One former hostage, retired U.S. Navy Captain Donald Sharer, told U.S. NBC television on 29 June that he remembers Ahmadinejad on two specific occasions.

Please show me where this man withdrew his claim.

Another former hostage, Kevin Hermening, has said Ahmadinejad was involved in his interrogation the day he was taken captive

Please show me where this man withdrew his claim

If you can show me where either of these two hostages have withdrawn their statements that Ahmadinejad was involved then I will withdraw my statement of his involvement.

Until then, I assume you are saying that both of these men are liars and that they are making it all up.





Your right, that remark was unfair. I apologize.



To quote your source the group officially renounced violence in 2001 and today is it the main organization in the National Council of Resistance of Iran

If the insurgents in Iraq would also renounce violence and obtain just one ruling or even file for a case in the European Court of Justice, I would accept your position. However by your own source as you can see they are not the same.

So let’s think logically about what you are saying, you are accepting the word of the accused (Ahmadinejed) as opposed to the words of the accusers (Donald Sharer, Kevin Hermening).

Alright, I can accept that you feel that he has more credibility then the hostages. (I know that sounds flippant, it is not)

This next statement is not accusatory, it is observational.

As the basis of your position you feel that because a U.S. government agency cannot and will not substantiate that a photograph that is “thought” to be a particular person, most likely is not that person.

O.k., let’s go with this: The man in the photograph is not AHMADINEEJED!
That has nothing to do with the claims of the two hostages. They did not say “the man in the photograph is Ahmadinejed”, they said that Ahmadinejed was one of their captors. Two totally different claims.

“Mr. Sharer and the others have said that the suspect, that picture that‘s been floating around the news organization today, is not the man he believes was the captor who is now the president-elect. But he sticks to his story, Mr. Sharer, that the man who was his captor, one of them, is now the president-elect of Iran.”

Oh, how silly of me to believe such a person. I mean after all what would he know? He’s not the C.I.A. and they would know better than he would. I mean he was only there; he was only a firsthand observer.


The problem seems to be that because their assertion that he was one of their captors was mentioned in the article about the photograph that by demonstrating that the man in the photograph is not Ahmadinejed somehow proves that he was not involved.
That is like saying “because we can prove that the photograph showing someone who resembles me being in Philadelphia at the time stated proves that I was in fact not in Philadelphia and the statements of those who say they interacted with me in Philadelphia during that time are thereby false!

The only thing it demonstrates is that the person in the photo is in fact not me. So would you explain to me why I should disregard as lies the statements of Donald Sharer and Kevin Hermening. Why is it silly for me to believe the statements of Donald Sharer and Kevin Hermening but it is not silly that you accept the statements Ahmadinejed?

It is apparent to me that your views lend toward accepting the word of those who are opposed to The United States over those who tend to be supportive. That’s fine; dealing with that mindset is no different than dealing with the mindset of “Vanilla is better than Strawberry”. The problem is that you seem to think that anyone who claims “sorry, it is the other way around” is “Silly”.

So in conclusion, would you please explain to me and thereby by proxy to Donald Sharer and Kevin Hermening how it is that their statements have no merit and that their assertions are “Silly”?

Please, do direct your answer directly toward them if you would as I will be happy to forward your response to Mr Hermening personally or if you would like you can contact him and provide it directly to him by emailing him at kevinh -at- hermeningfinancialgroup.com.

I am quite sure he would be very interested in knowing why someone who believes his statement has merit is “silly and illogical”. I am sure being how you have proven that it has no merit you will have no difficulty in demonstrating it to the man himself.

I was unable to contact Mr. Sharer at this time but I hope to have a valid email for him soon as well, figuring you might want to inform him as to the silliness of his statement as well.



Yes, Yes I do in fact. I feel quite coptfortable stating that The President of Iran was one of the embassy hostage takers. do you feel comtfortable facing those men and telling them otherwise?




does having the person who was personaly involved in this mater finally meet with your level of needed evidence satisfying or "or something"?

