Talk:Mehmet Ali Ağca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patsy[edit]

Is it safe to assume this man was in the end no more than a patsy, "a middle man" to do bidding for those who wielded the true power, whether that was KGB in the east or possibly CIA in the west, or maybe some unholy mix of both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact this is a case which quite well lends itself to the Lone Nut Theory. It beggars belief that the CIA would try to assassinate such a useful ally, and it is preposterous to to suggest they would collaborate with the KGB!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

The following sentence does not make sense: "Ağca had been sentenced to life in prison for the murder, which amounts to 36 years under Turkish law. He had served less than six months in Turkish prison before he escaped." Did he escape or was he released?

He escaped with possible help from Turkish Gladio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.249.222 (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there talk of some relationship with Turkish Grey Wolves?-- Error

what is a "panic bomb"? I think that part should be rewritten.

documents turned up today show an involvement of KGB and GDR into the assasination (German news website)

This BBC link also points to an article that points the finger to the Soviets. This article also considers Agca's claim to have been hired by Bulgarians to be somewhat truthful, and saying that Agca's rantings into court about being Jesus could be simply Agca acting as a fool under orders. --Bash 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Ağca fired two shots at the Pope', I thought the Pope was hit by 4 bullets. I can't check this in a short time. Thijs 01-04-05 Agca claimed in an interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica (March 31) that "Without the help of priests and cardinals, I would have not been able to carry out that action" http://www.repubblica.it/2005/c/sezioni/esteri/papa4/nuovagca/nuovagca.html --83.148.73.5 08:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a new Repubblica article about the assassination English translation. Maybe someone can merge some of the details to the Agca article. 63.202.80.51 07:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ending of this piece sounds too sentimental, and in poor English. I suggest cleaning up things a bit.

Yeah - I went ahead and deleted it, as it didn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the article.--Lews 22:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seem like there will be a follow up. [2] 142.51.21.41 20:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm usually a great fan of Wikipedia, but, with all due respect, some of the problems with this article lie in its extremely light as well as selective sourcing, its repetition of "facts" that are not facts, having been thoroughly debunked elsewhere (see, for example, the analysis by Noam Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent,") and it's slapdash coverage of the Agca biography. Surely you folks can do better than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.223.248 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give details. This is a collaborative project, not created by any particular "folks".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Seems to me that a complete Rewrite will be in order once these documents are released

SOFIA (bnn)- Bulgaria on Thursday said it was ready to publish the whole 1982-1985 correspondence between its Communist Committee on State Security and East German spy agency of STASI related to the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II TDC 17:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mehmet Ali Ağca is requesting upto 1 Million Euros for reportages.

English & other langages[edit]

Wikilinks to other langages should not be deleted. If it is possible to make such links, it is because it is an official Wikipolicy to do so. It is lot better to have a foreign Wiki entry than a "red" entry, which, when - and if - created, may forget to see the original langage Wiki entry. It is also a form of encouragement to translate these already existent Wiki entries in English. External links in foreign languages are also acceptable: a lot of us are multi-lingual, and loads of people here are not natives English-speaking persons. Beside, loads of sources haven't been translated in English. Should we disallow an ANSA cable concerning mafia or the Pope's assassination just because it is... in Italian? English is an international language, for the better & the worse... Tazmaniacs 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing needed[edit]

