Full Version: Iranian President Elect - Embassy Captor?
According to CNN:
Later in the article, there is some disagreement from other hostages as to whether Ahmadinejad was in fact part of hostage crisis.
Questions for debate:
1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
edit: notice that this story originated from Savannah, Georgia's AP office? What exactly are Jaime and Mike up to this morning???
QUOTE
SAVANNAH, Georgia (AP) -- A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect.
Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails.
And those four realized they shared the same conclusion -- the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.
"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Georgia.
"You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."
Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails.
And those four realized they shared the same conclusion -- the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.
"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Georgia.
"You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."
Later in the article, there is some disagreement from other hostages as to whether Ahmadinejad was in fact part of hostage crisis.
Questions for debate:
1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
edit: notice that this story originated from Savannah, Georgia's AP office? What exactly are Jaime and Mike up to this morning???
1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
I don't think it would have much of an effect either way. According to everything I've read about this guy he's a hardliner anyway. So, when I heard about this, it really didn't surprise me very much. Most certainly his election isn't going to help US/Iran relations very much.
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
Iran should consider doing a lot of things differently, but they won't. All this election means is that they are going to continue on the same path they've been following in the past and that means I doubt they care very much about what constitutes a felony in the US. It's not like this character is going to be invited to the White House.
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
This is a really interesting question. First of all I'm not sure the CIA did miss this detail. It is entirely possible that they know who this guy is and was but they didn't say much about it publicly since there really wasn't much anyone could do about it. Frankly, I see it as more of a historical piece of trivia than anything else. At most it rises to the level of a Jeopardy question.
However, what is interesting about this question is the history the CIA has with regards to intel on Iran. To be honest, it has been really bad since the days of the hostage crisis during the Carter Presidency. At the time that crisis happened I was working for Lockheed and we were the largest US contractor in Iran. We had well over a thousand people working in Iran on a variety of programs for the Shah's government and our intelligence on what was going on there was superior to that of the US government. About a week before the US Embassy was taken, Lockheed ordered our people in Iran to get the hell out of dodge and chartered two SwissAir 747's to fly them from Tehran to JFK airport. When the second largest contractor, Bell/Textron, heard we were bugging out, they bugged out as well. But, the US government left their people there. Really dumb move.
I don't think it would have much of an effect either way. According to everything I've read about this guy he's a hardliner anyway. So, when I heard about this, it really didn't surprise me very much. Most certainly his election isn't going to help US/Iran relations very much.
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
Iran should consider doing a lot of things differently, but they won't. All this election means is that they are going to continue on the same path they've been following in the past and that means I doubt they care very much about what constitutes a felony in the US. It's not like this character is going to be invited to the White House.
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
This is a really interesting question. First of all I'm not sure the CIA did miss this detail. It is entirely possible that they know who this guy is and was but they didn't say much about it publicly since there really wasn't much anyone could do about it. Frankly, I see it as more of a historical piece of trivia than anything else. At most it rises to the level of a Jeopardy question.
However, what is interesting about this question is the history the CIA has with regards to intel on Iran. To be honest, it has been really bad since the days of the hostage crisis during the Carter Presidency. At the time that crisis happened I was working for Lockheed and we were the largest US contractor in Iran. We had well over a thousand people working in Iran on a variety of programs for the Shah's government and our intelligence on what was going on there was superior to that of the US government. About a week before the US Embassy was taken, Lockheed ordered our people in Iran to get the hell out of dodge and chartered two SwissAir 747's to fly them from Tehran to JFK airport. When the second largest contractor, Bell/Textron, heard we were bugging out, they bugged out as well. But, the US government left their people there. Really dumb move.
1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
I think this provides the perfect excuse for Bush to make Iran the next target in the so-called “war on terra”. We all know what happens when this president demands investigation into another country’s business. There will be a lot of posturing and a great puffing out of chests and demands for apologies, and so on and so on. Things will get ugly, and boom! Another war.
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
The US bears some of the blame for a hardline fundamentalist being elected in the first place. If we didn't occupy Iraq, things may have been different. Regardless, Iran is a sovereign nation and they can elect whoever they like. Do you think Iran should be able to disqualify an American candidate for president? Or any other country, for that matter?
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
Why would they be? And supposing they knew, what were they supposed to do about it?
QUOTE
He [Bush] said his primary interest is in making sure the western democracies tell Iranian leaders that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. NewsWatch
QUOTE
The Bush administration today demanded that the Iranian government clarify the role of President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the prolonged hostage crisis that followed.
