[Big Mac]

Daniel Pipes writes: Soon after his election as president of Iran, on June 25, 2005, pictures of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emerged showing him as a hostage-taker. An Associated Press photograph showed a man looking very much like a younger version of today's Ahmadinejad holding a blind-folded man, apparently five days after the U.S. embassy in Tehran was seized on November 4, 1979. . . .

This revelation does not surprise me in the least. We all know the guy's a hard-core terrorist super-scumbag, right? Oh right, for a second I forgot where I was posting. . .

[Tuoder]

This should be news. "The President of Iran is a Terrorist" should be on the headlines on the local news.

[OreoCookie]

This should even be old news …�and AFAIK it was far from certain that it was actually Ahmadinejad on these pictures.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This should even be old news …�and AFAIK it was far from certain that it was actually Ahmadinejad on these pictures.

Pipes' article addresses that.

"But Ahmadinejad's office denied these allegations and other hostage-takers, some of them now political opponents of Ahmadinejad – including Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hamid Reza, Abbas Abdi, Mohammad-Reza Khatami, and Saeed Hajjarian Jalaiepour – confirmed his account. One former American hostage denied Ahmadinejad had been a captor. Amir Taheri, editor-in-chief of a Tehran newspaper in the shah's time, concluded that "it is almost certain Ahmadinejad was not directly involved in the US embassy episode."

Thus did the issue die inconclusively: Ahmadinejad was for sure a central committee member of the main student group behind the embassy takeover, the "Office for Consolidating Unity between Universities and Theological Seminaries," leaving his precise role in the hostage-taking murky.

A new picture located by Kommersant re-opens this issue, providing new evidence that Ahmadinejad was not some backroom political type but in fact was a automatic gun-wielding hostage-taker. "

The newly found picture and a current photo:

[BlueSky]

I keep running into old news this morning. Is the internet recycling? Anyhoo, look at the tips of their noses...one is pointier.

[vmarks]

And one has his head tipped a little further down.

In any event, when old news that was never fully disproven has new evidence, the issues get raised again.

[BRussell]

Wow, they do look similar - except that the picture on the left looks older than it should. He should have only been in his early 20s during the hostage taking. Maybe it's the beard.

Anyway, it's not as if we don't know he's a fundamentalist whacko.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

This should be news. "The President of Iran is a Terrorist" should be on the headlines on the local news.

That wasn't even terrorism, even if he participated.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

That wasn't even terrorism, even if he participated.

Please elaborate.

[Dakar²]

Compared to the other crappy photos I remember from a few months ago, this looks downright identical.

Not sure if this actually changes anything, though.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

That wasn't even terrorism, even if he participated.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Please elaborate.

What's there to elaborate? The USA had organized a coup d'état installing the shah. The measure was intended to make sure the USA do not intervene again now after the islamic revolution. That was justified since the USA was known to continuously mess with other states' inner matters.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Pipes' article addresses that.

"But Ahmadinejad's office denied these allegations and other hostage-takers, some of them now political opponents of Ahmadinejad – including Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hamid Reza, Abbas Abdi, Mohammad-Reza Khatami, and Saeed Hajjarian Jalaiepour – confirmed his account. One former American hostage denied Ahmadinejad had been a captor. Amir Taheri, editor-in-chief of a Tehran newspaper in the shah's time, concluded that "it is almost certain Ahmadinejad was not directly involved in the US embassy episode."

His involvement is old news, especially since he is proud of his contributions to the Revolution. I also didn't argue he wasn't a member, but I seemed to remember, there was some controversy whether he was personally and physically involved in the attack on the US embassy. Former comrades -- now political opponents -- say no, some hostages say yes. Personally, I think it is of little consequence since he was clearly supporting the idea of taking hostages and was involved in other parts of the Revolution. I would argue that his ideological background (which is undisputed) is far more important.

My point is that this is old news … that's why I have included a link to an old thread (February 2005). So this seems rather like recycled news to make Ahmadinejad seem even `more evil' -- a rather pointless exercise since it doesn't change who he is and what he is doing now.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Ahmadinejad was not one of the captors for a very simple reason: I think he's the kind of person who would be proud of that and use it for political leverage at home (something like `kicking American ass since 1979').

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

What's there to elaborate? The USA had organized a coup d'état installing the shah. The measure was intended to make sure the USA do not intervene again now after the islamic revolution. That was justified since the USA was known to continuously mess with other states' inner matters.

Justification for terrorism doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

[xi_hyperon]

I don't know if he was there or not, but that can't be him. The two people look the same age, even though the photos are roughly 27 years apart (actually, the guy in the '79 image has larger bags under his eyes, so perhaps he's even older).

