NationStates Jolt Archive

Check this article out. How credible is this story? Do you think anything will happen because of this? Will this make US-Iranian ties more tense?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/index.html

I don't see anything wrong with this. Look at the former PLO president, Yasser Arafat. He was a terrorist before he abandoned terrorist tactics.

Look at Bush, who was a crack user and shirked from national service.

What is important is how he will conduct his policies today. What happened to him 25 years is nearly irrelevant.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Look at the former PLO president, Yasser Arafat. He was a terrorist before he abandoned terrorist tactics.

Look at Bush, who was a crack user and shirked from national service.

What is important is how he will conduct his policies today. What happened to him 25 years is nearly irrelevant.

I highly doubt most Americans will let this guy off. Did you live through the hostage situation in 79-80? Its burned in my memory. I would support action to get him and those others responsible. Even after this much time. This guy in my book needs to pay.

No...I wasn't born until 1987...

Well, the more the US distances itself from Iran, the more closer it will get with China and, more dangerously, North Korea.

So take your pick. Forgive and forget some dude who committed a crime 25 years ago, or risk a new nuclear power today.

It probably is true, I heard it on the News Hour complete with a testimonial of a former hostage saying it was indeed that same person who had held them is now President. Maybe this will justify an invasion in Iran? If excuses were able justify war in Iraq, then this is at least something.

No...I wasn't born until 1987...

Well, the more the US distances itself from Iran, the more closer it will get with China and, more dangerously, North Korea.

So take your pick. Forgive and forget some dude who committed a crime 25 years ago, or risk a new nuclear power today.

Ok question, who do YOU as a Hong Kongian hate more as a country, North Korea or Japan?

now every ex-hostage that says he is da man...will get his day of celebrity at CNN/FOX

No way will that be ignored.

Personally I felt humiliated when they held our hostages. As they intended us to feel. And I'm still sore about it and with Carter.

Ever read "On Wings of Eagles" (I think it is a movie also) about Ross Perot's hostage rescue attempt?

Remarkable but not unexpected.

It's stupid. The man was a terrorist/freedom fighter (depends on your point of view) 25 years ago. We were against this rebelious institution, but they won and are now the government. The man is now a politician. Look at the American revolution- many of the most prominent patriots went on to head the newly formed government.

We don't think of them as patriots because they were on the other side, we think of this as criminals, but that is the essence of revolution. Just because you will do crazy things for a cause you really believe in doesn't mean you're unreasonable.

Ok question, who do YOU as a Hong Kongian hate more as a country, North Korea or Japan?

The unofficial title is "Hong Konger". Ugly and unofficial. There is no official name *sob*

As a country? Wudya mean?

I recall all 444 days, and the implications that Regan orchestrated the release to humiliate Carter, something that's still unprovable. I remember Desert One, and the people who died in that tragic attempt to free them. I recall Ross Perot's success in getting out the few he did, and the risks he took funding that.

I also recall Iran got exactly what they deserved of the "Settlement" Carter made to free the hostages; Zip.


Forget? Never. Forgive? Why?

I don't know whether it's true or not. Some hostages say he it was him, others do not. Because of the discrepancy, I'm not sure.

However, I would argue that it doesn't really matter. That happened 25 years ago, during a time of revolution and disorder in Iran. Situations change, people change. He is now a politician and an international figure, prepared to lead his nation, and I still wish him and the Iranian people the best of luck.

EDIT: It's not him. In the photos shown side by side in the link, you can clearly see that they are similar looking, but still different individuals. The individual from the hostage situation, seen in the right photo, has a longer thinner face, higher and more pronounced cheekbones, a thinner nose and eyes that are closer together than Mr. Ahmadinejad, seen left. Those photos are of two different people, though they do, I admit, look alike.

It's stupid. The man was a terrorist/freedom fighter (depends on your point of view) 25 years ago. We were against this rebelious institution, but they won and are now the government. The man is now a politician. Look at the American revolution- many of the most prominent patriots went on to head the newly formed government.

We don't think of them as patriots because they were on the other side, we think of this as criminals, but that is the essence of revolution. Just because you will do crazy things for a cause you really believe in doesn't mean you're unreasonable.

