Actually, according to one of NPR’s many amazingly unbiased reports, most of the hostage takers who attained political power were subsequently attacked by the Iranian mullahs as opportunists and removed from power. Very tidy people, those mullahs.
Also, Ahmadinejad is safe so long as his name is so lengthy and difficult to spell. He doesn’t fit well in a sound bite, therefore he’s politically untouchable.
It ain’t him. Look at this site. Check out the ears on the top two pictures. They are not the same person. Ears never lie. Of course, he could have been involved in the hostage taking in some other way, but he is not the man in the photos.
Couple things though. One: a lot of the people who were hostage takers are on the outs with the Islamic regime today. Several of them backed the “reformers” like Khatami. A few have been sent to jail. One tried to run for president years back, but was banned from the ballot for not supporting the revolution enough.
Two: The Iranian presidency is of little consequence anyway. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khaminei holds unchallenged power in Iran. The presidency has been weakened to a figurehead position. Ahmadinejad was installed as president (no way did he win anything close to the 62% of the vote he supposedly got) so Khaminei would not have to listen to even a weak voice of dissent such as what the milquetoast Khatami occasionally muttered. Iran’s policies will not change as a result of the change in presidents.
I don’t see a good view of the same parts of both guy’s ears.
I don’t buy that. Assuming he was one of the Iranian hostage-takers, which of course means he attacked the US on US property, he would not be let in. It’s not comparable to Castro, who never invaded US territory or directly harmed US citizens on their own territory.
It remains to be seen if he is one of these criminals, though. If he is, things will get interesting, no doubt.
Actually, no, it isn’t, though it benefits from many protections.
Please correct me. I thought I had this stuff down cold, but am always eager to learn more.
(That might sound snitty. I mean it sincerely.)
I suspect they do know. They just don’t want to say, “Yes, It’s him.” On the off-chance it is. And they may not have gotten the report in yet.
Heh. I wouldn’t be so sure about that ‘Freely and Popularly’ thing.
He wouldn’t come here without it. It’s not automatic, and we could theoretically revoke the right at any time. In practice, the political consequences for it are huge. We only do that if someone did something while on our soil so bad that we can look at his home nation and they quietly drop any objections.
Not true. But we would probably let him do so because it suits our larger political goals.
Silly question- has there been a formal request for that information by our governement? Has the Iranian government issued any sort of denial/ admission?
Gee, you sound just like EVERYBODY who wondered how the CIA could’ve missed how numerous and powerful the Iranian revolutionaries were. “No, Mr President, the Shah has nothing to worry about. Those protestors are just a few malcontents. Everybody else in Iran loves the Shah to pieces.”
The CIA should just admit they don’t have a clue how to do their job, fold their tents, and slink off into the night.
I’ll admit the veiw isn’t the best, but the hostage guy’s ears look shorter and rounder to me. Additionally, although you can’t tell from the site I linked to, Hostage guy looks considerably taller than Ahmadinejad. Look at pics where they are standing next to other people.
Wait a second. Iraq just recently elected (more or less) a Prime Minister with close ties to some Iranian theocrats, who may himself have been a terrorist in the past:
If Ahmadinejad’s possible terrorist past is such a matter of concern, why isn’t anybody asking for similar research and clarification on Jafari’s? Please tell me we’re not still giving foreign leaders a pass on being a son-of-a-bitch as long as “he’s our son-of-a-bitch”.
At least a few Iranian ministers, and Ahmadinejad himself, have denied it. Don’t know if that’s anything formal.
Now the Austrians are after this guy. There seems to be a whole lot of stink piling up regarding the guy.
If these allegations are true, he should immediately be taken out.
We can always do what we would’ve done in the good ol’ days.
Give Israel help to take him out, then go on the news and say “Bad Isreal! Bad! We are very disappointed in you.”[sub] “here’s another fighter”[/sub]
What exactly are you suggesting? An assassination, or a black ops entry and extrajudicial kidnapping of the president of a country?
While it remains to be seen whether he was culpable in the Embassy attack or the murder of the Kurds in Vienna, if in fact he was part of these acts, then yes, I am suggesting an assassination of a murderer.
Again, there is a lot of speculation, so I’m only saying IF this guy that the US and Austria are after is in fact guilty, then yeah, assassinate him.
You’re advocating not only summary execution without trial, but an act of war. And on top of that, the CIA swore that it was out of the assassination game a long time ago.
A crappy Link, I know, but didn’t Bush reinstate those by presidential order ?
I swore to Mama Plant that I’d stop stealing cookies when I was four.
I’m sorry, I misspoke. Assassinations of heads of state. Bin Laden is not a head of state and a wanted criminal, which is rather different.