Talk:Shahram Amiri

Video links needed

I think it would be helpful if there were links to all 3 videos -- #1 and #3 released by Iran, and #2 which was allegedly self-released on youtube. The current youtube link in the external links section has professional commentary (non-English), which means it's not the self-released video.

There also seems to be some confusion in the press about scripts. The BBC news story includes comments suggesting video #2 was scripted, and ABC News suggests that video #1 is scripted. Thundermaker (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed some links, but it wasnt sure which ti put in [1]. Go ahead and see if one is better than the other. We can always add the videos with the caveats you suggested above.Lihaas (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Thundermaker and Lihaas: You might want to consider to use Template:External media, as is done here (see gray frame on the left-hand side) on the Persian language Wikipedia-version of this article. It links to the following 5 videos on YouTube (I have inserted the Google-translated descriptions of those links as appearing on the mentioned Persian language Wikipedia page):

• The first video (TV, Iran)
• Second video
• The third video
• The fourth video
• Press conference at the airport

This Template:External media is inserted in the section "Video messages" (Google-translated), and within this section, the first two videos are discussed in a separate sub-section each, while the third and fourth videos are combined into one single separate sub-section. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC))

Disappearance section

I changes the subject from "In the United States" which was changed from "Kidnapping" because we don't know what happened in the interim till he was found. The Tucson video seems dodgy too. When the investigation/sources come we can come out with a better heading.Lihaas (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange behavior for the CIA

This is OR on my part, I'm hoping somebody has seen this issue discussed by reliable sources...

It seems that since Amiri had his alleged change of heart, the CIA has been attempting to "out" him as much as possible. First they said they received valuable information from him as a defector. Now they're saying he was working with them even before that, which would make him a spy, even worse than a defector.

Normally the CIA protects their information sources. I don't understand this strategy. Normally the sources don't publicly accuse them of kidnapping, but potential death is a pretty harsh punishment for changing your mind about defection.

At a minimum, we should cover the new allegations the CIA is making. But what I'd really like to have is some well-sourced analysis. Are the blogs talking about this at all? Thundermaker (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The same coontroversy was asked by reporters at the State Dept [2], it also related to July 2010 Zahedan bombings (see the page i added something about this on that page -- quote is interesting too) condemnations. Do you want to add somethign with your source and this? If you want to go ahead, otherwise ill word something about it.

The reporter asked the same things your asking: "QUESTION: Well, you’re expressing concern about Iranian civilians at one hand, and then on the other hand, you seem to be for – not using very diplomatic terms, trying to screw someone who screwed you guys. So what’s the deal here?" + "QUESTION: Are you at all concerned that these press reports that Matt’s citing are putting his life in danger or his – in Tehran? " / "MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, during this entire period of time, Mr. Amiri acted, made decisions on his own. Whether those decisions have put the – his life in danger or those of his family and friends, I can’t say." + "QUESTION: Well, wait a second. The consequences of his actions you might not be able to predict, but don’t you think that it’s more likely that he’s going to face some kind of punishment, whatever it is, in Iran now that people are coming out and talking about what his role was?" + the clincher "QUESTION: Is this intended to be some kind of a – are you getting – trying to get rid of this program whereby you encourage defectors to come over? Because you’re doing a – seems like you’re doing a pretty good job of it by – not you personally, but the Administration is doing a pretty good job of sabotaging its own program. Or it’s sending a warning to other people who might be part of the program who are here and that they should not, because if they decide to return on their own free will, you guys are going to blow the whistle and make it more difficult for them to live."

Theres more hocus-pocus: [3] [4] --> getting murky: [5] Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Good questions, but the State Department transcript doesn't even say who's asking. And it probably wasn't the State Department who leaked the allegations about Amiri cooperating with the US over several years anyway. The Q&A is mentioned here. But Crowley's response is more of a non-answer, shedding absolutely no light on the motivation for the outing. Given that the question was at least covered, we could insert it into the article. But without some kind of answer, not even a blogger's theory, I don't think it adds any value. Thundermaker (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Death

He's executed as it seems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.178.76.25 (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)