Israel minister suggests kidnapping of Ahmadinejad

[muse]

Nitesh

I was suggesting that it is interesting that he chose to visit occupied kashmr or Indian administered kashmir - normally, controversy is the last thing such a visit should seek to accrue, however; this is a pointed message to his hosts and his hosts adversaries.

As if the Israeli did not have enough problems, but it seems he has stomach for more and israeli appetites have a history of being satisfied.

 

[nitesh]

Nitesh

I was suggesting that it is interesting that he chose to visit occupied kashmr or Indian administered kashmir - normally, controversy is the last thing such a visit should seek to accrue, however; this is a pointed message to his hosts and his hosts adversaries.

As if the Israeli did not have enough problems, but it seems he has stomach for more and israeli appetites have a history of being satisfied.

what controversy here? Kashmir is part of india and any foreign delegate can visit any where in India period.

 

[muse]

Kashmir is part of india and any foreign delegate can visit any where in India period

yes, that is itself controversial - but I am sure the message is heard.

 

[nitesh]

yes, that is itself controversial - but I am sure the message is heard.

ha ha ha. I am sure that the message is heard.

 

[Imran Khan]

what controversy here? Kashmir is part of india.

only this is the prob for us kashmer is under indian occupation

 

[nitesh]

only this is the prob for us kashmer is under indian occupation

whatever nothing is going to change.

 

[Imran Khan]

whatever nothing is going to change.

may be its change very soon

 

[nitesh]

may be its change very soon

Imran to be honest here I don't think anything is going to change here. any way this is running in lot of threads so pls drop it here.

 

[Imran Khan]

Imran to be honest here I don't think anything is going to change here. any way this is running in lot of threads so pls drop it here.

ok sir only for your respect of post we drop this

 

[TOPGUN]

No one is saying that !! but the major reason he is there in plans against PAK lol wat else! lets get with prog !

 

[muse]

Is Israel preparing an autumn surprise?
Gulfnews: Is Israel preparing an autumn surprise?

09/16/2008 08:26 AM | By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News



The clock is ticking. The demise of the aggressive "do-anything-for-Israel" Bush administration is nearing. The window of opportunity for a US-backed/tolerated Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities may be closing.

And as they have done throughout recent years, politicians and pundits are speculating as to whether or not Tel Aviv will present the world with an October/November surprise.

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev is a believer. "We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran," he said on Friday, while warning that its implementation would endanger the entire world.

He also rejected the imposition of further sanctions on Iran, effectively blocking the US pursuit of this option in the UN Security Council.

Earlier last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested an Israeli attack might be imminent unless Iran quits enriching uranium and implied that in the event the international community would be disposed to turn a blind eye.

This coincides with a recent announcement from the Pentagon to the effect it will supply Israel's military with 1,000 smart bombs, especially designed to destroy underground targets, and another from the US Treasury that Washington is set to impose further unilateral financial sanctions against Tehran.

Last Wednesday, the US froze bank accounts and assets held by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and its affiliates, a move that has been condemned by Iran as "illegal" and "unjustifiable".

Some members of Congress are ridiculously calling for US interdiction of Iranian cargo vessels, irresponsibly myopic to the oil-hiking tinderbox this would create.

President George W. Bush has long vowed that he will not allow a nuclear-armed Iran to be part of his presidential legacy, while it is known that sinister Vice-President Dick Cheney is frustrated with the diplomatic path pursued by the State Department.

According to insiders, Cheney envisions Israel starting the ball rolling when the US would have a legitimate pretext to join the fight once Tehran retaliates against nearby US bases.

In June, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had this to say after meeting with the US President: "George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and his need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."

Battling ravages

Whether or not Bush has the stomach for a new so-called "pre-emptive" conflict in the twilight of his unpopular presidency while he is busy battling the ravages of Ike, Gustav and the credit crunch is arguable.

From the commander-in-chief's perspective, war with Iran might be less attractive now that he can claim minimal success in quelling the Iraqi insurgency and may soon (sad to say from my point of view) have a signed US/Iraq status of forces agreement in his pocket.

It's likely he will leave such weighty decisions and their inevitably bloody aftermath that would inevitably negatively impact Iraq's stability to his successor.

In fact, much may depend on who George Bush's successor turns out to be. The Israelis are, no doubt, avidly tracking American polls.

It may be true that both candidates have had tough words for Iran but the accepted wisdom is that Barack Obama would be more inclined towards diplomacy and dialogue than "bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and his likeminded glossy-lipped pit bull Sarah Palin, who predictably refuses to "second-guess what Israel has to do to defend its nation".

It's probable that were the Israelis to be reassured as to McCain's upcoming White House tenancy they will hold fire for the rest of the year.

With Olmert on his way out chased by allegations of corruption and the ruling Kadima party poised to vote for a new leader tomorrow, going to war within weeks might be unfeasible, especially since Israel hasn't yet managed to prise Syria from Tehran, which would diminish Hezbollah's military effectiveness.

However, both contend-ers for the top job Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz have taken hardline positions on Iran.

The winner may decide to act swiftly on the perceived basis that a nuclear Iran presents an untenable existential threat to the Jewish state or because he or she is being prodded by Cheney and his neo-con buddies to get a move on.

It looks as though the West is handing Israel carte blanche to attack Iran and make personal threats against its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The double standards involved are enough to make any thinking person scream. If an Iranian official had advocated kidnapping Olmert, America's outrage would have been heard on Mars just as it was when Hezbollah grabbed Israeli soldiers in 2006.

What the next few months have in store is unpredictable because there are too many variables at play: Obama or McCain? Livni or Mofaz? Or will Bush opt for a last "winner takes all" throw of the dice against all reason?

The bottom line is whether diplomacy can prevail over lunacy before this part of the world and beyond are yet again hurtled into hell.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com Some of the comments may be considered for publication.