The only thing I can think of that provides a higher level of evidence would be acual footage of the event. alas I do not have that. so would you be willing to accept as evidence of my claim the statements of the person who he himself is the one who was there and has made the claim? Or do I also need to fly to Iran, interview AHMADINEEJED and have him address this here as well?

I know your going to say getting AHMADINEEJED in here would be silly, but as you can see I do back up what I claim. I mean can you produce anyone involved in this who has first hand information? I would venture to say that you might want to reconsider your silly position or feel free to produce some first hand information on the subject, as I have.

See, this is much better. You are giving me stuff to look into, rather than just uttering bullshit without any attribution, such as you did with the "threatened to destroy the world" crap, and the Mussolini-train thing (though that's such a commonly held myth that you get a pass on it).

I will certainly look into these two guys, who I admittedly do not know anything about.



Even if they do not withdraw these claims (assuming you are correct), it is still possible that they are mistaken. That was a long time ago, and people look different. I do not say this to counter their claims, or to defend Ahmadinejad (god, I hate spelling his name), but to give weight to all facts equally.

And it does beg the question: why are the CIA, of all people, not believing it to be true? You would think they would just jump on this, no?



Since this is the first time I have heard of these guys, you can hardly accuse me of that, but nice try. You really don't know how to debate fairly, do you?



Progress! Thank you.



Read the whole thing, and keep doing your homework, and you might find that there's more to this... and I think you'll be hearing more about them very soon.

They are kind of a weird group, though, eh? Anti-fanatical Islamic terrorists who are free market Marxists. WTF? A little schizophrenic, methinks.



Of course they are not the same. How could they be?

Why should the insurgents renounce violence? They are trying to rid themselves of their occupiers... which is actually quite legal under international law, for what it's worth. You could make a better argument against Hezbollah, which formed itself for the same reason, but kept on with it long after the occupier (Israel) left.

Anyway, if you want to see foreign fighters out of Iraq, I say start with yourselves.



I'm not actually accepting the word of Ahmadinejad, though. As far as I am concerned, all government officials pronouncements are suspect; Iranian, American, Canadian, Tuvalese, whatever. Politicians are all lying sacks of &^%$, and Ahmadinejad is no different. On top of that, he's a ^&%$ing social conservative, homophobic and anti-semitic, at the very least. I would no sooner defend him than I would scum like Harper or Bush. This is not about me defending him.

His word, however, matches the evidence against him, which doesn't amount to a lot. I mean, really, if the CIA doesn't think he did it, and so many others do not, two guys saying he was doesn't mean a lot. He could very well have been involved, I grant you -- I never said he was not involved. I just do not think it is fair to say that it is a fact that he was. You can say "Some people think he was involved", but you said "he was involved" -- do you see now why I take issue with that? Again, compare it to your negative proofs earlier -- it is not a logical way to look at these things. If you do have proof, however...



That is true. Most of the discussion has been surrounding the one photograph.



I think it's fair to say that I have lost a lot of respect for your country in recent years, it's true. And I say that as someone who used to cross over to Detroit once or twice a week. Now I refuse to go at all. If it weren't for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be Iran), it would be Guantanamo Bay, the removal of habeas corpus, the torture issue, the bombings of Somalian civilians, the way you treated Maher Arer, The Haditha massacre, Abu Graib, Bagram, Fallujah, and even little things, like the way you treat me and my family and friends when we try to enter your country just to go shopping. The list goes on and on. It may not seem like a lot to you, but it is... I'm not the only one who doesn't come knocking any more. Check out your tourism stats. I used to love the United States. Now? Not so much, it's true.

However, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about (though perhaps it touches on the original poster's question, so I'll leave it.) I called you on your statements because of the way you made them. That you are now producing, well, if not evidence, at least something to back your assertions, that is something that I can appreciate even if I don't agree with your conclusions. I'm glad you finally decided to come to this debate armed for the challenge. It was getting a bit too easy... I was about to give up.

