82
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + +
→Hostage photo
:He wasn't a leader, but he was definitely involved. He's been identified by several of the hostages and other students. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:He wasn't a leader, but he was definitely involved. He's been identified by several of the hostages and other students. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::The assertion needs to be cited to Pipes. Pipes is credible, particularly over four anonymous terrrorists and criminals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::The assertion needs to be cited to Pipes. Pipes is credible, particularly over four anonymous terrrorists and criminals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't necessarily agree that Pipes is credible. His biases are well-known. Additionally, discounting the views of those that were actually involved in the revolution because they are "terrorists and criminals" is pure ad-hominem. A statement stands or falls on the validity of the statement, not who says it. Their credibility on this particular statement is far greater than that of Pipes, because they were actually present. So, what's more likely; that multiple people involved in the revolution and hostage taking who currently disagree with Ahmedinejad are being truthful when they deny his involvement and that those who believe he was present may be dealing with mistaken identity, or that Pipes has uncovered some grand conspiracy to hide Ahmedinejad's involvement where no possible motive to hide his involvement is reasonable? At best, I think we should list that it's possible that he was involved but that there is no definitive evidence either way.