This is extremely true. I'm certain that the British would have wanted to bring up George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and company up on charges for crimes against the Crown. It really is a matter of perspective.

Didn't you know? Only Americans can perform revolutions and be called patriots. Everybody else is a terrorist. =p

I highly doubt most Americans will let this guy off. Did you live through the hostage situation in 79-80? Its burned in my memory. I would support action to get him and those others responsible. Even after this much time. This guy in my book needs to pay.
Oh yes, lets send our already overstrained army to wear with an actually equipped nation. Hurray!

Dammit, as if we needed another reason for Bush to declare war on Iran. I think this is some pretty big news, if it's actually true.

If it is, I'd like to see how events take place.

If not, then be happy no events took place.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Look at the former PLO president, Yasser Arafat. He was a terrorist before he abandoned terrorist tactics.

ROFL. Oh yes, he just abandoned them. It wasn't that he just moved higher up in the food chain at all.

I don't know whether it's true or not. Some hostages say he it was him, others do not. Because of the discrepancy, I'm not sure.

However, I would argue that it doesn't really matter. That happened 25 years ago, during a time of revolution and disorder in Iran. Situations change, people change. He is now a politician and an international figure, prepared to lead his nation, and I still wish him and the Iranian people the best of luck.

EDIT: It's not him. In the photos shown side by side in the link, you can clearly see that they are similar looking, but still different individuals. The individual from the hostage situation, seen in the right photo, has a longer thinner face, higher and more pronounced cheekbones, a thinner nose and eyes that are closer together than Mr. Ahmadinejad, seen left. Those photos are of two different people, though they do, I admit, look alike.

You can clearly see no such thing unless of course you are a supporter and are wishing him and the Iranian people the best of luck. It would take some rather expensive forensic software to make the measurements and even then it would not be conclusive due to the differing angles.

Dammit, as if we needed another reason for Bush to declare war on Iran. I think this is some pretty big news, if it's actually true.

If it is, I'd like to see how events take place.

If not, then be happy no events took place.

*Counting number of countries we'll be occupying if we declare War on Iran, realizes we're fucked*

Yes, because we all must remember that the hostage situation of '79-80 was not provoked whatsoever. Just because the CIA put in Muhammed Reza Pahlavi, a brutal dictator, while the west sent him all sorts of arms and support, doesnt mean anything. Just because the people rose up against their oppressors, and held some of their oppressors allies hostage, means they are evil and have no reason. Because they were americans.

I highly doubt most Americans will let this guy off. Did you live through the hostage situation in 79-80? Its burned in my memory. I would support action to get him and those others responsible. Even after this much time. This guy in my book needs to pay.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter--if ever there were an example of this, here it is. And according to this report (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/06/30/hostage/index.html) from the AP, Iran's new President (please don't ask me to type his name) was part of the group, but didn't actually take part in the hostage taking.

Not that it matters, really. It's not like we were on great footing with Iran before, so this can hardly hurt. And yes--I'm old enough to remember it. I was just becoming politically aware at the time and remember seeing the hostage crisis daily count on the news every night--I was watching Frank Reynolds on ABC World News Tonight.

Dammit, as if we needed another reason for Bush to declare war on Iran. I think this is some pretty big news, if it's actually true.

If it is, I'd like to see how events take place.

If not, then be happy no events took place.

Regardless if it is or not. Bush is not going to attack Iran under any circumstance. France, Germany and Russia are supposed to be handling peaceful negotiations to convince them that they do not want or need that capability. The US will watch the UN and Europe show how their Jimmy Carter style negotiation skills are superior, pass out some "nobel the mass murderer prizes" then sit back and get themselves or someone else blown to bits because they didn't pay their extortion fees.

Liverbreath']Regardless if it is or not. Bush is not going to attack Iran under any circumstance. France, Germany and Russia are supposed to be handling peaceful negotiations to convince them that they do not want or need that capability. The US will watch the UN and Europe show how their Jimmy Carter style negotiation skills are superior, pass out some "nobel the mass murderer prizes" then sit back and get themselves or someone else blown to bits because they didn't pay their extortion fees.