The administration also pledged to conduct its own investigation into Ahmadinejad's past after several of the 52 Americans held hostage in the embassy said in tough, unequivocal statements that they had recognized the next Iranian leader as one of their captors. LA Times
The administration also pledged to conduct its own investigation into Ahmadinejad's past after several of the 52 Americans held hostage in the embassy said in tough, unequivocal statements that they had recognized the next Iranian leader as one of their captors. LA Times
I think this provides the perfect excuse for Bush to make Iran the next target in the so-called “war on terra”. We all know what happens when this president demands investigation into another country’s business. There will be a lot of posturing and a great puffing out of chests and demands for apologies, and so on and so on. Things will get ugly, and boom! Another war.
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
The US bears some of the blame for a hardline fundamentalist being elected in the first place. If we didn't occupy Iraq, things may have been different. Regardless, Iran is a sovereign nation and they can elect whoever they like. Do you think Iran should be able to disqualify an American candidate for president? Or any other country, for that matter?
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
Why would they be? And supposing they knew, what were they supposed to do about it?
QUOTE
I think this provides the perfect excuse for Bush to make Iran the next target in the so-called “war on terra”. We all know what happens when this president demands investigation into another country’s business. There will be a lot of posturing and a great puffing out of chests and demands for apologies, and so on and so on. Things will get ugly, and boom! Another war.
I think that's a little far fetched, even for this administration. I hope Bush doesn't prove me wrong, though.
Iran is a very different beast from Iraq, politically. It has no history of overt agression (at least not that I can recall) against other nations. While it is a state sponsor of terror, far more than Baghdad ever was, and has potentially some minimal nuclear capabiilty, the US has zero footing to launch an attack. I still find it odd that we're freaking out about Iran possibly having nukes when India and Pakistan both have tested nuclear devices.
I think Aquilla is right about our intel on Iran, though. If we couldn't prove Saddam still had CBW entering the invasion, even though we originally SOLD it to him, I highly doubt we have any intel sufficient to conduct any aggressive military posture against Iran.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, however.
Doc
Daffy:
Dubya does not need our former hostages as an excuse re Iran, at least if this man is planning on doing something more than blowing hot air, i.e., I believe that "our man" in Tehran just declared an "Islamic revolution", which presumably would be reason enough so long as our man it makes it plain that he wasn't just blowing hot air [http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8716]:
"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world"
Which wouldn't be so worrisome but for the fact that the late Ayatollah Khomeini appears to be even less of a fundamentalist than our man, and if that is a correct assessment, well, let me just say that it was only Khomeini who said this on Mohammed's birthday in 1984:
"War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory! . . ." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting God's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions."
I otherwise never thought that I'd be saying this, but this kafir can only hope that Iran's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution gives our man the b-slap. See:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html
Now to answer the questions posed:
(1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
One would hope that we will not allow our current circumstance and interests to be affected by this man's past, assuming that he has the past ascribed to him, and going back to what I said above, it appears that even if he was not involved, it shouldn't and won't change much.
(2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
As an abstract question, I suppose they should, but in light of the ideology of those concerned, they won't. I otherwise suspect that if he was involved, that the mullahs running the show will correctly assess that we must attend to current circumstance and interests and will "overlook" his past, so no practical reason to remove him, and for the cherry on top of this cake, his past would provide just that much more satisfaction to them, i.e., they would know how distasteful and uncomfortable dealing with him will be, but since we have to do so anyway...they'll be enjoying our distate and discomfort.
(3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
We don't know that the CIA missed this detail, and even if it did, as one can see from the above, his past is less dangerous to us than his present, so to that extent his past is more or less irrelevant.
Dubya does not need our former hostages as an excuse re Iran, at least if this man is planning on doing something more than blowing hot air, i.e., I believe that "our man" in Tehran just declared an "Islamic revolution", which presumably would be reason enough so long as our man it makes it plain that he wasn't just blowing hot air [http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8716]:
"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world"
Which wouldn't be so worrisome but for the fact that the late Ayatollah Khomeini appears to be even less of a fundamentalist than our man, and if that is a correct assessment, well, let me just say that it was only Khomeini who said this on Mohammed's birthday in 1984:
"War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory! . . ." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting God's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions."
I otherwise never thought that I'd be saying this, but this kafir can only hope that Iran's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution gives our man the b-slap. See:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html
Now to answer the questions posed:
(1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
One would hope that we will not allow our current circumstance and interests to be affected by this man's past, assuming that he has the past ascribed to him, and going back to what I said above, it appears that even if he was not involved, it shouldn't and won't change much.
(2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
As an abstract question, I suppose they should, but in light of the ideology of those concerned, they won't. I otherwise suspect that if he was involved, that the mullahs running the show will correctly assess that we must attend to current circumstance and interests and will "overlook" his past, so no practical reason to remove him, and for the cherry on top of this cake, his past would provide just that much more satisfaction to them, i.e., they would know how distasteful and uncomfortable dealing with him will be, but since we have to do so anyway...they'll be enjoying our distate and discomfort.
