82
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: +
no edit summary
:::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.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:50, 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.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Actually Pipes does not personally make the assertion, he cites 5 eyewitnesses. And I am not certain we should even countentance giving any credibility whatsoever to using terrorists to refute them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Actually Pipes does not personally make the assertion, he cites 5 eyewitnesses. And I am not certain we should even countentance giving any credibility whatsoever to using terrorists to refute them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::He may cite 5 eyewitnesses, but he discounts reports from at least 5 other eyewitnesses who disagree with his POV. He's assuming his conclusion. Even the jihadwatch article I've cited (which is hardly objective) says that the evidence is inconclusive. If Conservapedia's goal is accuracy and not truthiness, then we should be honest and say that the evidence is inconclusive.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)