Because europe has gotten hit with so many WMD? Maybe, just maybe, both approaches to the problem work? Negotiations and hard-line?

Liverbreath']You can clearly see no such thing unless of course you are a supporter and are wishing him and the Iranian people the best of luck. It would take some rather expensive forensic software to make the measurements and even then it would not be conclusive due to the differing angles.

Well, I don't own forensic software, but I do own two good eyes and a willingness to believe these could be two different people.

I guess only a comprehensive computer analysis will convince you, but I can't and won't perform it. All I can tell you is that regardless of angle, there are simply several discrepancies between photo 1 and photo 2, that if accurate would mean these are two distinct individuals. I believe I pointed them out in my previous post. Oh, one I left out, the chin on Mr. Ahmadinejad is wider than that on the guy in photo 2.

Oh, and you know nothing of what or who I support, don't presume you see a bias. I do indeed wish this gentlemen and the people of Iran the best of luck. I consider it a common courtesy to offer someone good luck, especially when they need it. And the people of Iran and her newly elected President need it.

Well, I don't own forensic software, but I do own two good eyes and a willingness to believe these could be two different people.

I guess only a comprehensive computer analysis will convince you, but I can't and won't perform it. All I can tell you is that regardless of angle, there are simply several discrepancies between photo 1 and photo 2, that if accurate would mean these are two distinct individuals. I believe I pointed them out in my previous post. Oh, one I left out, the chin on Mr. Ahmadinejad is wider than that on the guy in photo 2.

Oh, and you know nothing of what or who I support, don't presume you see a bias. I do indeed wish this gentlemen and the people of Iraq the best of luck. I consider it a common courtesy to offer someone good luck, especially when they need it. And the people of Iran and her newly elected President need it.

Forget it. If you take any position that can be even slightly considered anti-american, you are a terrorist and should die a painful death. Period.

Oh, one I left out, the chin on Mr. Ahmadinejad is wider than that on the guy in photo 2.
Actually, and I'm not sure if it's him either, that could easily be explained if he's not in the same shape he was in. Scratch that, different article than the one I saw eariler. Although even with forensic photo analysis it's entirely possible that even if it was him the photos wouldn't match. The lighting, facial hair, quality of photo, and angle are too different

Because europe has gotten hit with so many WMD? Maybe, just maybe, both approaches to the problem work? Negotiations and hard-line?

It is unfortunate that I say this but the simple fact of the matter is that no negotiations in any combination are going to make a difference to Iran. They have a very clearly defined belief in what the plan for the world is and there is nothing you, I or anyone can say that is going to change that. They see one Muslim world period. That is their mandate in life, and it does not include Israel the US or Europe. They have been at this for over 1500 years. Why is it so hard for people in Western cultures to understand that? If Iran has the ability they will use it, it really is that simple.

Liverbreath']It is unfortunate that I say this but the simple fact of the matter is that no negotiations in any combination are going to make a difference to Iran. They have a very clearly defined belief in what the plan for the world is and there is nothing you, I or anyone can say that is going to change that. They see one Muslim world period. That is their mandate in life, and it does not include Israel the US or Europe. They have been at this for over 1500 years. Why is it so hard for people in Western cultures to understand that? If Iran has the ability they will use it, it really is that simple.

Coming from the person who virtually said "If you think they are different people, you are anti-american"? Right. Guess what? I bet many Iranians think that either

A. The US wants to create a western, christian world, and wipe them out

B. The US's Israeli overlords are pushing for a new world order with Israel over all the middle east

C. Other similar belief.

Guess what? Other than a few hardliners, the vast majority of Iranians are rational people. They are human beings, just like you and me. They want America to leave them alone, not to destroy america(not for the purpose of destroying america, anyways). The Iranians elected this person.

Ohh well. If America goes to war with Iran, we can disprove the whole "two democracies never go to war" thing.