(3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
We don't know that the CIA missed this detail, and even if it did, as one can see from the above, his past is less dangerous to us than his present, so to that extent his past is more or less irrelevant.
1) *If* Ahmadinejad was in fact part of the Embassy crisis, what impact would this have on US/Iran relations?
When I first read this story, my first reaction was "if he is, so what? what difference would it make?" There were and are high ranking goverment officials in Iranian goverment that have actual capitalized on what essentially was a revolution from a US backed despot. Were it not for America being the bad guy (again), there probably would be no anti-US militant state. We created the oppressor, not this guy. Wouldn't it lead to more credibility if he was an instigator, not less? According to high ranking folks that actually WERE in the embassy, such as the brother of outgoing Khatami, and Abbas Abdi, one of the student leaders, he was at the wrong university, and they kept it so secret among thier "cell" and even though the guy volunteered, they wouldn't let him in after it all went down.
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
Why in the world would they do that?
- if he were a real hostage taker, wouldn't he be the eqivilent of a war hero? I think if he had done that, he would be using it as a campaign slogan, not something to hide- I think the only reason why he denies it is because he really wasn't there and to claim he was would make him look like a liar.
The main problem with this question is that, like the recent CIA/Italian scandal highlights- we do condone torture and kidnapping, and protect those that do it with all our resources- and these guys aren't even on our soil! It would be a little different if they had snuck over here and say, kidnapped Morton Downey Jr (the first conservative media loudmouth) and took him back to Iran, but these guys took hostages from a regime that had backed a brutal dictator, one of the worst.
If anything, if the guy was one of the original, he would be lionized for it in Iran, not critisized.
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
The CIA has plenty to worry about in missing things, and that line has lot's of priorities before wondering if the President of Iran may have been involved in thier popular uprising/revolution.
Say what you will about the guy, and I am no fan of religious fundamentalists of any flavor, whether it be GW Co or this guy, but he won a popular election by a landslide, a real mandate, not the fake one like GW. If the poeple of Iran so overwhelming wanted him in- this is a non-issue inside Iran, except that if it were true he would have one by a larger margin.
There is no real difference between Iranian conservatives and American conservatives - even thier values nicely mesh.
When I first read this story, my first reaction was "if he is, so what? what difference would it make?" There were and are high ranking goverment officials in Iranian goverment that have actual capitalized on what essentially was a revolution from a US backed despot. Were it not for America being the bad guy (again), there probably would be no anti-US militant state. We created the oppressor, not this guy. Wouldn't it lead to more credibility if he was an instigator, not less? According to high ranking folks that actually WERE in the embassy, such as the brother of outgoing Khatami, and Abbas Abdi, one of the student leaders, he was at the wrong university, and they kept it so secret among thier "cell" and even though the guy volunteered, they wouldn't let him in after it all went down.
2) Should Iran consider disqualifying the president-elect for what would constitute a felony in the US?
Why in the world would they do that?
- if he were a real hostage taker, wouldn't he be the eqivilent of a war hero? I think if he had done that, he would be using it as a campaign slogan, not something to hide- I think the only reason why he denies it is because he really wasn't there and to claim he was would make him look like a liar.The main problem with this question is that, like the recent CIA/Italian scandal highlights- we do condone torture and kidnapping, and protect those that do it with all our resources- and these guys aren't even on our soil! It would be a little different if they had snuck over here and say, kidnapped Morton Downey Jr (the first conservative media loudmouth) and took him back to Iran, but these guys took hostages from a regime that had backed a brutal dictator, one of the worst.
If anything, if the guy was one of the original, he would be lionized for it in Iran, not critisized.
3) Is the CIA partly culpable for missing this detail?
The CIA has plenty to worry about in missing things, and that line has lot's of priorities before wondering if the President of Iran may have been involved in thier popular uprising/revolution.
Say what you will about the guy, and I am no fan of religious fundamentalists of any flavor, whether it be GW Co or this guy, but he won a popular election by a landslide, a real mandate, not the fake one like GW. If the poeple of Iran so overwhelming wanted him in- this is a non-issue inside Iran, except that if it were true he would have one by a larger margin.
There is no real difference between Iranian conservatives and American conservatives - even thier values nicely mesh.
Ahhh...the irony of it all..
Bush claims that spreading democracy through the middle east would make us safer. Well, Iran had a democratic election and the people elected a potential madman. Which historically speaking, is better than most leaders the US has put in power abroad.
But I am very, very curious about whether this guy was one of the hostage ringleaders because I was ready to die taking this clown out.