[Sayf-Allah]

"They all look the same"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

"They all look the same"

Is that you saying that? Because no one here has said it.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by TETENAL
That wasn't even terrorism, even if he participated.

Please elaborate.

Actually, Tetenal's right, it wasn't terrorism, it was an outright act of war. An invasion of sovereign US territory. Absolutely the same thing as if they had invaded, say, Rhode Island.

One that has gone completely unanswered, too.

See, it would be the same as them keeping Rhode Island, too.

Sayf, you say you've been there, what is at the site of the the old US Embassy these days?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sayf, you say you've been there, what is at the site of the the old US Embassy these days?

US Den of Espionage.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

I don't know if he was there or not, but that can't be him. The two people look the same age, even though the photos are roughly 27 years apart (actually, the guy in the '79 image has larger bags under his eyes, so perhaps he's even older).

They certainly do look similar, but you're right, the man in the 1979 pic looks too old. Perhaps it was his dad, or an uncle?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

US Den of Espionage.

Cute. Teach me to ask a serious question, I guess.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And one has his head tipped a little further down.

Nope. The heads are for all practical purposes inclined at the same angle. The only difference is the guy on the left has his head tipped to the left a bit. Couldn't possibly be the same person, unless Ahmadinejad decided to get a nose-tip implant.

[Dakar²]

I think you're over-rating that nose tip.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I think you're over-rating that nose tip.

Here's Ahmadinejad almost straight on and he still has more nose tip than the other guy. He also has noticeably more bridge. They're not the same person.

[Dakar²]

You'd have to give me a straight on shot of the other guy for me continue.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You'd have to give me a straight on shot of the other guy for me continue.

[Macrobat]

From jihadwatch.com:

Five former American hostages confirmed that Ahmadinejad as one of their captors. William J. Daugherty, a former intelligence officer, said he saw Ahmadinejad 8 to 10 times at the start of his captivity: "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body."
BBC correspondent John Simpson recalled seeing Ahmadinejad on the embassy grounds. Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, a former president of Iran long living in exile, asserted that Ahmadinejad "wasn't among the decision-makers but he was among those inside the Embassy."

[Kevin]

Well there you go.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I'm baffled why on earth it even matters if Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers or not. Like that would be the worst offense on his long resume of horrors.

First off, on a strictly logical level, I don't even see what's so damning about the 'before' photo, if that is indeed him. I'm certainly no apologist for Ahmadinejad, and think of him as a first class nutjob and all around turd. But there's not really any context to the original photo that places him doing anything more threatening than carrying a gun, having his perpetual bad hair day and a sub-K Mart wardrobe, and standing in front of some crazy Ayatollah poster that's probably still there.

Heck, if I were transported back in time to Iran in 1979, I'd want an automatic weapon handy too.

The guy's a dangerous nutjob in 2006- who cares that he was also one in 1979?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm baffled why on earth it even matters if Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers or not. Like that would be the worst offense on his long resume of horrors.

First off, on a strictly logical level, I don't even see what's so damning about the 'before' photo, if that is indeed him. I'm certainly no apologist for Ahmadinejad, and think of him as a first class nutjob and all around turd. But there's not really any context to the original photo that places him doing anything more threatening than carrying a gun, having his perpetual bad hair day and a sub-K Mart wardrobe, and standing in front of some crazy Ayatollah poster that's probably still there.

Heck, if I were transported back in time to Iran in 1979, I'd want an automatic weapon handy too.

The guy's a dangerous nutjob in 2006- who cares that he was also one in 1979?

Um that isn't just a picture of some random guy holding a gun. It's a picture of one of the hostage takers.

But you are right, it doesn't matter. Probably those arguing it's not him were just doing so knee-jerkingly.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The guy's a dangerous nutjob in 2006- who cares that he was also one in 1979?

Originally Posted by Dakar

Not sure if this actually changes anything, though.

I was asking the same thing as well.

If anyone is ok with him now -- I doubt this revelation would change their mind.

[Macrobat]

First, it brings back, especially for Americans over forty years old, the powerful and enduring humiliation of the 1979-1981 embassy takeover, with the likely consequence of hardening U.S. attitudes toward an Ahmadinejad-led government building nuclear weapons. The present alarm over his intentions will be fueled by a renewed mistrust.

Second, although Ahmadinejad is a powerful and dynamic politician, he has many domestic opponents and this evidence provides them with new evidence of his extremism, rashness, and unsuitability to govern the country, which they may be able to exploit.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Um that isn't just a picture of some random guy holding a gun. It's a picture of one of the hostage takers.