Discussion of conspiracy claims should be in the relevant section, not scattered throughout the article. The problem at the moment is that much of the rest of the article (such as the attempt on the Pope) is threadbare without it.--Jack Upland 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've since done some editing. I note Tazmaniacs reverted my deletion of 2 quotations. I believe they are redundant and in the case of the former Turkish justice minister obsolete (Agca is no longer free, so any debate/speculation on this is now irrelevant). Because of the rather repetitive nature of the article, users should read it in full before adding info.
Perhaps the article could be improved by starting with the incident in St Peter's square and then discussing any investigations, allegations, and revelations that followed. Otherwise the article is inevitably repetitive and/or biased to one version of events.--Jack Upland 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation of the former Turkish justice minister is not obsolete. Agca's temporary liberation still is unclear. Mehmet Ali Agca is an obscure personage, there's not much to say about him apart of his various activities. Tazmaniacs
I don't really understand you. If Agca is re-released no doubt there will be further reaction that Wikipedia can document. It is simply confusing to the non-initiated reader as it stands. And how is Agca's obscurity relevant? If anything, it makes the current structure more inappropriate.--Jack Upland 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Agca be rereleased? Anyway, these is the future. You just say it is obsolete. Why? Because he's returned back to prison? But the point of the quote is simply in showing that there was a bit of a misunderstanding inside the Turkish authorities about Agca's release. Why did he get released in the first place? For the sake of NPOV, you can't just let his lawyer's explanation and delete the Turkish justice minister's surprised statement. Tazmaniacs
What i mean about Agca's obscurity is that your "conspiracy claims" as you call them are just about all there is to say about this man. He tried to shoot the Pope, the CIA blamed it on the Bulgarian connection, these one denied it. Interestingly enough, he is a member of the Grey Wolves, who have been known to work hand-in-hand with Counter-Guerrilla. That's it. It's not a conspiracy, it's basic observation of facts. Tazmaniacs
Except for the inconvenient conclusion of the Italian Parliamentary Investigation, that is [3]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which in turns conveniently ignores the Pope's May 2002 comment. This parliamentary report revives a theory which is more than 20 years old. Nothing new. Tazmaniacs
  • I think you misunderstand my point. I am not here using 'conspiracy' in a disparaging way. Of course there was a 'conspiracy' (i.e. an agreement to commit a criminal act - Agca had at least one accomplice). The problem is that the article as it stands doesn't even give details of the Pope's injury - it jumps straight into speculation about who was involved. At the moment, the account of the assassination attempt backs the Bulgarian theory - which was undermined by the not guilty verdict of the supposed Bulgarian agent (forget the Pope's comment!). I merely propose that the uncontroversial facts be stated - however bare these are - and then the conspiracy theories can be discussed.
  • On the early release, I think again we are at cross purposes. My point was that the reportage hadn't taken account of Agca's rearrest. No, the defence lawyer isn't the best one to quote. It would be better to give an official source - though I think the defence lawyer's explanation is the official one. But the overriding point is this is now a past incident, which I could be summarised as: Agca was controversially granted parole, but this was promptly withdrawn. We not writing a blow-by-blow account.--Jack Upland 00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His release was obviously a blunder. It will be difficult to find the "official" reason, since the officials themselves were divised. Why was it decided to release him? News cables didn't make it clear. The argument was that his years in Italy counted as if he had done them in Turkey. But that's obviously a pretext, and was afterward reversed. So, why was he released, to be put back in jail? Behind juridical reasons, there is obviously something political going on. Someone somewhere must have proposed to release him, and this move failed. I can see no other explanation for this blunder. This is why, although I agree with you on the dangers of transforming Wikipedia in a "blow by blow account", I think some details should be provided about this strange temporary release. Tazmaniacs 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tazmaniacs its well established now that Agca had no connections or membership to the "Grey Wolves", I looked for verifiable source's of evidence to this membership but it seems invented and a mere cover-up story created by the Soviet forces. As the Grey Wolf were bitter enemies of Communist's its a clear indication of the blame and set up game, Soviet's carry out the work and dish the dirty work on another millitant group.

The recent Itallian Comission clearly stated that Agca was a Hitman used by Soviet Agencies to quell the Polish Pope who was spurring a religous awakening in Eastern Europe, obviously a big fear of the Soviets.

There is a very strong Soviet link, the link to the other organisation has many holes and question marks and the more its examined the more unlikely it appears.

Its better we clear this post up a bit. Johnstevens5

Even if you are personally committed to the Soviet theory you shouldn't censor any other opinions. The fact is Agca also shot an leftwing journalist - how does that fit with your 'no loose ends' approach??--Jack Upland 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, killing among left wing/communist activists is more than common, look at all the purges and the fate of the socialists from Western Europe who found "refuge" in the Soviet Union. Also, the role of Mr. Putin (he was responsible for the cover up, as boss of the KGB in East Germany), and Mr. Gorbatchew (he, as member of the politbureau, approved the assassination) should be mentioned.

Book[edit]

The article claims in the interview he was said to be writing a book to be released later in 2005. Any news on what happened to this book? Or was the whole interview denied? Nil Einne 17:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syria[edit]

Is the training in Syria substantiated? Or is it on the same level as his claimed connection to PFLP??--Jack Upland 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA/Nato/Gladio[edit]

There should be some indication of the motive for this alleged conspiracy. While Agca's involvement in rightwing circles does undermine the Bulgarian theory, it doesn't support an obvious alternative.--Jack Upland 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to old president of Turkey Kenan Evren who makes the military coup, Turkey rejects to build a Gladio in Turkey. That is a communist theory but it doesnt proved. Ruzgar 21:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to former prime minister Bulent Ecevit, he learnt of its existence in 1973, while the US State Dept has recognized the existence of Gladio. Tazmaniacs 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US claims don't prove it. Turkish goverments always reject to build gladio.Ruzgar 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bülent Ecevit(he is a socialist and describe mhp as a faschist organisation) played an activ role in 1970's communist-nationalist crise. He always said grey wolves is a organisation supported from USA. But he never proved it. If Grey Wolves supported from USA why generals who make military coup(that is a coup supported from USA[our boys did it]) hang the greywolves supporters. Ruzgar 03:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your theories, but don't censor other peoples!--Jack Upland 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no one has actually answered my original point!--Jack Upland 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliation[edit]

What religion is/was Agca at the time of the shooting? I'm amazed that's not mentioned in the entire text of the article.

