Fun in the ME #1624385: Israel 'could kidnap Ahmadinejad'

[Elok]

Hey, at least he didn't suggest nuking Mecca, the way certain other folks have. There's stupid and STUPID.

[rah]

Actually If Bush was saying the same things about IRAN, they'd be with in their right to take him out in my opinion. If Ahmadinejad was babbling that he was going to nuke the US. I'm sure we wouldn't sit back and say, "since he's just talking about it and not actually doing it, that's ok" Look at IRAQ, we needed a lot less to go into there. (not an editorial comment)

I didn't say it was a great idea, I just thought it would be entertaining, and I did preface it with IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT UNDISCOVERED. (note the thread title is fun in the middle east) So Iran would not know who to retaliate against. Heck they already want Isreal eliminated from the face of the earth so I doubt they could come up with something worse.

And whatever you say, those two countries are already enemies. And I never tossed the word nuke around. I just suggested that a mad dog be made to dissappear.

[GePap]

Ah, so now you advocate kidnapping and murdering foreign leaders. Even better.

Last time I looked, Israel and Iran are not in a state of war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Bush was saying the same things about IRAN, they'd be with in their right to take him out in my opinion.

Um... isn't he basically doing so? Just in a bit more diplomatic manner.

[rah]

The precedence has already ben set as far as I'm concerned with Sadam. Despite the facade of a capture and trial he was kidnapped and murdered.
And if IRAN was threatening the total destruction of the US in every speach he made, whether there was a state of war or not wouldn't matter because it would change quickly. And if you think the US wasn't trying to assasinate Sadam prior....................

And personally I don't have a problem with assisinations of heads of state. If they're supporting their countries in acts of aggression, and they're considered commander and chief then they should be taking the same risk as the soldiers they send into war. Maybe if they took the same risk, they might be a bit more hesitant about going to war.

And I think funding the terrorists that attack Isreal is an act of war.

[rah]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If Bush was saying the same things about IRAN, they'd be with in their right to take him out in my opinion.

Um... isn't he basically doing so? Just in a bit more diplomatic manner.

Well yeah , he not raving that IRAN should be nuked off the face of the planet. I think that's a big difference.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Elok
They seem to be confusing Ahmadinejad with someone who has actual power.

this is false.

while he is not grand leader, ahmedinejad has alot of supporters and represents a valid, growing movement whose sympathisers in government are increasing.

that is not to say he can single handedly order an attack.
no one can.

but ahmedinejad certainly has enough of a lobby to govern, and has a large lobby in the relevant defense institutions.

in short, his effect in Tehran, while not all powerful, is still powerful enough to bring damage to Israel and Israeli intersts, and increase the Iranian threat on Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Last time I looked, Israel and Iran are not in a state of war.

Uh, we're in a state of proxy war / cold war.
we do not have a peace agreement.
we do not have a cease fire agreement.
we keep threatening each other.

Iran is financing, training and often directing all of Israel's enemies:

- Iran is a huge financier of Syria and supplies it with arms
- Iran is Hezbullah and Hezbullah is an Iranian proxy.
- Iran is almost entirely in control of the PIJ
- Iran finances and trains Hamas, Fatah, and even PFLP terrorists

[rah]

Does anyone think that the terrorist groups wouldn't kill government leaders if they could. I doubt they subscribe to President Fords 1976 directive.

[Sirotnikov]

Btw this statement is quite laughable.

Mr. Eitan is the representative of the pensioners' party.
While he is a glorious Mossad retiree, he has zero effect on Israeli defence policy, and is not part of the actual decision taking cabinet (the prime minister, defense minister, foreign minister).

He is an old geezer that made this statement to feel young and hip again. You guys shouldn't give it anymore credence than to a WWII veteran who speaks on TV.
While Eitan is some sort of minister in the "old's people department" or what not, he has exactly zilch effect on defense policy.

