liking the insulting word!
I don't want to enter into the debate about the insulting words. But there are people here who are used to give and take offensive words . They are also some other people (you and me :)) who are not used to that and don't like it at all.
Let, not start it today my dear friend :)
So... Craig, help me understand
by Q on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:11 PM PSTWe aren't discussing objectivity though. We are discussing your history of bad behavior.
So, you are discussing them in a biased way? Isn't that what you are just saying?
q (lower case now, you don't rate a capital letter)
by ex programmer craig on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:08 PM PSTPerfect! Well, that's all I've been saying. Looks like no one should take your statements about me seriously.
Oh, well if we're just discounting the opinions of everyone who isn't "objective" then what's the purpose of Iranian.com then? Nobody here is objective. Least of all, you.
We aren't discussing objectivity though. We are discussing your history of bad behavior.
No Q
by ex programmer craig on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:02 PM PSTOne thing is clear, no one believes you are or can possibly be objective.
When it comes to you, I am not objective at all. I think you are a malicious and hateful human being, and I've thought that for years. I think for somebody to bother you on a personal level as much as Sheema Kalbasi obviously does, she must be an angel :)
Hajminator, I appreciate your effort.
by Q on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:17 PM PSTThanks for what you're trying to do. Of course it is a mean expression as used in this context and I took it as such from the beginning. It may possibly be "obvious" to some people who have lived in France for a long time.
But it is being read by me and others who have not done so. So this defense of it being just a cute colloquialism is bogus.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm used to things like this. Doesn't bother me for the most part. Don't worry about it. Thanks again.
Craig, would you like to put your money where your mouth is?
by Q on Wed Nov 18, 2009 01:50 PM PSTWhat are you talking about when you say "dishonest person" ?
As far as sending pornography or harrassing her... I don't know what you did or didn't do.
LOL! Looks like someone needs to read the blog again. It's up above. Funny how these things apply to all sorts of scenarios.
I did not "assassinate" her character. Please... get over yourself. You don't have to believe me. Trust me, I'll survive.
You can paint my "reputation" however you want. One thing is clear, no one believes you are or can possibly be objective.
lol
by ex programmer craig on Wed Nov 18, 2009 01:37 PM PSTWhy do you have to lie about me?
Q. you are probably the most consistently dishonest person on this website. You are also the only person I've ever seen accuse Sheema Kalbasi of lying. If it comes to a question of he said/she said between the two of you, who here us is going to believe you? When you are a known liar? When you have lied about most of us in the past?
As far as sending pornography or harrassing her... I don't know what you did or didn't do. But do you really expect anybody on Iranian.com to believe you WOULDN'T behave in such a way? Again, you have a track record here. And your track record is one of being a childish and abusive prick. What Sheema Kalbasi describes, I have no trouble at all believing Q would do.
And your final problem in this dispute is that you went out of your way to try to assassinate her character with no provocation whatsoever. She wasn't even around, and hadn't been in a while. You manifest that kind of extreme level of animosity towards her and then expect people to believe you when you deny you've been harassing her?
by Fred on Wed Nov 18, 2009 02:20 PM PSTAzarin khanoom
by Hajminator on Wed Nov 18, 2009 01:08 PM PSTok, jan was to be polite as everyone use it mechanically here.
That's why I found "Mon Q" funny! Anyway, as you have lived 25 years in France, you should know better that Mon Q is not a very mean expression, and not sexual at all for them!
So if I understand well, you'll find it fine if by some wordplay I use your name to call you with some funny vulgar phrases? You didn't tolerate a simple "tu" nor "jan" I'm curious to see what would be your answer.
to Hajminator
by Azarin Sadegh on Wed Nov 18, 2009 01:01 PM PSTFirst why do you call me "Azarin jan"?...it is in contrast with the rest of your comment.
Second, I haven't really read this blog, all the comments here, not even the rest of Darius's comment...but I am kind of mad at Q too, and it has nothing to do with Niac (he knows why).
That's why I found "Mon Q" funny! Anyway, as you have lived 25 years in France, you should know better that Mon Q is not a very mean expression, and not sexual at all for them!
Azarin jAn,
by Hajminator on Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:55 PM PST"Mon cul" is common, but not when you deliberately use the name or the pseudonym of people instead of "cul" to sound like the word. In such case it becomes insulting and that reminds me some dark ages.
You should have lived in France to catch the real sense and meaning!
Indeed, for more than 25 years.
konad ham jens ba ham jens parvaz!
Enjoy!
to Hajminator
by Azarin Sadegh on Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:51 PM PSTJe ne vous connais pas vraiment, alors je n'aime pas que vous me tutoyer!
"Mon Q" in French is a very (very) common expression...and not really offensive, like saying "putain" or "merde" for example...
You should have lived in France to catch the real sense and meaning! But I still think Darius is pretty funny! But I agree with your expression: Yes...konad ham jens ba ham jens parvaz!
Have a good day! Azarin