I wish I could say this with authority (documentation; sources), but, despite my failure, I still think I remember hearing that Agca at one time said that he believed he himself was Jesus Christ, which might make him an autotheist, although it still does not clarify whether he was doing so from a Christian, Muslim, or other perspective, as many religious traditions hold Christ in high regard. Shanoman 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Agca's claim. I think this is evidence for insanity (or feigned insanity), not religious belief as such. He also made references to the Fatima Prophecies which indicates that he was thinking in terms of Christianity (Catholic), but this doesn't necessarily mean he saw himself as Christian, as it is part of an obsession with the Pope.--Jack Upland 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

Please update this section. Agca asked to be released from jail to meet with Benedict XVI in Turkey. When Benedic XVI was in Turkey, Agca changed his mid and does not wanted to meet the pope any more. Further more, he described Benedic XVI as “poor guy”. His laywer reported he said that Benedict XVI his a nazi that “encourages the people to be opposed the ones to the others". (free translation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.37.62.58 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure if this section should even be included, except that Agca's claims of inside knowledge are somewhat significant.--Jack Upland 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity[edit]

There's a distinct possibility that Agca is insane. He continues to make bizarre statements. Do we need to keep documenting them here??? Additionally, isn't this a simple explanation for the assassination attempt against the Pope? Much of the article attempts to construct a rational analysis of his rantings. Is this really necessary?--Jack Upland 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of insanity as he proclaims himself to be Christ on release.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive deletion[edit]

Before engaging in such edits, you might try to ask what others users think about it. I will take now the trouble to see your complaints & take them into account, as is the normal way to proceed here. Tazmaniacs 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacepa is not a reliable source concerning the Mitrokhin Commission. This thing happened in Italy, and there has been some little problems with this commission, starting with Mario Scaramella and current investigations. I've replaced the other stuff. For further arguing, I think we're better off on the Italian Mitrokhin Commission article where Pacepa's comments might be "interesting" to cite. Tazmaniacs 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent adits[edit]

  • Motivations and the “Bulgarian Connection”

Most evidence to date points to the Soviets involvement in the assassination attempt. Andropov ordered the hit because he was convinced of an Anglo-German conspiracy that elected JP2 in order to break Soviet hegemony on the largely catholic East Block. Although some still cling to the theory that the CIA did it as a “false flag” attack, the vast majority of reliable sources disagree with this. WP:WEIGHT would suggest that while there are still a few notable individuals who agree with the false flag version, they are so far in the minority of opinion that the false flag version gives their POV way too much ink. I would also add that most of this crew, Herman, Parenti, Goodman, have all been pretty quiet on this subject since the revelations of the past 5 years. I would also add that Agca’s contradictory statements on Bulgaria’s involvement are no longer relevant, considering the revelations from East Block intelligence archives.

  • Removal of “A Vatican connection?”

The section consists of nothing more than allegations Agca made while in custody, comments he later recanted. I don’t see the need for an entire section on this. I have trimmed it down to one sentence in the main body of the article.

  • The Mitrokhin Commission's claims

The removal of much of the information in this section should be self explanatory. First, all the information exists “verbatim” in the parent article. Secondly, much of the information is well poisoning (things like Scaramella arrest, possibly politically motivated as well). Information about what the commissions has said about Prodi, Imam Rapito, Jean-Louis Bruguière charges related to the Ruwandan Genocide, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article, and constitute a forking of the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find some better information about what happenned with the Italian Mitrokhin Commission and stop claiming you know the truth on a mystery that no one has ever resolved and that probably never will. Don't remove what you dislike for personal reasons, and try to engage in honest negotiations, it will be easier for everybody. Thank you very much for your help. Tazmaniacs 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The odus is on you to present "better information" if you want the material kept in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think various theories should be presented if they're well documented. You don't deal with the possibility that Agca is simply insane. The fact that he made many strange claims is significant, particularly as the Bulgarian theorists often cite him as a reliable witness.--Jack Upland 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it illuminating as a new comer to this page the entire wiki peddles this CIA fantasy, but no mention of the Soviet connection at all until the end when it is remarked as an orphan as part of a work of fiction by Tom Clancy. Is the CIA conspiracy theory so weak that it can not withstand a challenge by the massive amount of information explaining USSR involvement? Woodeye18 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What/who is/are DS?[edit]

It says:
Ali Agca had made several trips to Sofia, Bulgaria, and stayed in a hotel favored by the Bulgarian (DS)
Pls. explain. Thanks. --Ben T/C 10:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Bulgarian secret police.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main article on assassination[edit]

