gawwwwwd i hate how people with different views never listen to reason or evidence they just end up in denial when proved wrong.. grrrr

Let's disregard the photos for a moment. The President-elect's own web site states that he was a member of the group that staged the take-over of the embassy. Other hostage takers have attained high office in Iran. Why, exactly, is it so impossible that the President-elect might have been involved?

Disregarding the photos, what is your evidence that he was not involved?

hey of course i spin... i'm stating my opinions which i have a right to do and encouraging people to offer their opinions but ohh, had to be a conservative to resort to the old 'spin spin'.

whatever dude,

believe my spin it might lead to peace...

believe Bush's spin and it will lead to war...

(that'd make a great sig but as a dumb liberal it wouldn't be becomming of me)

AwingAndASigh...

this is my evidence (ignoring the photos for a moment)

some of the ex hostage takers were interviewed by the BBC after this story broke... those ex hostage takers said that the President was NOT involved... now you might think... so what, who would believe the word of some iranian ex hostage takers... biased right? well, NO... because the ex-hostages interviewed have actually defected to a group which WANTS to denoucne and remove this President and government... so, what did they have to gain by lying on behalf of the President? NOTHING... they are credible sources.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by metallicabrainz]

some of the ex hostage takers were interviewed by the BBC after this story broke... those ex hostage takers said that the President was NOT involved... now you might think... so what, who would believe the word of some iranian ex hostage takers... biased right? well, NO... because the ex-hostages interviewed have actually defected to a group which WANTS to denoucne and remove this President and government... so, what did they have to gain by lying on behalf of the President? NOTHING... they are credible sources.

Except the said ex hostage takers are still living in Iran, a country where going against the government can get you killed, put in prison, tortured, disappeared, etc. Considering the fact that they would be going against the newly elected President who has the full support of the Mulluhs, and said ex-hostage takers who are now reformers have ALREADY spent time being tortured and imprisoned for prior speech against the government - then, yes, I would need more word than just theirs to make a judgement as to whether or not he was involved.

thats a valid point you've made and thankyou its an angle i hadn't thought about before...

i think honoustly its hard to know who to believe... the american x hostages might just be mistaken live i've said before, it was a long time ago and they were probably blindfolded... i couldnt remember a face for 25 years... then you have the x iranian hostages... equally they can be discredited due to the environment they are living in...

i dont think this debate can go anywhere its a dead end. maybe we just have to wait to see how the mainstream media handles this 2moro... who knows, there might be some revelations.

omfg take a shower dude ! how can this guy really be their leader ??? he's such a disheveled mess, its going to embolden W to take them out just to put someone in power that has seen an iron in their lifetime

Interesting the nose is a problem, but i think we need a face expert in here, one that can tell us about the aging of the nose and face.

This thing is nothing more than a psy/op intended to get everyone frothing at the mouth over this detestable new president. See it for what it is. Here we have proof: 6 pages of back and forth over is it him/is it not him in the pictures.... Who cares? The Bush administration has done everything in its power since their election to make it seem illegitemate. This is just more of the same.

Don't fall for it. The NeoCons WANT you to get pissed at the new president so they can make war on Iran in fullfillment of their PNAC agenda. DENY IGNORANCE!

Originally posted by metallicabrainz
Is the AP photo alledgedly showing the newly elected hardline President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a photo-shop fake ?

Who cares...what really matters is that hard evidence shows Regan and his team met numerous times with Iranian officials in Paris circa 1980 to delay the hostage release til *after* he was elected(AKA the october surprise) Again, another example of how corrupt America's leaders are. We already know the middle eastern leaders are corrupt.

Honestly it's irrelevant whether or not the president took the hostages. Are we going to base an invasion of their country on THAT? Hell no. It's a very good way to defame him, but Bush & the CIA need to do much better than that.

The stage for the big one is being set piece by piece.

Originally posted by Barcs
Honestly it's irrelevant whether or not the president took the hostages. Are we going to base an invasion of their country on THAT? Hell no. It's a very good way to defame him, but Bush & the CIA need to do much better than that.

The stage for the big one is being set piece by piece.

Bush and his PNAC cabal dont need any sort of evidence or impetus for invasion. They can just go on tv and wave their finger saying 'terrorism terrorists terrorizing terror terrorism terrorists' in a kind of trancelike drone. Then the people of America, largely blind, will just go 'yes, my master...your will is mine'.

For people that say there is no conspiracies, how do they explain that the government said everything from Saddam had WMD and chemical weapons and they will be found, to Iraq was an imminent threat, had a hand in 9/11, and was tied to al Aqida. All proven extremely false. So if they are willing to lie on such a pervasive and broad level to the public, they can do it again.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Newsday is saying that US officials have concluded that it's not the Iranian President in those photos.

The Iranians are saying the bearded person in the photos was a man named Taqi Mohammadi.

That has got to be the most generic name I've ever seen! It doesn't sounds or looks Iranian to me, does it? Remember, Iranian names are generally different than Arabic names. Mohammadi seems more Arabic than Iranian.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
That has got to be the most generic name I've ever seen! It doesn't sounds or looks Iranian to me, does it? Remember, Iranian names are generally different than Arabic names. Mohammadi seems more Arabic than Iranian.

If you do a google search for the last name Mohammadi, you can back many results about Iranians/Persians so I don't think it is Arabic.

Thatsjustweird

The 2 pictures you have of the Hostage interrogator guy are the first ones I've seen that match..they look like each other(from page 2). None of the other pictures or video of the so called interrrogator look at all like the elected President. The eyebrows on the interrogator guy slant up instead of down, plus also the nose that was mentioned is different, the shape of the top of the head is alittle more square, etc...That's what I've observed...probably wrong though...

The Iranians need to stop the inbreeding...

Maybe if they catch a nice looking she devil they all wouldn't look alike


[edit on 3-7-2005 by XPhiles]