Coming from the person who virtually said "If you think they are different people, you are anti-american"? Right. Guess what? I bet many Iranians think that either

A. The US wants to create a western, christian world, and wipe them out

B. The US's Israeli overlords are pushing for a new world order with Israel over all the middle east

C. Other similar belief.

Guess what? Other than a few hardliners, the vast majority of Iranians are rational people. They are human beings, just like you and me. They want America to leave them alone, not to destroy america(not for the purpose of destroying america, anyways). The Iranians elected this person.

Ohh well. If America goes to war with Iran, we can disprove the whole "two democracies never go to war" thing.

As I said, the US will not go to war with Iran until they attack israel and the blood will be on Europes hands, so be sure and remember your words I sincerely hope they don't come back to bite you. Good luck.

Liverbreath']As I said, the US will not go to war with Iran until they attack israel and the blood will be on Europes hands, so be sure and remember your words I sincerely hope they don't come back to bite you. Good luck.

Well, since the whole "Iraq is going to nuke us! Err...North Korea! Err...(who was the other person in the axis? Ohh yeah!) Iran is going to nuke us! Or Israel, or somebody." thing, I havn't exactly trusted these doomsday warnings by a certain party. More than likely, Israel will do another illegal bombing on a nuclear reactor, allowing that certain party to save face by saying it might have happened.

Check this article out. How credible is this story? Do you think anything will happen because of this? Will this make US-Iranian ties more tense?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/index.html
We really can't be surprised by this. Look at the PLO/PNA's current leader: planner behind the Achille Lauro (sp?) and money man behind the murder of Jewish athletes at the Munich Olympics.

Why should Iran (or any other terrorist-riddled ME country) be above electing a terrorist?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmbig, shiny parking lot.

This is extremely true. I'm certain that the British would have wanted to bring up George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and company up on charges for crimes against the Crown. It really is a matter of perspective.
Oh yes, except George Washington, TJ, etc. never held civilian hostages at gunpoint.

Because europe has gotten hit with so many WMD? Maybe, just maybe, both approaches to the problem work? Negotiations and hard-line?
Europe is the good cop, America's the bad cop.

Oh yes, except George Washington, TJ, etc. never held civilian hostages at gunpoint.

Its a difference in tactics. One could say the 20% loyalists were being held hostage. Various US incursions into british held lands is also something. The Iranians couldnt exactly invade US territory, so they did the best they could.

Oh yes, except George Washington, TJ, etc. never held civilian hostages at gunpoint.
Loyalists in America were brutally beaten, tarred and feathered, and their money and land was seized. Most died in Canada, poor. We've prettied it up, but the American Revolution was not pretty.

iran would be harmless if america wasnt so paranoid, american news is a joke.

Check this article out. How credible is this story? Do you think anything will happen because of this? Will this make US-Iranian ties more tense?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.president/index.html)

I was only 3 or 4 at the time and well I don't remember a thing as you can imagine. You have a few former hostages saying IT'S HIM IT'S HIM with conviction while others are saying with just the same conviction that IT'S NOT HIM IT'S NOT HIM. I think it's being over hyped by the media as usual.

If it turns out to be true then you just have to let it stay in the past.

iran would be harmless if america wasnt so paranoid, american news is a joke.


Thats got to be one of the most ignorant comments i have seen today. There are so many things I could say to this. But I dont think you would get it.

Thats got to be one of the most ignorant comments i have seen today. There are so many things I could say to this. But I dont think you would get it.
So are you saying that Iran is mean to the US out of principle?
By ignorance he probably meant the continued interference in Iranian affairs, before and after the revolution, and the sanctions, and the threats and so on.
I would think Iran could care less about how Americans live, if the US left them alone.

So are you saying that Iran is mean to the US out of principle?
By ignorance he probably meant the continued interference in Iranian affairs, before and after the revolution, and the sanctions, and the threats and so on.
I would think Iran could care less about how Americans live, if the US left them alone.

Iran is against the US on principle alone. Radical Islam does not mesh with the US.

Iran has continued to interfere with US affairs for a long time. There is ample evidence to prove this. Funding state sponsered terrorism is its number one offense. We could justify a invasion on this fact alone.

Iran would never just not care about what America does. Iran is fundementally opposed to the US on so many levels. When I mean Iran I mean its government. The vast majority of its people do not hate the US.

