Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
::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. | + | :::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) |
Revision as of 21:50, May 12, 2007
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.
rule?
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)