The wider government is usually a rubber stamp and mostly support what ever decision the small cabinet has decided on.

Eitan wanted to feel hip, and he probably thought this would give the Mossad some scary aura, and freak the Iranians. And it did, so it's kinda funny.

The time of public stunts like Eichman is long gone. Mossad's best work is done in the shadows, where you don't know anything has been done

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by onodera
Kidnapping Ahmadinnerjacket would be a bad idea. Israel would start a war by that, and not just with Iran, with the whole Muslim Middle East.

This is a misconception.

Ahmedinejad personally, and Iran in general, is fiercly hated by most ME countries.

If we attack, Hezbullah would be the only trouble maker.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
while he is not grand leader, ahmedinejad has alot of supporters and represents a valid, growing movement whose sympathisers in government are increasing.

that is not to say he can single handedly order an attack.
no one can.

but ahmedinejad certainly has enough of a lobby to govern, and has a large lobby in the relevant defense institutions.

in short, his effect in Tehran, while not all powerful, is still powerful enough to bring damage to Israel and Israeli intersts, and increase the Iranian threat on Israel.

Ooh, he has lobbies. Hell, Israel has AIPAC and a bunch of crazy-ass evangelicals who think they're bringing on the second coming by supporting the Jews, but that doesn't make Israel a danger to Iran. This bozo's job is to rabble-rouse and draw hatred and attention that would otherwise go to the Ayatollah. I don't see why Israelis haven't learned by now to tell the difference between a person in power threatening destruction and a tool doing the same. It's not like you don't have plenty of experience with both.

[Sirotnikov]

Ooh, he has lobbies. Hell, Israel has AIPAC and a bunch of crazy-ass evangelicals who think they're bringing on the second coming by supporting the Jews, but that doesn't make Israel a danger to Iran.

stop misinterpreting me.

he has lobbies that allow him to effectively maneuver and influence defense policy, and decision regarding Israel.

he is a member of bodies that take decisions on things regarding Israel.

he is as a threat to Israel, as chief Israeli ministers are a threat on Iran. And they are.

This bozo's job is to rabble-rouse and draw hatred and attention that would otherwise go to the Ayatollah. I don't see why Israelis haven't learned by now to tell the difference between a person in power threatening destruction and a tool doing the same.

i have no idea what do you base your information upon.
he is not a tool, nor a loudspeaker.

he is a head of a large part of government with lots of influence in different government institutions.

that is like claiming that Tzipi Livni is a "tool" because she isn't head of state, and therefore, could not formally make the decision to bomb Iran.

That is false.

[Elok]

The President of Iran is the highest elected official in the Islamic Republic of Iran, second only to the Supreme Leader of Iran. According to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran the president is responsible for the "functions of the executive," such as signing treaties, agreements etc. with other countries and international organizations; the national planning and budget and state employment affairs; appointing ministers, governors, and ambassadors subject to the approval of the parliament.[1]

Unlike many other countries, in Iran the president does not have control over foreign policy, the armed forces, nuclear policy, or the main economic policies of the Iranian state, which are under the control of the Supreme Leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran

Officially, he has no say in the matters he's talking about. Perhaps he has some sort of shadowy influence, but it ain't in his described duties. In case you haven't noticed, he's been calling for Israel to be wiped off the map for his entire term of office. It has not happened yet, for a reason: he can't make good on any threat he makes in terms of military power. The most he can do is appoint a more warlike secretary to their NSC...whose decisions, surprise, have to be ratified by the Supreme Leader.

Hell, Medvedev at least has nominal power and nobody's silly enough to pay attention to his opinion...

[onodera]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

This is a misconception.

Ahmedinejad personally, and Iran in general, is fiercly hated by most ME countries.

If we attack, Hezbullah would be the only trouble maker.

Yes, and you've lost to Hezbullah the last time.
Also, even if Iran is hated by the Arab world, I'm sure Israel is hated even more.