USA Today
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) ” A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran’s new president-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Watching coverage of Iran’s presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion ” the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.
“This is the guy. There’s no question about it,” said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Ga. “You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I’d still spot him.”
I can see where the psychiatrists would say that 25 years is a long time to be able to remember something, but I believe that these people would never forget the faces of their captors. What a slap in the face it must be to them.
Is anyone surprised that Iran would “elect” (and I use that term loosely for it is more like “appoint”) a known criminal? Tell me, where is the world outrage with this? Who is attempting to bring this man to the world court as people are with Bush?
folks, the world’s moral compass is certainly off kilter.
Ted
We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy”.
(United International Press, May 24, 2005)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
When Saddam Hussein was “President” of Iraq, he would win Iraqi “elections” by 99%+ and there was usually no opposition.
Iran is a similar “democracy”.
Ted
3-Shi, what do you think of the choice?
2-I have been trying to get an article that gives us an idea of the man’s positions. Each day it changes. If this is in fact one of the captors, I guess I can see why. If he is of that mind set, I could see a revolt within the country. The young don’t want to be oppressed anymore.
peejz – from what i understand, ‘choice’ has little to do with it. a hardliner is certainly not surprising.
i think Islamic Fundamentalism is a fairly direct line from the colonial abuse of the British & the rest of us in the West that propped up dictators and military puppets that did not care about the people, but rather getting rich from the kickbacks provided from the oil we stole for generations.
the people suffered, we got rich, they got pissed & the result we have with us today.
this history did not develop in a vacuum.
6.
I don’t think so- I think he was just put in place to garner popular support because of his past, and in the end is just a mouthpiece for the same people who already control Iran.
Ted
Well both of you make good points. From what I gather, and it may be due to lack of access to a voting booth, the young are not happy. The 20-45 group is looking for change. They have traveled and they see a better way.
7, Iran “elected” a Terrorist as their President. They are a terror state and should be treated accordingly.
7.
you see people, WE are resuponsible for Iran’s terrorism
shitloh said so.
WASHINGTON ” The White House said Thursday it was investigating whether Iran’s new president played a role in seizing the American Embassy and holding 52 U.S. captives a quarter century ago. President Bush said the allegation by former hostages “raises many questions.”
The administration was reviewing its files on Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) after the hostage comments were brought to light by The Associated Press.
“I have no information, but obviously his involvement raises many questions,” Bush said in an interview with foreign reporters. The administration said it would have to deal with Ahmadinejad regardless of his past.
yep one time terrorist now big time leader lets not forget that ARAFAT and NELSON MANDELA were terrorists at one time and the world leaders cant hide that:roll:
George Washington & Tom Paine & Paul Revere were on the British terrorism watch lists for quite a while. the Brits thought they were bigots, too.
the dangers of committed partisanship is that sometimes you can’t tell a ‘freedom fighter’ from a ‘terrorist’. neither sometimes, i believe, can you tell objectivity from bigotry.
but it’s still common fun to brand others – it does tend to validate something in ourselves, occasionally.
14-I think we are all guilty of that.
As a side note, wouldn’t it stand to reason that those three would be labeled as such? Afterall they were British citizens at the time. Just curious.
absolute treason, as far as the Bristish were concerned.
Patrick Henry said some good American would do to George III what Brutus had done to Caesar, he was accused of treason.
“If this be treason,”Henry famously replied, “make the most of it.â€
they all were traitors to them and heroes to us. it takes 50 years for history to start making sense, and even then, it’s often written wrong. history is written by the winners and the losers’ version is then discredited and scorned and people come to believe when people come to believe, for many reasons. self interest is a powerful motive to believe what’s best for us.
16-”If this be treason,”Henry famously replied, “make the most of it.”good point
14,
“George Washington & Tom Paine & Paul Revere were on the British terrorism watch lists for quite a while. the Brits thought they were bigots, too.”
That is an absolutely false statement on your part. Show me the terrorist lists they were on.
“the dangers of committed partisanship is that sometimes you can’t tell a ‘freedom fighter’ from a ‘terrorist’. neither sometimes, i believe, can you tell objectivity from bigotry.”
That is also false. I know many partisans on both sides of the isle (most actually) who know the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.
You shouldn’t project your fallacies upon others.
Ted
The “freedom fighter” of Revolutionary War days Ted bear close if not indistinguishable resemblance to the civil disobedient of today ..
The only difference is that Revere, Sam Adams and Tom Paine were perceived by their government (The British Crown and Parliament) as treasonous.
I suspect there were no so-called “terrorist lists” in the day, but these people met secretly when they conspired to more than civilly disobey. The Boston Massacre is proof positive.
Had they been apprehended by the British at the time they’d have been hanged probably without benefit of trial.
19,
That isn’t what I was addressing- the fact that there were no terrorists list is irrelevant. I was addressing the fact that Shiloh called them terrorists, even in the British eyes and they were not. Terrorist purposefully targets the civilian population which was something Washington, Sam Adams, Paul Revere and Thomas Paine did not do.
So any sort of equivalency drawn between terrorists and these men are unequivocally false.
As for my second comment, I will also take the time to stand behind it. No matter which side you’re on a freedom fighter does not purposefully target civilians. As soon one does, the cross the line from “freedom fighter” or even “patriot” to terrorist. This is exactly why I believe no one in the Palestine/Israeli conflict are right- they are both terrorist.
Ted