However, since I haven't had a chance yet to look into the information you have provided, and won't for a couple of days, you will have to wait a bit before I get back to you on this.

I won't be emailing them to apologize, however, even if they are right... that's just silly. And sillier for you to keep demanding it of me.

@ghostwes

I told you that I needed time to gather information that was not suspect. I do not keep at my fingertips the sources of all the information that I have.



As far as knowing more than the CIA does; I imagine that I have now demonstrated that in keeping with your remark, that I do in fact know more than they do.

I guess my statements are not so ridiculous after all. So, are you breathing again? Oh yea you said you were not going to hold your breath so never mind.




I would appreciate it if you would produce anything other than third hand accounts that in any way back any of the assertions you have made. Being that I have shown you that I am in fact armed on this perhaps you would like to go home, order yourself a weapon and then return to this, This was not a debate, I was not trying to influence you to support my statement. I was stating well known facts. You were simply being dismissive of my statements.



Your right it would be silly for you to apologize to someone whom you have insinuated was a liar, or to apologize to them for having presented remarks that you obviously knew nothing about and whom you treated in a dismissive manor. I am not sure what information you would like to look into, were you considering contacting Ahmadinejad for a rebuttal? You do not have to email Mr. Hermening to apologize to him. I did not say you needed to I asked if you were comfortable facing him and repeating the assertions you made here. (From your response I gather you are not). You don’t need to check about that nor do you need to check with any third party as to wither or not he has altered his stance on this. You can just ask him yourself, directly. (He really does not care what you, I or anyone else thinks about this)

In fact here is William Daugherty (another of the hostages you seem to feel is mistaken) response as to how sure he is about it:

"When your country is being humiliated and being embarrassed, the individuals that do that really stick in your mind, you don't forget people who do things like that to you and your family and your country."

So I am not sure what you wish to look into over the next few days, perhaps you would like to confirm his email address?

You are right about this debate being too easy; you know nothing about the subject but want everyone to produce some kind of “proof” about their statements.

The next time I make a statement about a subject of this nature how about we set it up this way... Now that I have demonstrated FIRST HAND INFORMATION AND SOURCES about what I say, that unless you can demonstrate with FIRST HAND INFORMATION AND SOURCES, you might want to consider that I do know what I am talking about and not be so dismissive nor hold your breath waiting for me to produce evidence to his holiness and gain his blessing that I now oh so worthy of his approval..

The people whom I call upon for my information are those who were a part of the subject at hand. I do not bleat out information that is in the news as fact. I check with those involved first. Can you say the same about anything you have stated in this forum?

As for the trains running on time, I said that it was the campaign promise he made and keep, granted the work to make that happen was already done by the government he replaced and thus he did not deserve any credit for making it happen, just that it did happen. It in fact did occur, trains did run on time according to the posted time tables. Manipulated yes, and so on and so on.?
My source of that information? A gentleman named Bernie who was a British agent in WW2. What would he know about it? Not much, you see during the war itself he maintained his cover. His cover was as follows;

Bernie was a Nazi S.S. Colonel who was responsible for ensuring the timely transport of German soldiers in Italy.

I was introduced to him back in 1994 when I drove my secretary to the funeral of her aunt in New York City. Anna, my secretary, was well aware of my love of History covering the early 20th century and wanted to arrange a nice present for me. (I should mention I was dating her daughter and she was really pushing for it to workout. So much for evil mother in laws.) Well, what she did was make a big deal about going to the funeral and not being able to drive in the city and no one in the family could arrange to fetch her. The truth was, the aunt’s death was not sudden and everyone had already had an opportunity to say their goodbyes to her while she was still alive. The entire family knew I was coming and that the funeral was the opportunity to get me to close the office for the day and go with her to New York, meet members of the family... you get the idea.