Is there some other evidence that says beyond all doubt that's one of the actual hostage takers, not just another one of tens of thousands of Iranian students running around celebrating during the hostage crisis, but that personally had nothing to do with taking the hostages? That photo -by itself- just doesn't scream to me "violent, radical hostage taker" unless there's other evidence that goes along with it.

Most of the hostages met their captors face to face during the crisis. The hostage takers didn't wear masks or hide their identities during much of the time. Has any former hostage ever come forward and identified Ahmadinejad as one of their tormentors,( and not all the hostage takers were hostile) or even as a direct participant? I would think that would be MAJOR news if any one of them were to remember him.

And like I said, what does it really matter if he was involved? To me, it's a bit like having to "prove" Hitler was a dirtbag by digging up photos of him doing something as a youth. Gee, I think there's plenty of evidence Hitler was a complete slimeball without having to go scavenging through his earlier years.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

First, it brings back, especially for Americans over forty years old, the powerful and enduring humiliation of the 1979-1981 embassy takeover, with the likely consequence of hardening U.S. attitudes toward an Ahmadinejad-led government building nuclear weapons. The present alarm over his intentions will be fueled by a renewed mistrust.

Don't you think the US Government is already aware of these allegations? Especially the kind of allegations that has been covered by the press some time ago. The accusations by former hostages that he was one of the hijackers is not new, so I wonder why it should change US foreign policy now.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Second, although Ahmadinejad is a powerful and dynamic politician, he has many domestic opponents and this evidence provides them with new evidence of his extremism, rashness, and unsuitability to govern the country, which they may be able to exploit.

Some of his political opponents claim, he wasn't among the hostage takers. As I tried to explain earlier, I think it doesn't really matter whether he was with the hostage takers in person or in spirit only.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Has any former hostage ever come forward and identified Ahmadinejad as one of their tormentors,( and not all the hostage takers were hostile) or even as a direct participant? I would think that would be MAJOR news if any one of them were to remember him.

Quite the contrary. Some of the hostage takers are now political opponents of his and the ones who have come forward claim, he wasn't one of them.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And like I said, what does it really matter if he was involved? To me, it's a bit like having to "prove" Hitler was a dirtbag by digging up photos of him doing something as a youth. Gee, I think there's plenty of evidence Hitler was a complete slimeball without having to go scavenging through his earlier years.

Ditto.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

First, it brings back, especially for Americans over forty years old, the powerful and enduring humiliation of the 1979-1981 embassy takeover, with the likely consequence of hardening U.S. attitudes toward an Ahmadinejad-led government building nuclear weapons. The present alarm over his intentions will be fueled by a renewed mistrust.

I guess this is part of the issue that bugs me in a way.

I've noticed a trend, that unless someone can be directly linked to one of two or three events spectacular enough to register in the minds of most people, then basically we can dismiss that person as 'harmless'. In order to be the least bit of a threat, you must be tied to:
1. the Iranian hostage crisis.
2. 9/11
3. Bin Laden and/or al Qaeda.

Clearly, the only bad things that have ever happened.

The opposition to removing Saddam from power is often the braindead whine of "B-but, he wasn't involved with 9/11!" Of course, so let me start preparing the bake sale for his defense. None of his genocides, terrorist funding, or general mayhem played out live on TV for 24 hours or more, was even mentioned on MTV-News between videos, or kept any Westerner from sitting on their ass sipping their latte- therefore it doesn't merit concern.

So gee, I'm so glad Ahmadinejad makes the list of 3 bad things that ever happened. Now we can be concerned about him.

[Kevin]

The "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" rant was just a spin anyhow.

As the war wasn't just about 9/11.

That doesn't stop them from saying it though as if it means something.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The opposition to removing Saddam from power is often the braindead whine of "B-but, he wasn't involved with 9/11!" Of course, so let me start preparing the bake sale for his defense. None of his genocides, terrorist funding, or general mayhem played out live on TV for 24 hours or more, was even mentioned on MTV-News between videos, or kept any Westerner from sitting on their ass sipping their latte- therefore it doesn't merit concern.

So gee, I'm so glad Ahmadinejad makes the list of 3 bad things that ever happened. Now we can be concerned about him.

So basically, you’re justifying occupation because of your guilty conscience.

[Kevin]

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

"They all look the same"

V

[Macrobat]

Oreo, 5 of the hostages claim to have directly witnessed him as an actual hostage-taker.

It's worth noting that the perpetrators of the Munich Putsch also claimed Hitler wasn't involved.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Oreo, 5 of the hostages claim to have directly witnessed him as an actual hostage-taker.