1. Iran is against the US on principle alone. Radical Islam does not mesh with the US.
2. Iran has continued to interfere with US affairs for a long time. There is ample evidence to prove this. Funding state sponsered terrorism is its number one offense. We could justify a invasion on this fact alone.
1. Where in the Koran does it say: "Thou shall smite the US and their McDonalds and their Kentucky Fried Chickens!"?
2. Good then, maybe you should get out some of that evidence. US affairs constitute what in your opinion?
I know that overthrowing a democratic government to install a dictator constitutes interference, funding freedom fighters/terrorists (remember the terms are interchangable) in a third country is not so clearly an interference in US affairs.

Setting aside whether it matters and the Iran-bashing, the evidence is mounting that Iranian's president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not one of the hostage-takers.


Link to U.S. hostages fades (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002355481_iran02.html)
U.S. investigators have concluded that newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the glowering Islamic militant seen escorting an American hostage in a 1979 photograph that was widely publicized this week, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Ahmadinejad denies he had a part in 1979 hostage crisis (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/3249989)
U.S.: Photo Not of Iran Chief (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fg-usiran2jul02,0,4394415.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
Ex-Intelligence Officer Says Leader Not in Photo (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs3.2jul03,1,2940169.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Ahmadinejad not a 1979 hostage-taker: Iranians (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120264984489_8/?hub=World)
Supporters, detractors deny U.S. hostage link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/01/MNGHRDHP4V1.DTL)
A case of mistaken identity in Iran? (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050702/news_1n2iran.html)
Despite the resemblance between President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 1979 image of a bearded young Iranian escorting a blindfolded American hostage, an initial study of the photograph by U.S. officials revealed several key facial differences, especially in the ears, angle of the eyebrows, pattern of the beard, cheeks and forehead area above the eyebrows, the officials said.

"After a comparison between this individual – the president-elect – and the hostage-taker, the thinking is now that it's not the same person," said one of several U.S. officials familiar with the review, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is sensitive and ongoing. "The discrepancies are so many that I don't know who could say that's the same dude."

Setting aside whether it matters and the Iran-bashing, the evidence is mounting that Iranian's president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not one of the hostage-takers.
Actually, the evidence is mounting that hostage-taking might not be his only crime:
Evidence links Ahmadinejad to Vienna hit (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1120280233701)

Austrian authorities have classified documents suggesting that Iran's president-elect may have played a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of an Iranian Kurdish leader and two associates in Vienna, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Actually, the evidence is mounting that hostage-taking might not be his only crime:
Evidence links Ahmadinejad to Vienna hit (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1120280233701)

Austrian authorities have classified documents suggesting that Iran's president-elect may have played a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of an Iranian Kurdish leader and two associates in Vienna, a newspaper reported Saturday.

No, there are recent allegations he may have been complicit in separate "crimes." (When the U.S. or U.K. kills foreign leaders, it usually is cause for celebration.) We'll see if they pan out. If so, that is unfortunate.

As for the hostage-taking, you don't refute the point. The U.S. Government, computer analysis of the photos, the guy's political enemies, other hostages, etc., says he wasn't involved.

As much as I would like to see these terrorist hang that took the embassy staff hostage. Evidence I have seen the past few days doesnt confirm that it was him. Neither though am I convinced that it isnt him. But maybe the smoking gun will be found and set this straight.

...

Why should Iran (or any other terrorist-riddled ME country) be above electing a terrorist?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmbig, shiny parking lot.
Menachem Begin anyone?

So are you saying that Iran is mean to the US out of principle?
By ignorance he probably meant the continued interference in Iranian affairs, before and after the revolution, and the sanctions, and the threats and so on.
I would think Iran could care less about how Americans live, if the US left them alone.
You're forgetting that the US (and Europe I'm ashamed to say) also financed and equiped Saddam in his war against Iran.
Even Iranians can see that double standard.

I was in college in '79 with several children of Irans elite rulers (before the revolution) and a more offensive buch of people I have never met. Anywhere. ever.