Well, I had at onetime made a remark to her about wishing I could speak to someone who fought in the war who was neither a member of my family (I had family on both sides of the war), nor was a prisoner.

When we got there and the funeral was done and we all met at a family member’s house, as we were walking up onto the porch, she walked over to this very old man who was sitting in a rocking chair and smoking a cigar. “Uncle Bernie, this is my boss Michael that I mentioned to you.” He smiled and looked at me and said “ah, I have been told about you! Come inside, I want to show you something!” He got me a rather large glass of brandy and a cigar (a very good Nicaraguan one I might add). Lead me down into the basement and behind the stairs was a curtain blocking the view of the space under the stairs. He drew back the curtain and to revel what was there.

Now mind you Anna and her family were Jewish so you have to place that into this context.

In the space behind the stairs was a display case, the tall kind and in it was displayed the uniform of a Nazi S.S. officer. On the wall were several photographs (a really large amount about fifty or so I think, it was a large wall). As I looked at them I saw several faces that I recognized from history books and such. The common denominator was the S.S. officer in all of them.

It took me about thirty minutes or so ( I was so amazed at the photos) before I took a really close look at the man who was in all the photos, (The S.S. officer). I did talk to “Uncle Bernie” while I was doing this and asking him to confirm some of the people in the photos and to please if he could tell me who others were. In one photo in particular the S.S. Officer had a really big shit eating grin on his face and I happened to turn to Bernie to ask him something and that was when I noticed that big shit eating grin on his face. It took my brain awhile to accept that the man in front of me was that Nazi S.S. officer. (Remember Bernie is Jewish).

I just kept looking at him and back at the photos, I guess he got tired of looking at my mouth being wide open and said “Yes. That’s me” I noticed then that he was suddenly speaking with a German Accent when he said that.

He then spent the next five hours telling me about his adventures as a British agent serving in the Nazi S.S. in Italy during WW2.

He told me how he used the posted time table s to sabotage trains and other things related to the Italian railroad system.

I did ask him if he had ever met Hitler, he smiled and said “No, if I had we would not be sitting here now, I would be dead” He told me about a time when Hitler was supposed to be arriving at a base that he was at and he was to be in the formation to great him. He was ready to assonate Hitler upon his introduction but, for reasons he does not know, Hitler never arrived.

Now back to the point. According to Bernie, The trains did run like clockwork even during the war, not at 100% mind you but real close. He was there. I will take his word over that of what is posted online.

Oh wait, let me guess, you want me to prove that there were any Jews in the S.S. and unless I can you will doubt the veracity of this tale.

Anything else you would like to call me on?

I'm happy that someone else noticed that Tibet native population isn't restricted by "one child policy". Altough I pesonally belive that all commies should stay far away from goverment of any country, I must admit that ruling class of China is more or less trying to move into democratic direction.

I always like to compare China with India - India is fully democratic state - but there is still much of undemocratic behavior in India society - like "unworthy" cast or strong belive in magic.


As a person from Central Europe I have native fear/anger to anything that is communist, but I think that China regime has a fair chance to evolve to something that has fair amount of freedom (although not fully democratic - in western scale)

Someone have to say it - cold war, although morally evil, boosted the technological level of human kind. Personally I think that China is much less opressing regime than CCCP. Little "arm race", "moon race", "space exploration race" and "economic competition" between USA and China would be good for both states and whole world (of course if they don't nuke each other )

As always in life, you should speak from your own experiences only. If you speak outside that margin, you are making guesses and uninformed misinformation.

In my own experience, Democrats are the following:

Caring for all humans regardless of nationality, race, or gender.

Understanding of those who are less fortunate than the most successful of us.

Not bigoted, racist, sexist, or otherwise judgmental of other people. Respectful of ALL religions and do not push their own beliefs on others.

Kind, seeking to help others, compassionate, intelligent and understanding of the "larger" picture.

Able to think for themselves while listening to multiple sides of an argument, and coming to their own personal take on the issue without outside "coaching".

