[quote=“jdsmith”]
I think you overestimate the numbers that it actually takes these days to assume control of a country.[/quote]
Well, it appears to be more than 130,000.
Next time, no more Mr. Nice Guy!
Hearts and minds- and rose petals , too.
“Iran’s New President Was 1979 Hostage-Taker”
Or maybe not.
[quote]WASHINGTON (CNN) – A CIA report has determined with “relative certainty” that Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was not involved in the taking of U.S. hostages 26 years ago, three government officials told CNN on Friday.
The officials insisted on anonymity, saying they did not want to speak for the CIA about its report.
Another U.S. official said the tone of the report is that there is no evidence to date that the new Iranian president was among those who held U.S. diplomats hostage.[/quote]
edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/
Of course, you know those wimpy soft-on-terror Bush-types
[quote]“This is very inconvenient for the Bush administration. It’s also embarrassing for them,” he said.
“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” said Daugherty, referring to something President Bush has often said. “This guy’s a terrorist. If the Bush administration grants him a visa, then their whole antiterrorism policy falls apart.”[/quote]
[quote=“spook”]This approach seems to be a willing repeat of all the fundamental mistakes made in Iraq as if they weren’t mistakes at all. Maybe that’s the concept. That would explain why President Bush awarded George Tenet and Paul Bremer Medals of Freedom and nobody “inside the tent” thought that was a little strange:
You’ve got your “invade first and ask questions later” approach.
Then there’s your “prolonged bombing campaign” followed, apparently, by a “mission accomplished” which somehow saves US ground troops from a prolonged guerilla war.
We even have the “I think you overestimate the numbers that it actually takes these days to assume control of a country.” No offense but that’s vintage Paul Wolfowitz telling us that the occupation of Iraq would pay for itself and require maybe 30,000 troops tops through the end of 2005.
You’ve even got your “Maybe the US wouldn’t be so nice about invading Syria.” I’m thinking Abu Ghraib with the gloves off and without the pretense of “rogue corporals” being responsible.
Have I missed anything besides the basic logic here?[/quote]
Spook, as much as you might hope, I do not represent the US Government’s position on Iraq, Syria and Iran.
You asked ME what I would do. I gave very basic ideas: invade and occupy Syria, and put the screws to Iran.
I’m an English Teacher in Taiwan. You wanna explain to me how you extrapolate my idol thoughts to the US Goverment’s current positions???
Alex, I’d like to buy a clue please.
[quote=“MikeN”]“Iran’s New President Was 1979 Hostage-Taker”
Or maybe not.
[quote]WASHINGTON (CNN) – A CIA report has determined with “relative certainty” that Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was not involved in the taking of U.S. hostages 26 years ago, three government officials told CNN on Friday.
The officials insisted on anonymity, saying they did not want to speak for the CIA about its report.
Another U.S. official said the tone of the report is that there is no evidence to date that the new Iranian president was among those who held U.S. diplomats hostage.[/quote]
edition.CNN.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/
Of course, you know those wimpy soft-on-terror Bush-types
[quote]“This is very inconvenient for the Bush administration. It’s also embarrassing for them,” he said.
“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” said Daugherty, referring to something President Bush has often said. “This guy’s a terrorist. If the Bush administration grants him a visa, then their whole antiterrorism policy falls apart.”[/quote]
today.reuters.com/news/news[/quote]
Nothing like hand picking your quotes. Let me try:
[quote]The officials insisted on anonymity, saying they did not want to speak for the CIA about its report.
Another U.S. official said the tone of the report is that there is no evidence to date that the new Iranian president was among those who held U.S. diplomats hostage.
The officials cautioned that the analysis is not final.[/quote]
[quote]Two former hostages told CNN they remain certain Ahmadinejad was involved in plotting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, in which 52 hostages were held for 444 days.
The two also said they saw the man they identify as Ahmadinejad many times while they were held, and that he appeared to be in a supervisory role.
A senior State Department official said the government is defining “hostage-taker” as someone who was “involved in the planning, execution and conduct” of taking people captive.[/quote]
[quote]William Daugherty, a former CIA officer living in Savannah, Georgia, told CNN he remains certain that Ahmadinejad was involved in the takeover.
“I can name at least five times that I know I saw him,” Daugherty said. He said those times were in the first 19 days of the takeover, “before I was put into solitary (confinement).”
He said Ahmadinejad seemed to be among a group of leaders.[/quote]
[quote]Don Sharer, a former hostage who was a naval attache at the embassy, said he remains “99 percent” sure Ahmadinejad was involved.
He said he saw him “four or five” times while in captivity.
“Every once in a while I saw him escorting some mullahs coming through,” he said. “He had a gun. … He was just not there to walk through. He appeared to be in a supervisory role, the way the guard reacted to him.”[/quote]
I have no opinion. I wasn’t there. But I can read an article.
peace
The quotes I ‘hand-picked’ were the first three paragraphs.
The first paragraph is of course, the lede:
freelancewrite.about.com/od/glossary/g/Lede.htm
I then linked to the story so people could check it out for themselves.
If I did make a mistake, it was to assume that anyone who had been posting on this thread had been following the story closely enough to know about the ex-hostages’ claims, which had been given wide circulation in the last six weeks.
The new information (which is why it was the lede) was the report from the CIA, claiming “with relative certainty” that Ahmedinejad was not involved in the hostage-taking.
If I had been picking my quotes, I would have included this one:
And my opening line was "Or maybe not.(emphasis added
And if you have no opinion, why did you give this thread the title
“Iran’s new President was 1979 US Hostage-Taker”?
Instead of, say,
“Was Iran’s new President 1979 Hostage-Taker?”
You know, sort of like “Suicide Bomber Shot”
Especially when your info came from a source linked to an organisation listed as a terrorist group by both the U.S. and the UK.
iraniantruth.blogspot.com/2005/0 … ve_13.html
Further reports, with claims from both sides:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
Scroll down to ‘Allegations’
[quote=“MikeN”]And if you have no opinion, why did you give this thread the title
“Iran’s new President was 1979 US Hostage-Taker”?
Instead of, say, “Was Iran’s new President 1979 Hostage-Taker?”
You know, sort of like “Suicide Bomber Shot”[/quote]Hey, things change over time.
But now, everyone, see what happens when you make sense, check your facts and ask nicely? The title’s been changed.
Jaboney - IP mod.