I was amused by Bush's balanced response

President Bush told foreign reporters he has "no information, but obviously his involvement raises many questions."

Translated:- "we don't know anything about this BUT we are very upset that he was involved and it will give us a great excuse to take military action if we need to."

You voted for him........ :p :p :p

Strange how this has only just arisen as he was elected president. I mean this guy has only suddenly been recognised 25 years later. Anyone else find this a tad strange?

Strange how this has only just arisen as he was elected president. I mean this guy has only suddenly been recognised 25 years later. Anyone else find this a tad strange?

Not really. If it was someone else who was the president, no doubt some sort of recriminating (read: fabricated/specious) piece of information will arise to throw a big stink on that person.

The US is really good at doing that.

I have a question to my fellow Americans (and to anyone else who cares to answer): What did the British think of George Washington, the first President of the United States?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

Dunno if anyone has pointed this out, but it probably wasn't him... Many of the hostages say he wasn't there, and so do many of the hostage-takers. He was a founder of the group that was involved, but apparently he was against the siege. And I don't know about you, but the pictures shown in the link in the first post don't really look too alike... I saw a picture in the Irish Times where Ahmadinejad (sorry if I spelled it wrong...) looked almost identical to a hostage taker - but the pictures were taken twenty-five years apart... Plus, Ahmadinejad is tiny, while the guy in that picture is the same height as the hostage and another Iranian, so it's unlikely it's him.

Not really. If it was someone else who was the president, no doubt some sort of recriminating (read: fabricated/specious) piece of information will arise to throw a big stink on that person.

The US is really good at doing that.
Its also really good at making up bullshit to convince the american people to support something, especially the bush administration. I wait until we declare war on Iran, and lose.

And that pciture is shit, the terrorist is obviously shaft
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9318/shaftterrorist7ec.jpg

So hmmm...
The US government has started mentally preparing the American public for a Iranian invasion. Thanks government and the yes-sir media.

What's next? "Iranian president eats aborted foetuses for breakfast" ? or "The whole Iran Legislative Branch is homosexually married" ?

EDIT: It's not him. In the photos shown side by side in the link, you can clearly see that they are similar looking, but still different individuals. The individual from the hostage situation, seen in the right photo, has a longer thinner face, higher and more pronounced cheekbones, a thinner nose and eyes that are closer together than Mr. Ahmadinejad, seen left. Those photos are of two different people, though they do, I admit, look alike.

Wow, you are better than the experts. One expert looked at them and even took some measurements. The conclusion was the expert could not tell one way or the other for sure.

Ihatevacations']
And that picture is shit, the terrorist is obviously shaft
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9318/shaftterrorist7ec.jpg
i knew it...

*dials CNNs 1800-rewards-for-shocking-news 24h toll free line*

I knew I saw that guy before...

*books hairs stylist for coming CNN interview*
*calls family and friends anticipating day of fame*

Wow, you are better than the experts. One expert looked at them and even took some measurements. The conclusion was the expert could not tell one way or the other for sure.

Odd. That is not what I've seen reported.

I've seen reports that the experts comparing the photos say they are not the same person.

Care to link?

Strange how this has only just arisen as he was elected president. I mean this guy has only suddenly been recognised 25 years later. Anyone else find this a tad strange?

Not at all. Why would this guys picture be on tv if he was just a regular person. These people that claim he is saw him on tv. Otherwise they wouldnt see him. Right?

So hmmm...
The US government has started mentally preparing the American public for a Iranian invasion. Thanks government and the yes-sir media.

What's next? "Iranian president eats aborted foetuses for breakfast" ? or "The whole Iran Legislative Branch is homosexually married" ?

The US government hasnt confirmed this fact. In fact they say that it may not be him. Think your jumping the gun on your criticism of America once again.

Not at all. Why would this guys picture be on tv if he was just a regular person. These people that claim he is saw him on tv. Otherwise they wouldnt see him. Right?

Regular person? I'm sorry but you don't go from being a regular person one day and then you wake up suddenly to find out your president. The whole world should have known he was running so shouldn't we have heard this story earlier? Its not like he was hiding so why does it come out after he is president?
Iran gain nothing with lying about his alleged involvement because its not like the are best friends with the US. In my opinion the people who claim the President of Iran was part of the operation have got a lot more to gain but thats my cynical view.