Understanding of the fact that we are not "entitled" to rule the world, nor even in
the current case where we're the most powerful force, expected to "police" the rest of the world. We are a global world of the same humanity, not a planet of nations controlled by the U.S.A. For the slow, this does not mean "we don't deserve to be a superpower". This simply means having an understanding that the proper way to use a superpower might is to sometimes act like you're the weakest on the planet. It's called "being humble".

Able to see common sense things- the impact of climate change, why the rest of the world hates Bush (and the United States currently), why there's no correlation to us being in Iraq and the fact we haven't had an attack on U.S. soil (please point to the "fact" that says it only takes terrorists 5 or 10 years to plan an attack? Thanks, didn't think so.) And how the Iraq war is a personal war for Bush Jr. because Saddam tried to assassinate his dad. Also, able to see that there was NO "Al Qaeda in Iraq" until we got there and started labeling people as such.


In my own experience, Warpublicans are the following:

Power hungry and elitist. The rich deserve to get richer, the poor are "lazy".
Uncaring for other people who are of other nations, followed by being uncaring for those within their own nation who are, again, "lazy" (meaning not rich).

Self-proclaimed patriots, whose militant stance and aggressive tactics are one of the primary reasons the world now hates us, when in fact we should be at our highest popularity following the 9/11 attacks. Under Democratic leadership (should have been Gore, as we all know) we would STILL be getting sympathy and cooperation from nearly ALL nations on the planet in taking action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan- because they could clearly see the truth behind the matter.

Commonly racist, commonly sexist, commonly bigoted. Often extremely Christian, and often FORCE their religion or religious beliefs onto others as if it is the "only" truth, and therefore the world MUST run in such a manner. Unable to understand that there is not ONE definition of morality- different people can have different morals, so while a Warpublican finds nudity to be amazingly horrible, another person might actually find nudity to be completely acceptable. The difference is, the Warpublican doesn't understand that they don't have the "authority" to proclaim their morality the "definitive" one.

Narrow sighted, with extreme lack of logic skills, and unjustifiably arrogant.

Entitled, braggarts, and look down upon others.

Unwilling to help those who don't "deserve it" based on their own narrow world vision.

Warmongerers- believe diplomacy is a failure first and foremost, and that the only way to get someone to listen is to attack them first.




Just to wrap up, I'd like to point out that I catch about 5-10 minutes of Rush and Sean Hannity per day- and listen, even as a Democrat. See, I understand listening to other viewpoints is what confirms my own beliefs. I hear the flawed logic, the incorrect leaps of "intellect", and the flatly false statements and it reaffirms my understanding on matters. And I occasionally learn things- like, for instance, Rush Limbaugh always makes childish names for anyone or anything Democratic, so I borrowed this concept from him several years back and renamed his party the "Warpublicans"- because it most assuredly fits them as they current stand.

Don't agree with my take? Here's my own personal experience- remember, if you're not speaking from your own personal experience, it's meaningless.

I have been unemployed 5 1/2 years now due to a combination of suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the poor job market.

My Democratic friends understand the severity of my disease and see how many other people are out of work and unable to find work currently- even those perfectly healthy and capable of taking any job whatsoever. My Warpublican friends do not believe GAD is a disease, and that I simply have "regular stress". Therefore, they believe I should have no problem getting a job at McDonald's. If you try to tell them there are no jobs at McDonald's, because all of the out of work adults have already taken them, they refuse to acknowledge this fact. They point at flawed graphs of "high employment levels", and stare dumbfounded when you point out that those graphs don't take into account people whose unemployment benefits have run out for. They refuse to see there are FAR fewer jobs now than there were in the 90's.

Due to having no income, I get my medical care from community health. During elections, our state Warpublican politician visited the Middle School the center is housed in, and told their staff that their facility was "a luxury". I certainly wonder how he thinks my only source of health care is "a luxury", but then again, Democrats would never see it as such a thing.