When have they identified him? 20 years later, right? I find it hard to believe you can identify someone reliably. Other sources (e. g. a former agent and former political allies) say, he was not among the hostage takers. As I tried to point out, it doesn't really matter much for what is going on today as the story is over a year old. If it had any impact on US foreign policy, then it was when the story first broke and not now.

And even if he wasn't among the hostage takers, he was supporting the actions at least ideologically -- which is good enough for me. The bleak comparison to Hitler is non-sense: Hitler was punished for his involvement in Munich (very lightly, but he was). During the trial he did not deny his involvement, but claimed that it wasn't an act of treason.

Ahmandinejad has nothing to fear if he admits he was one of the hostage takers. Or does he have something to lose? Can you come up with a reason why he wouldn't be `proud' of this? I think he's the kind of guy who would make this fact public and use it for political gain, even if his role in this operation was ever so small.

[Macrobat]

The only reason it took 20 years to become public is because it took 20 years for him to rise to prominence.

Hostages themselves have POSITIVELY identified him as a hostage-taker, yet you (and these "agents") know more than the people who were actually there, and can make an absolute statement like that? Puh - lease.

What he has to lose is hi "public face" in the West, where he pretends to be a moderate, while inciting the EXACT opposite at home.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hostages themselves have POSITIVELY identified him as a hostage-taker, yet you (and these "agents") know more than the people who were actually there, and can make an absolute statement like that? Puh - lease.

No, I haven't claimed I know more than these former hostages and I haven't made an absolute statement either, I have refuted your absolute statement that it's a fact he was one of the hostage takers. All I'm saying is that it's not sure he was among the perps who have held the hostages. And don't pretend that only 3rd parties have refuted he was one of them: former hostage-takers have said the same thing. They should know at least as well as the hostages do.

My father is a lawyer and one of the principles is that there is nothing more unreliable than witnesses … especially if 15 years have passed.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

What he has to lose is hi "public face" in the West, where he pretends to be a moderate, while inciting the EXACT opposite at home.

Nobody is taking him as a moderate here. He doesn't pretend to be that way, either.

Plus, you still haven't answered my question: why would he try to keep this part of his past a secret?

[Macrobat]

Wasn't my statement - read the post again. It was the statement of 10% of the hostages taken. 5 of the surving 37 (or roughly 70%).

The eyewitness testimony gains MORE credence when you factor in that they were all independently interviewed, giving separate agreeing testimonies, with differing anecdotal evidence for each one's personal experience with the man. It's not like they are all citing the same event, after all.

Were you even alive during the Hostage Crisis? Hate to break it to you but there was an extreme paucity of video, photographic, or any other kind of evidence coming out that would allow these "agents" to make such an absolute refutation as you referenced.

The witnesses - in this case - are the single most reliable source.

Keep in mind - although they may be his political opponents in Iran those self-same opponents all were cut from the same whole cloth. They gain NOTHING in the West by tearing down Ahmadinijad - ONLY with the Iranian public is a possible gain possible, by attacking his honesty there.

And yes, I most certainly DID answer the question. He seeks to keep the West appeased while fomenting hatred and support for war at home.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Wasn't my statement - read the post again. It was the statement of 10% of the hostages taken. 5 of the surving 37.

So why do you disagree with my statement then?
All I said was that it's unclear and will remain unclear whether Ahmandinejad was among the hostage-takers or not. Some of the former hostages say yes, some of the former hostage-takers as well as people not affiliated with either of them say no. That's all.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The eyewitness testimony gains MORE credence when you factor in that they were all indepedently interviewed, giving separate agreeing testimonies, with differeing anecdotal evidence for each one's personal experience with the man.

There's also the picture they refer to – which is a lot more reliable than any of the statements these witnesses have made. However, if you want to compare the picture properly, you should use pictures of Ahmandinejad which were taken around the same time. I'm interested whether there were any conclusive results on that end. That would be far more credible than any of the witnesses.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Were you even alive during the Hostage Crisis? Hate to break it to you but there was an extreme paucity of video, photographic, or any other kind of evidence coming out that would allow these "agents" to make such an absolute refutation as you referenced.

Why are you only focussing on one of the sources? The hostage-takers (also among those who deny Ahmandinejad was personally involved) certainly knew each other.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The witnesses - in this case - are the single most reliable source.

The testimony of former hostage-takers is as reliable as the word of former hostages then -- since they are witnesses as well. So part of the witnesses say no, he wasn't, some of them say, yes, he was.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Keep in mind - although they may be his political opponents in Iran those self-same opponents all were cut from the same whole cloth. They gain NOTHING in the West by tearing down Ahmadinijad - ONLY with the Iranian public is a possible gain possible, by attacking his honesty there.