I've moved a lot of text into 1981 Pope John Paul II assassination attempt. What the current article needs is a good summary. Intangible2.0 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the whole of this article be moved into and merged with the 1981 Pope John Paul II assassination attempt? I think it may help make improvement to this page, and remove danger of libel. Felixthehamster (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

There are several Turkish articles from 2006 here, which you might want to cite:

  • Bayer, Yalçın (2006-01-24). "Gizli eller". Hürriyet (in Turkish). Retrieved 2009-01-03. (this articles names a lot of names)

Latest book mentions[edit]

I have found that he was mentioned in "The Third Revelation" By Ralph McInerny. I want ahead and added this to the article.CaraElaine512 (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

He never converted to Catholicism, so why does Wikipedia continue to list him in "Converts from Islam to Christianity - Catholicism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.167.158 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Why do you THINK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:752C:97BA:766A:31A2 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just cut the crap and tell it as it is?[edit]

this is a kid indoctrinated by Grey Wolves into hate crimes; just like any ultra-nationalist organization. the crap about sleeper agents and the soviets sending rays to his brain are crap for the movies. all this is sources supported; his lies after being arrested won't cut it. --Leladax (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to cover all opinions. I agree the Soviet theory is dubious, but it is widely held, especially in the West. If you have sources for the Grey Wolves theory that are not in the article, please provide them.
The problem with the Grey Wolves theory is that there is plenty of evidence the Agca was a member but there is little or no evidence that they plotted the murder of the Pope and no indication of a motive. The possible CIA/Nato subplot clouds rather than clears up the issue of why. The Grey Wolves were broadly aligned with the anti-Communist side in the Cold War and as such were (distant) allies of the Pope who had came out as a standard-bearer against the Soviet Bloc, particularly over Poland. As to religious motives, the Grey Wolves are not Islamists and are officially inclined to a revival of shamanism (like the Nazis and Germanic paganism). No, they are not Christian, but I don't see that they have any particular hatred of them.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is ample evidence that Grey Wolves are a neo fascist group [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] accused of terrorism [8][9][10] and we're talking about a bunch of people around the pope in a public place with no protection whatsoever those years, it didn't need organization; just fanaticism and craziness. --Leladax (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But fascists and fanatics are selective with their targets. Their hatred may be "crazy" but it is not unfocussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Political Terrorism, by Alex Peter Schmid, A. J. Jongman, Michael Stohl, Transaction Publishers, 2005p. 674
  2. ^ Annual of Power and Conflict, ‎by Institute for the Study of Conflict, National Strategy Information Center, 1982, p. 148
  3. ^ The Nature of Fascism, by Roger Griffin, Routledge, 1993, p. 171
  4. ^ Political Parties and Terrorist Groups, by Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur, Arie Perliger, Routledge, 2003, p. 154
  5. ^ The Inner Sea: The Mediterranean and Its People, by Robert Fox, 1991, p. 260
  6. ^ http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story33.html
  7. ^ [1]
  8. ^ Political Terrorism, by Alex Peter Schmid, A. J. Jongman, Michael Stohl, Transaction Publishers, 2005p. 674
  9. ^ The Nature of Fascism, by Roger Griffin, Routledge, 1993, p. 171
  10. ^ Political Parties and Terrorist Groups, by Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur, Arie Perliger, Routledge, 2003, p. 154

Lemme put it like this if someone named Mehmet commits a terrorist act what do you THINK his motivation was? Especially trying to kill the pope, the face of the kafir religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:752C:97BA:766A:31A2 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy[edit]

The article says he claims he is Jewish, so why is he listened under "Turkish former Muslims", "Converts to Christianity from Islam", and "Converts to Roman Catholicism from Islam"? What religion is he?70.187.179.139 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, he has made many weird claims about religion. I don't think Wikipedia should endorse any of them.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mehmet Ali Ağca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mehmet Ali Ağca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mehmet Ali Ağca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement about medical condition[edit]

This statement by 76.247.46.79 does not include a source. Does anybody know if an already made reference contains this information? Ελλίντερεστ (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on Iran[edit]

It seems that the Iran connection is given too much weight considering how often he has changed his story. I don't know for sure if he was Sunni or Shia but it seems more likely that he is Sunni (like the Grey Wolves) while Iran theocracy is Shia. This makes the Iran claim sound rather dubious. Óli Gneisti (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of missing girl[edit]

Emanuela Orlandi may have been one of this guy’s victims, as per his organization. When the case is reviewed will the Pope recall his pardon? And why or how was the terrorist cell in V city?35.140.129.253 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nummer of bullets[edit]

the article mentions four bullets. The German version three and references the news outlet "Der Spiegel". Perhaps someone could clarify that. Tanks! 2001:A62:1AE2:C601:9901:9773:B6E6:C036 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mehmet_Ali_Ağca&oldid=1208694850"