For several days now, the US has been in an uproar, after a number of Americans held hostage Iran in 1979 identified newly-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of their captors from 26 years ago.
"This is the guy. There's no question about it," former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel, told the Associated Press. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him," he said.
The Iranians vehemently deny the charge, but a number of photographs that have surfaced from that period seem to back up the allegation.
But here is the really interesting part: in light of recent US policy toward Israel, why all the fuss about the new Iranian president’s kidnapping career?
After all, the Bush Administration is coming down hard on the Jewish state lately, pressing it to release hundreds of Palestinians involved in terror attacks against Israelis over the past few years. If Israel is expected to “forgive” those who try to kill its own citizens, then why shouldn’t the Bush Administration adopt the same stance towards the new Iranian president?
Don’t get me wrong – I think it is morally indefensible for Israel release Palestinian terrorists, and I don’t think the Iranian leader’s criminal background should be overlooked either.
But I do think it is high time for Washington to stop applying a double standard, and start treating all terrorists (be they Palestinian or Iranian) alike.
Bush is a fraud. Even tho I voted for him the first time but not the second. He is intent on destroying the Jewish State to appease his Muslim buddies for oil riches. Allah is not God neither is Budda. I AM is the only true God and Bush doesn't fear him at all.
Posted by: Rev. John D. Shook | July 03, 2005 at 09:33 PM
It seems that terrorism was viewed as a legitimate form of statesmanship by Jimmy Carter. He gave it his de-facto endorsement by not responding to an Iranian attack on U.S. soil, which the Embassy assault was, by any definition. When finally pressured to do something about it, Carter mounted a 'rescue' mission with forces so minimal they were guaranteed to fail if even one person made any mistake, which someone did. America's enemies seem to be good at assessing political weakness and moral indifference - and at assessing political strength and moral determination, as well. Whithin 20 minutes of Reagan's inaugural address, the Iranians announced that their American hostages were actually on an airliner, on their way to freedom. This wasn't a conciliatory act by the Iranians, but rather an act born of stark fear.
The Iranian assessment of George may be reflected in their willingness to have run Mahmoud Ahmadinjihad for President. If they believe George will deal with such a person - and I hope it proves to be a big Iranian mistake - then they believe that the United States can again be humiliated.
Posted by: Dennis Moran | July 04, 2005 at 11:02 PM
It seems that terrorism was viewed as a legitimate form of statesmanship by Jimmy Carter. He gave it his de-facto endorsement by not responding to an Iranian attack on U.S. soil, which the Embassy assault was, by any definition. When finally pressured to do something about it, Carter mounted a 'rescue' mission with forces so minimal they were guaranteed to fail if even one person made any mistake, which someone did. America's enemies seem to be good at assessing political weakness and moral indifference - and at assessing political strength and moral determination, as well. Whithin 20 minutes of Reagan's inaugural address, the Iranians announced that their American hostages were actually on an airliner, on their way to freedom. This wasn't a conciliatory act by the Iranians, but rather an act born of stark fear.
The Iranian assessment of George may be reflected in their willingness to have run Mahmoud Ahmadinjihad for President. If they believe George will deal with such a person - and I hope it proves to be a big Iranian mistake - then they believe that the United States can again be humiliated.
Posted by: Dennis Moran | July 04, 2005 at 11:04 PM
It seems that terrorism was viewed as a legitimate form of statesmanship by Jimmy Carter. He gave it his de-facto endorsement by not responding to an Iranian attack on U.S. soil, which the Embassy assault was, by any definition. When finally pressured to do something about it, Carter mounted a 'rescue' mission with forces so minimal they were guaranteed to fail if even one person made any mistake, which someone did. America's enemies seem to be good at assessing political weakness and moral indifference - and at assessing political strength and moral determination, as well. Whithin 20 minutes of Reagan's inaugural address, the Iranians announced that their American hostages were actually on an airliner, on their way to freedom. This wasn't a conciliatory act by the Iranians, but rather an act born of stark fear.
The Iranian assessment of George may be reflected in their willingness to have run Mahmoud Ahmadinjihad for President. If they believe George will deal with such a person - and I hope it proves to be a big Iranian mistake - then they believe that the United States can again be humiliated.
Posted by: Dennis Moran | July 04, 2005 at 11:04 PM
The US should be making more of a fuss than it is about the coming to power of a person who is determined to spread the Islamic revolution throughout the world, and who has spoken of committing acts of mass terror on US territory.
As for Israelis they should be pressing on our government to put more time and attention( and not simply occasional hot air ) on the Iranian question.
The Iranians consider as their new President said the 'Zionist state' an illegitimate one. They are not just talking, but are doing things all the time to realize their aim of first weakening and then destroying us.
When one talks about 'Persian threats' one should understand that one is dealing with the greatest danger facing Israel today.
Posted by: Shalom Freedman | July 05, 2005 at 06:04 PM
KDPI: Ahmadinejad directly involved in Ghassemlou assassination
05/07/2005 KurdishMedia.com
London (KurdishMedia.com) 5 July, 2005: An official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) told the news agency AFP that Iran’s recently relected president Mahmood Ahmadinejad was directly involved in plotting the 1989 assassination of the Kurdish leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou in Vienna.
The party offical Hassan Ashrafi told AFP "According to our information, the Iranian government formed three committees for the assassination [...] the first one planned it, the second one which was led by Ahmadinejad was tasked with facilitating it and the third one executed it."
Ghassemlou was the leader of the KDPI when he was assassinated on July 13, 1989, along with two colleagues, in a meeting with Iranian secret services.
The Austrian authorities said on Saturday that they had documents implicating Ahmadinejad in the murders.
Iran has denied Ahmadinejad’s involvement in the killings and has warned European countries not to be duped by "the Zionist propaganda" campaign.
Ahmadinejad has also been accused of involvement in the 1979 hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran.
Posted by: arcan | July 05, 2005 at 06:47 PM
The War on Terror does need a level playing field... one set of rules that the people allied against the terrorists should expect as well as operate by.
It is wrong for the U.S. to hold Israel back from dealing the best Israel can with her terrorist problems when we (the United States) has justified overthrowing two governments and expecting many others to change in order for us to better wage our armed conflict on our enemies.
The U.S. does have double standards when it comes to what to do with one terrorist compared to another depending on their location. And the U.S. has no right to compel Israel to hand territory that G-d has claimed for Himself to the enemies of His People either.
Posted by: Leo Cummings | July 05, 2005 at 10:20 PM
If a "picture is worth a thousand words," what's an unsolicited non-coerced CONFESSION worth?
1. (theoxrant.blogspot.com/2005/07/weve-been-looking-at-wrong-guy.html)
2. (junkyardblog.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4511)
3. (junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2005_06_26.html#004511)
4. (www.homelandsecurityus.com/iran.asp)
He's not the one holding onto the hostage. He's the one next to that guy, to his left (our right as we look at picture).
I mean, if he SAYS he was involved, and included it on his "resume" on his website, then why not take him at his word?
Posted by: yonason | July 06, 2005 at 04:53 AM
"the Iranian government formed three committees for the assassination [...] the first one planned it, the second one which was led by Ahmadinejad was tasked with facilitating it and the third one executed it."
Since when does facilitating terrorist attacks disqualify a person from becoming a national leader? We accepted Abbas, didn't we?
Posted by: saychel | July 08, 2005 at 10:40 PM