I don't think his reputation in the West is much of an issue for him: how else do you explain his anti-semitic, anti-Western triads he spouts out in regular intervals? This man mainly cares about his image among the Iranian people for a simple reason: a large portion of the population is unhappy with politics: many, many moderate candidates have been banned from running for election and people are disillusioned about democracy, the economy is not in good shape, etc. This is his motivation, because he knows he can score with anti-American and anti-semitic slogans.

You are also wrong that his enemies have nothing to gain from revealing his alleged part-taking. On the other hand, if he were to claim he was, but in fact wasn't, his opponents would rip him to shreds.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And yes, I most certainly DID answer the question. He seeks to keep the West appeased while fomenting hatred and support for war at home.

I don't think so. But let me make my question more precise: what does he gain politically within Iran by denying he was one of the hostage-takers?
And what does he lose if he falsely claims to have been one of them?

[Macrobat]

He ISN'T denying it in Iran, where no one would give a Shi'ite, he's denying it to the Western media.

He always comes along and attempts to "temper" his remarks by "further explaining" them (Matthews, Wallace interviews, UN speech, college appearances), as if we are children who cannot hear and see, while in the West.

While back at home, he holds Hitleresque mass rallies where "Death to Israel," and "Death to America," are his "Heil Hitlers."

Do not mistake me in thinking or believing that he cares about his reputation in the West - he doesn't. This man is simply attempting to hold the West at arm's length while he gets all of his ducks in a row in order to complete his true agenda - up to and including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Make no mistake - if he gets them he will use them - quite nearly immediately.

This is quickly becoming a case of you and I having to agree to disagree.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

He ISN'T denying it in Iran, where no one would give a Shi'ite, he's denying it to the Western media.

I think that pun is racist.
Where have you heard that he is boasting about him being one of the hostage-takers?

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

While back at home, he holds Hitleresque mass rallies where "Death to Israel," and "Death to America," are his "Heil Hitlers."

Yeah, everybody knows about those, this is not a contested issue and has nothing to do with his alleged involvement.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Do not mistake me in thinking or believing that he cares about his reputation in the West - he doesn't. This man is simply attempting to hold the West at arm's length while he gets all of his ducks in a row in order to complete his true agenda - up to and including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Make no mistake - if he gets them he will use them - quite nearly immediately.

I think Iran's ambition to acquire nuclear weapons is undisputed – and yet, a totally disparate topic. See, that's my point here: his alleged part-taking in the US embassy crisis of 1979 is totally irrelevant when it comes to dealing with him today.

These resurfacing contributions are nothing but smoke bombs to make a topic of Iran a more emotional issue. This never helps to solve such a difficult problem – and sticking to facts is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

This is quickly becoming a case of you and I having to agree to disagree.

No, I don't think we disagree at all:
(i) We agree that there is evidence suggesting he was a member of the hostage-takers.
(ii) We agree there is evidence (eye witnesses, etc.) suggesting he was not a member of the hostage-takers.
(iii) There is a `paucity of video and photo evidence' which could confirm or deny any of this, leaving this issue open to interpretation.
(iv) The question whether he was or wasn't a hostage-taker doesn't have an influence on how we (= world community) should prevent Iran from going nuclear.
(v) The possibility of Iran's president being one of the hijackers has received a lot of attention roughly a year ago and brought some unpleasant memories to the surface.
(vi) Iran's president uses anti-Western and anti-semitic resentments for political gain.

[Macrobat]

Please point out one instance where I said he was "boasting" about it.

You're correct, seems we are closer in our positions than I thought on initial examination.

Sorry, but Shi'Ite is NOT a race, rather a sect of religion.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Please point out one instance where I said he was "boasting" about it.

You posted: `He ISN'T denying it in Iran, where no one would give a Shi'ite, he's denying it to the Western media.'
From the way you have written this bit, I understood you meant to say Ahmandinejad has no problem whatsoever admitting he was one of them. Just out of curiousity: do you have any sources/material on this? Or any material on the results of the examination of the pictures?

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You're correct, seems we are closer in our positions than I thought on initial examination.

Yes, there's no need to see disagreement when there is in fact very little.

My position stems from my innate dislike of making emotional arguments in situations like these. I'm a scientist, through and through. Just because he possibly wasn't one of the hijackers doesn't make Ahmandinejad a better person, nor does it make him any worse if he were. Back then (and I suppose still today), he supports what the hijackers have done.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, but Shi'Ite is NOT a race, rather a sect of religion.

You know what I meant: it was derogatory and a slur.