My Warpublican friends think that such an extended period of unemployment is my fault, and that if I can't find work where I live, I need to move to where the jobs are. "It doesn't matter if you would be miserable in Texas, you have to move there." They also ignore the fact that most people cannot afford to move under any circumstances. The same Warpublicans see it as me simply be lazy- they refuse to look beyond anything but my current situation and label me so. My Democratic friends look at my whole story- at the 8 years I worked 7 days a week, 12-24 hours a day and realize that "laziness" isn't part of my professional lifestyle. They understand that bad things happen to good people that prevent them from having money- like a former employer going bankrupt and not paying your salary for a half year, thus ruining your credit. Or having no medical insurance and needing surgery to remove your gall bladder. These Democrats understand that the system is broken, and that you're automatically declined for disability and that over 3 years later you're still waiting for a trial date.

The Warpublicans I know judge, use weak logic, and since nothing is wrong in their lives, judge you with all sorts of insulting drivel.

The Democrats I know are supportive, understanding, and the only reason I ever think there is still hope in this world for any of us.

These are the things I know to be true.

Druid Blue, I would like to say how I disagree with what you say. You make it seem that the democrats are a bunch of angles, and saints. And the Republicans are a buch of racist, war hungry, power hungry nut jobs. Even though you said you are talking from personal experiance, it seems like you have a vendneta against republicans. this may seem a little weird, but maybe the demorcrats are just trying to look good so they can gain votes, and trying to beat the republicnas how have been beating from getting the presditancy, even though Gerorg W.Bush is one of the most unpopluar presidents ever. Kind of tells you how the Demorcrats cant seem to seize the advantage even though it is right in front of them.

Sorry, my netname is Druidblue (not two words). Pet peeve of mine.

There are always exceptions, that's common sense. And I've never said Democrats are "angles" (Angels). There's bad apples in every bunch- and the far left is just as embarrassing to the rest of us Democrats as the Religious Extremists are to the right. I'm sure I could meet a Warpublican with the kind traits I've listed above. You know, with the Democratic traits. Still, this type of person is likely to be Warpublican because of things like being pro-life, which is a religious stance and therefore forcing their own religious views upon others, or being for tax cuts that help the wealthy, and will still refuse to see the truth when all the facts are planted in their face. (They just go out of their way to make their own, as per Rush, Sean and "Mann" Coulter.)

I certainly don't have a vendetta against Warpublicans- my sister is one, and one of our closest friends of the family is one. Of course, neither of them have any way to answer questions with facts or good answers when pressed. They need to hear what Rush or Sean told them to say first.

I know many different people, and while the majority are Democratic, at least 1/2 of the Warpublicans I know are so sick of their own party it's laughable. Combine that with how popular Obama is (he's obviously going to be the nominee), and the laughable attempts to bring him down with meaningless crap like his "pastor controversy" (completley irrelevant to the majority of the population) mean the Warpublicans, with their weak candidate, have a large uphill climb to try to win. You'll see record Democratic turnout this fall- and you'll see record Warpublican voting FOR Obama as well.

And hey, just like in 2004- you never know what will happen- maybe McCain will win and keep us on our current track (heading for a break in bridge up ahead with a long fall below)... you never know. But I do know that just like in 2004, if McCain wins, the rest of the world is going to shake their collective heads and our "superpower" status will sink another 30 degrees into oblivion.

At my age, I can just shake my head and be sad about it, but the real damages will be visible for our kids and their grandkids, who will be learning about what took place in the aughts and say, "How could they not see how wrong they were?"

Thank you for claryfing Druidblue. Sorry for being mean, but being a republican and a supporter for the Iraq war I often find my self at odds with my friend(how is a demorcrat), and at school how are mostly all Obama fans. Also sorry for my spelling errors, I really dont care unless it is something really glaring and makes me look stupid. You are correct that there are some Republicans that I dont like, and some Democrats I do like (like Hillary Clintion). But let me state that I think Mccain is a great choice for president. The only problem is how I would vote for (if I could) if Hillary and McCain were runnig againt each other.