Regular person? I'm sorry but you don't go from being a regular person one day and then you wake up suddenly to find out your president. The whole world should have known he was running so shouldn't we have heard this story earlier? Its not like he was hiding so why does it come out after he is president?
Iran gain nothing with lying about his alleged involvement because its not like the are best friends with the US. In my opinion the people who claim the President of Iran was part of the operation have got a lot more to gain but thats my cynical view.


The people that claim he was their running operations would not know who he was in Iranian politics. Think about it. Now this fact could slip past intelligence operatives. In fact they could have known. Only to let someone else spill the beans if its in fact true. Iran has alot to cover up if he is in fact part of this operation 25 years ago. Why cast a negative shadow on ones self.

The people that claim he was their running operations would not know who he was in Iranian politics. Think about it. Now this fact could slip past intelligence operatives. In fact they could have known. Only to let someone else spill the beans if its in fact true. Iran has alot to cover up if he is in fact part of this operation 25 years ago. Why cast a negative shadow on ones self.

If he was, and I doubt that from the photo evidence I've seen then America would have had the exact ammunition they need for invading Iran. Intelligence doesn't know because Bush was unaware of it. I mean is American intel that bad that they don't have backgrounds on Iran's potential leaders? This is some ex official trying to get some publicity thas all

Personally I don't give a damn, it was 25 years ago, and they could have done worse than just holding hostages for such a long time.

Originally Posted by Dragons Bay

I don't see anything wrong with this. Look at the former PLO president, Yasser Arafat. He was a terrorist before he abandoned terrorist tactics.

Look at Bush, who was a crack user and shirked from national service.

What is important is how he will conduct his policies today. What happened to him 25 years is nearly irrelevant.

I can't believe that I'm defending Dubya, but smokin' crack is a victimless crime. Kidnaping, however, is completely different and 25 years doesn't matter to the victims.

Personally, I'd be glad if he was a known terrorist. It'd be a relief.

Why? Because he's known. It's the UNKNOWN terrorists that seem to cause the biggest problems. :p

I can't believe that I'm defending Dubya, but smokin' crack is a victimless crime. Kidnaping, however, is completely different and 25 years doesn't matter to the victims.

Bingo, but I wouldnt use this as a platform to invade Iran. We have plenty of other things that could be used. State sponsered terrorism is the #1 charge against Iran.

Bingo, but I wouldnt use this as a platform to invade Iran. We have plenty of other things that could be used. State sponsered terrorism is the #1 charge against Iran.

You mean sending money and/or arms to insurgency groups in different states? Didn't the US do that some time ago?

The mujahadeen(sp?) come to mind. What did they call that?

I don't think it's likely we'll invade Iran just because of this guy's history (and we don't know his history with certainty). But if he did as alleged, it's damning evidence, which combined with other reasons, nukes, etc., can garner public support for stronger action.

We won't invade Iran until there's significant support from it from our allies, if then. It will take a lot of public support from US citizens to permit this as well.

Not to mention support of lawmakers on the hill. Bush cannot, and will not, invade Iran on a whim.

You're forgetting that the US (and Europe I'm ashamed to say) also financed and equiped Saddam in his war against Iran.
Even Iranians can see that double standard.

I was in college in '79 with several children of Irans elite rulers (before the revolution) and a more offensive buch of people I have never met. Anywhere. ever.
Believe me, I didn't forget. How could I? It comes up almost daily, as soon as any Iraq thread comes up...
It could be said though that the CIA was also supporting Iranian effort (although admittedly not to the same extent) in order to have them both kill each other off.
And the offensiveness of people is not a good measure of whether or not to go to war, or whether or not a political act is justified. Usually.

You mean sending money and/or arms to insurgency groups in different states? Didn't the US do that some time ago?

The mujahadeen(sp?) come to mind. What did they call that?

Or the contras. :p

(Military coups don't count apparently, otherwise there would be several other countries.)