During that hostage attempt, 2 of my friends were killed - George Holmes and Dewey Johnson. While in the United States Marine Corps, I transferred to the (I could be wrong on the squadron number - it's been a few years) HMM-261 avionics shop before embarking on a 6 month tour of the southern med on the USS Iwo Jima. George Holmes was full-time in that shop and had a roomate called "Otto" that I was very good friends with. A week later after my transfer, George suddenly disappeared and even his mother and Otto didn't know where he was. Otto called his mom, who told him (and to pass along to the shop) that he was ok and safe, but no more.
It was during that cruise that we saw his charred body being dragged through the streets of Tehran.
We got called to general quarters (battle stations), loaded up the helos with all the armaments they could hold, went through the Suez canal, and waited for the word to kick some Iranian butt. I was never so afraid, but never so angry. We finally stood down, but I'll never forget that feeling of hatred. I wanted to kill Iranians and can honestly say I was not afraid to die in doing so. This feeling of resignation came over me like a warm blanket and I never thought once about the consequences. All I knew, is that the enemy attacked us and I would stand side by side with my brothers-in-arms and if I got killed, someone behind me would get the one who got me. Wanna know why re-enlistment rates now are so high (while recruitment is down)? Because of this same affect. You want to be the one covering your buddy's back and don't want to trust someone else to do it. It has nothing to do with "righteousness" and the cause. Politics are at home - not where the trouble is.
Now these same people are in charge and what good could become of this? The people in the middle east are brutal and extremists. Iran has been a state-sponsor of terror and has terrorized us. To think that democracy is helpful in that area is much like thinking that communism would work well in the US. It just can't happen. For 8000 years, they've been killing each other because of idealogy and land. The only thing that keeps them in check is the Saddam Hussiens of the world. Is it a crappy deal? You bet. Can we change it? No.
But what I find incredible, is that the same people who believe our intelligence was 100% wrong in Iraq are taking great stock in the intel in Iran. This level of gullibility is mind-boggling to me.
But what do I know.. I'm just a stinkin' liberal according to the right.
Bush claims that spreading democracy through the middle east would make us safer. Well, Iran had a democratic election and the people elected a potential madman. Which historically speaking, is better than most leaders the US has put in power abroad.
But I am very, very curious about whether this guy was one of the hostage ringleaders because I was ready to die taking this clown out.
During that hostage attempt, 2 of my friends were killed - George Holmes and Dewey Johnson. While in the United States Marine Corps, I transferred to the (I could be wrong on the squadron number - it's been a few years) HMM-261 avionics shop before embarking on a 6 month tour of the southern med on the USS Iwo Jima. George Holmes was full-time in that shop and had a roomate called "Otto" that I was very good friends with. A week later after my transfer, George suddenly disappeared and even his mother and Otto didn't know where he was. Otto called his mom, who told him (and to pass along to the shop) that he was ok and safe, but no more.
It was during that cruise that we saw his charred body being dragged through the streets of Tehran.
We got called to general quarters (battle stations), loaded up the helos with all the armaments they could hold, went through the Suez canal, and waited for the word to kick some Iranian butt. I was never so afraid, but never so angry. We finally stood down, but I'll never forget that feeling of hatred. I wanted to kill Iranians and can honestly say I was not afraid to die in doing so. This feeling of resignation came over me like a warm blanket and I never thought once about the consequences. All I knew, is that the enemy attacked us and I would stand side by side with my brothers-in-arms and if I got killed, someone behind me would get the one who got me. Wanna know why re-enlistment rates now are so high (while recruitment is down)? Because of this same affect. You want to be the one covering your buddy's back and don't want to trust someone else to do it. It has nothing to do with "righteousness" and the cause. Politics are at home - not where the trouble is.
Now these same people are in charge and what good could become of this? The people in the middle east are brutal and extremists. Iran has been a state-sponsor of terror and has terrorized us. To think that democracy is helpful in that area is much like thinking that communism would work well in the US. It just can't happen. For 8000 years, they've been killing each other because of idealogy and land. The only thing that keeps them in check is the Saddam Hussiens of the world. Is it a crappy deal? You bet. Can we change it? No.
But what I find incredible, is that the same people who believe our intelligence was 100% wrong in Iraq are taking great stock in the intel in Iran. This level of gullibility is mind-boggling to me.
But what do I know.. I'm just a stinkin' liberal according to the right.
Analysis shows photo does not match Ahmadinejad.
News Account
Will this matter to Neocons anxious to hype a military confrontation with Iran? Probably not.
Anywar, just why does this piece of history have more meaning to us in the current situation than our support of the Shah's overthrow of a democratic government in 1953?
News Account
Will this matter to Neocons anxious to hype a military confrontation with Iran? Probably not.
Anywar, just why does this piece of history have more meaning to us in the current situation than our support of the Shah's overthrow of a democratic government in 1953?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.