I am a democrat and supporter of Hillary Clinton. I hear what you’re saying about being at odds with most people.

The big problem that has caused people to abandon supporting the war effort are mostly (in my opinion) due to the gross incompetence of the Bush administration in handling the occupation along with the fact that it has been shown he lied to us about why we needed to go in.

And that is a real shame cause there were oh so many legitimate reasons to do it, they did not have to make up lies.

t looks like we will not have to choose between McCain and Clinton this fall, sadly it looks like Obama is going to get the nomination; this could end up being the first time in my life that I will be voting for a republican for president.

I highly doubt the US will fall to second anytime soon unless hillary is elected in that case were SCREWED!!!!!!!!! And if america does fall Texas will leave and take Americas place. God bless Texas!

You may still get your wish and get Hillary. All she has to do is convince the super delegates to vote her way and despite the will of the people she wins. Sounds like democracy to me.

Just because the majority wants it does not mean it is a good idea. Dont forget that Hitler used the demacratic process, and the will of the people wanted him to lead germany.

ouch, thats sounds like a remark I would have made...

Yer treading on thin ice there pretty boy.. stealing my thunder and all that!   

Super delegates are perfectly legal and a political party has every right in the world to pick whatever candidate they want regardless of who the people choose. However if I voted in a primary for candidate "A" and then candidate "A" wins the nomination but then candidate "B" convinces the party to pick them anyway. I would feel betrayed by that party. Why come out to vote in the first place if my vote doesn't mean anything?

Fair enough. I didn't mind waiting... it appears you did, though.



Haha! Hardly... but thanks for the laugh.



In fact, I almost did become asphyxiated, after repeated bouts of laughing out loud. Thank you for your concern. I'm OK now.



But these are not well-known facts. These aren't even facts at all. Hence my concern. I was indeed being dismissive of your statements, just as they deserved.

Since, however, you have provided some information for me to look at, which I do appreciate. I did look into the names you gave me. There's a good interview here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8430780/

I don't think it's quite as conclusive as you make it out to be, mind you, but it certainly is interesting. I cannot prove that he was not involved (and should not be asked to), nor can you prove that he was, so I suggest on this one we call it a draw. It's just too inconclusive to say... for the moment, at least.



You really are being silly about this. I already told you this was the first I had heard of them... you cannot reasonably accuse me of these things. You raise some good points, and are sometimes a worthy debater, and then you go and say stupid things like this. You really should be above this kind of thing, I think.



I'm meeting him for golf next week. Can it wait until then?

I would like to correct something I said earlier, however. I said that "the hostages" say that it was not him. That was incorrect. I should have said "some of the hostages say that it was not him". An important distinction, especially given the information you have provided.



Haha, funny. Seriously, I think I know a lot more about these things than you do, actually. I mean, really... in another thread you are now saying that all the current Arab governments are all Nazis, because they are descended from the Mufti or some such. Laughable. I see now that there isn't much point debating this stuff with you... you're just not in the right mind.



I concede the point only on the names I was not aware of. Which really isn't that much, so get over yourself. It still doesn't prove that Ahmadinejad was involved.

And think how much easier it would have been if you had simply stated these things upfront when I asked you, instead of being silly about it all.

And yes, you may have my blessing now, child.



So you've actually talked to those guys, then, have you?



That was awesome! You should write GalCiv2 AAR's, mna. You obviously have a talent for writing great fiction. I especially like the attention to details (a Nicaraguan cigar -- nice!)

Seriously, do you really expect anybody to believe that story? Come on...



I don't care what your imaginary friend tells you, Pony. Mine tells me your head is on backwards.



No, that won't be necessary. I'm quite confident that you are completely full of it on this one. But you did make me laugh out loud for several minutes, and I appreciate that.



No, I think we're done here. Haha. No way I can compete with that fabulous story. You win.