05 November 2007

Treacherous Alliance, Troublesome Editing, Teetering Premise(s)

Dear Mr. Parsi (please note, doctors can perscribe medicine--you are not a doctor but rather a simple mister like the rest of us not trained in the healing arts):

I have read your work Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S. and would like to take this opportunity to ask you to tighten up and get a new editor. Are you aware that the first printing of your book contains boldfaced errors in editing, not least of which is the wrong date for theProphet Muhammad's ascension to government in Medina by nearly 1200years? When you cite a poll, it is helpful to footnote it[1] along with its methodolgy, sample size, and where possible, wording of the original question to which the answers derived from polling refer. "Based on this premises," should read, "based on this premise." If you have an address for your editor, I'll be happy to direct my further criticism to him/her about his/her terrible/awful grammar/factchecking.


Orville said...

A few questions which might help you to tighten up your stance on geo-politics and/or American civic activity Mr. Parsi:

1) At this juncture, there are on the one side all those who support
popular sovereignty within Iran which implicity means an end to
religious dictatorship.

On another side, there are all those who in one way or the other and
under various pretexts, seek to preserve, make peace and compromise
with the theocracy ruling Iran while intentionally or not,
contributing to the regime's survival.

This second group loses no opportunity to warn of the dangers and
consequences of going to war with the mullahs' regime. But they never
say anything about the dangers and implications of "no war" which
will ultimately and inevitably drag the world (not Just the US) into
war. I feel the efforts of your entire book fall into the latter

How is it that you find yourself hiding behind the banner of peace
while advocating for engagement with a regime which is explicity
opposed to the basic tenets of individual liberty and who officially
sanctions daily prayers for the downfall of liberal democracies?

2) When will the people of Iran as citizens of an Islamic Republic be
able to parse the goals of the clerics who rule the country from their
own national interests? Is there any hope of Republican self-rule in
Iran without oversight by a theocratic monarch according to the tenets
of Velayat-e Faqih?

3) Why should the US engage a country which has, since it's inception
as a modern, Islamist state, preached the downfall of liberal
democracy and actively pursued this goal through economic and military
ends in its alliance with Hezbollah and other proxies?

4) Are the left-leaning stances of NIAC representative of most

5)How's does NIAC's overtly anti-war stance, assist in NIAC's stated
goal of, "Promoting Iranian American Participation In American Civic
Life?" Should the only contribution of Iranian-Americans to American
civic life be as strong voice in favor of non-intervention or as a
strong voice for the Democratic party politics? Why is your
organization so one-sided if it advocates for all Iranian-Americans?

Pete said...

Read this week's Economist to get derpressed about the state of religion and politics in the world today. Based on said source, the world population is trending toward a greater reliance on religion in their everyday lives, from morality to politics to what type of car to drive.

Orville said...

The postman has been stealing my Economistseses, I'll be sure to check it out on-line. Thanks for the heads up