Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mahmoud "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" is his true name. This article should be edited to remove the common misconception of "Ahmadinejad".

Thankyou and goodnight.


Shouldn't it be clarified that in Iran, the president isn't actually the leader? Policy is actually set by the Supreme Leader, who is the true ruler of the country. That's just a content comment; clearly, the style of this entry was unprofessional and not appropriate for a encyclopedia.

He's technically the leader, though only in name. --Hojimachongtalk 19:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Hostage photo

Ahmedinejad wasn't among the hostage takers in the Iran hostage crisis, regardless of what Daniel Pipes says. 4 of the leaders of the student revolution, along with the actual lead hostage taker have said he wasn't involved. Interestingly, these individuals are opposed to Ahmedinejad's policies, so if he was involved, they would have no reason to protect him. JohnSmith 16:25, 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. --Hojimachongtalk 17:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
The assertion needs to be cited to Pipes. Pipes is credible, particularly over four anonymous terrrorists and criminals. 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.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. 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.JohnSmith 18:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Show some cites. RobS 18:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Sure: "But Abdi, a former revolutionary student turned radical reformer who was jailed in 2002 for selling intelligence to foreigners including the US-based polling company Gallup, said the former American hostages had poor memories. The Times said Ahmadinejad was a 23-year-old university student at the time of the takeover in November 1979 and was a founding member of the radical student group that organised the storming of the US Embassy compound. Mohsen Mirdamadi, another ringleader of the hostage-taking drama in Tehran, rejected the Times report. “I deny such reports. Ahmadinejad was not a member of the radical students’ group who seized the embassy,” said Mirdamadi, a former lawmaker. Like many of the former hostage-takers, Mirdamadi is now an outspoken proponent of the need to reform Iran’s Islamic political system." [1]. "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."" [2]. "But other former American hostages contacted by CNN say they aren't so sure. Much of the controversy surrounds these photographs from 1979. The one on the left confirmed to be then 23-year-old Ahmedinejad. The one on the right of a hostage-taker. A known ultra-conservative and follower of Iran's supreme leader, Ahmadinejad has detailed much of his past on his own Web site, even listing his membership in a radical student group back in the '70s, some of whose members seized the American embassy. But one of the former student leaders of the hostage-taking told CNN Ahmadinejad was not involved, and close associates of the president-elect, as well as the Iranian government, have also reportedly denied the allegations." [3]. "A CIA spokeswoman yesterday said she would not comment on the matter because the report is classified. Another administration official, however, said the agency determined that they lacked the evidence to "conclude definitively" on Mr. Ahmadinejad's role. "It was similar to the Scottish court's not proven judgment," the source said." [4]. "There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages."[5]
How many more references would you like? JohnSmith 18:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Who needs 'em? The fact is, of course the Iranian government will deny it! They'll deny anything that will make their Dear Leader look bad! Don't go assuming it wasn't him just because his government denies it! ScorpionVote for Pedro 14:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Nuclear weapons

Cut from intro:

In actuality, United States intelligence has confirmed that Iran's nuclear weapons program has been shut down.

This is just one report, and a National Intelligence Estimate is never proof of anything. It's an educated guess.

Say rather that there is a controversy over whether Bush's Iran policy is wise in light of the NIE. Say what the sides are, rather than asserting one side (the anti-Bush side) as "fact". --Ed Poor Talk 21:19, 9 December 2007 (EST)

"This is just one report, and a National Intelligence Estimate is never proof of anything. It's an educated guess."

An interesting assertion, given that the Iraq NIE was the principal evidence in the case to invade Iraq. Reasonableperson 23:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)