How To Sabotage Ahmadinejad When He Arrives In Ny

[Ishmael]

Well, you can let him rant and give the neo-cons more ammo for war and sabre-rattling, or you could try my favorite idea.

Have all the gays stage pro-Ahmedinijad marches and rallies and beam the TV coverage directly to Iran. Can you see the average Iranian seeing images of Sister Boom-Boom and the other Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence holding up big pics of your boy and signs saying, "Convert Me you savage."

[Friedmann]

I have an idea, perhaps all you Americans could act like children, throw hissy fits treat him disprespectfully and provide him with exactly what he wants. An opportunity to go back to Iran and tell his domestic audience that he went to America, tried to talk and the Americans acted like a bunch of toothless barbarians.

All this wringing of hands, impotent fist shaking, puerile stunts etc is exactly what he wants.

Ahmadinejad is a far shrewder politician than anyone you will find in Washington.

[bradclark1]

I think a scantily clad guy in leather giving him a wet one is the best way to go.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by Letum

Everyone has their price.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

I am interested to watch his interview live. Too much of media circus these days.
How come we always jump to violence as a way to solve our problems? Assassinating a leader of a sovereign nation is not a good idea, ever.

Shooting Hitler when there still was time would have saved our ancestors a lot of suffering. Same could be said about so many: Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Tamerlan, political leaders here, religious icons there... Millions and millions would have been saved from experiencing the worst of what man is capable of. Ahmadinejad does not hide his intentions,a nd speak them out loud and clearly, so why giving him the the benefit of doubt? He puts himself beyond the rules of humanitarianism and tolerant coexistence, so why allowing him to pick the freedoms and escape the duties from this? A not small, but significant amount of Iranians deliberately choose to follow him, and brought him to power. Why not holding them responsible for the choice they made? Isn't the latter a key part of democracy - that you are free to choose, but must accept to bear the responsibility for the consequences?

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Shooting Hitler when there still was time would have saved our ancestors a lot of suffering. Same could be said about so many: Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Tamerlan, political leaders here, religious icons there... Millions and millions would have been saved from experiencing the worst of what man is capable of. Ahmadinejad does not hide his intentions,a nd speak them out loud and clearly, so why giving him the the benefit of doubt? He puts himself beyond the rules of humanitarianism and tolerant coexistence, so why allowing him to pick the freedoms and escape the duties from this? A not small, but significant amount of Iranians deliberately choose to follow him, and brought him to power. Why not holding them responsible for the choice they made? Isn't the latter a key part of democracy - that you are free to choose, but must accept to bear the responsibility for the consequences?

But as you say, Ahmadinejad has a significant following back in Iran - and probably in other Arab countries, as well. If he was killed on American soil or even with implication of American involvement, do you suppose the discontent of his type towards the West would get better or worse? Pressing further U.S. hegemonic doctrine (which I think many in Ahmadinejad's camp would be quite happy to use as fuel for their fire) is not going to make many angry people change their minds about war with the West.

If you believe Ahmadinejad is an erratic and dangerous leader, then maybe it's better to have him in power. Plans to assassinate Hitler were ultimately scrapped because it was decided by British intelligence that it was better for the Allies to have Hitler alive and in charge - he was such a terrible strategist that if he was killed, not only would the Nazi party have more propaganda to throw at the Allies, but someone better and more competent in the affairs of war would take his place. I assume that if Ahmadinejad were assassinated, more invigorated and aggressive leadership would replace him.

I still favour dialogue to expose him for the rest of the [Arabic] world as the menace that we are confident he is. Then perhaps the Iranian public, and maybe even the Ayatollah, will rethink the direction they are headed in. If it fails, at least we can say that we tried, and that we did not repeat the same expedited mistakes as in Iraq.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fatty

But as you say, Ahmadinejad has a significant following back in Iran - and probably in other Arab countries, as well. If he was killed on American soil or even with implication of American involvement, do you suppose the discontent of his type towards the West would get better or worse?

I was talking on a general, non-specific level because Foxtrot indicated that getting rid of such a leader is a wrong option in principle, and unimportant what the conditions are. I did not mention to kill Ahmadinejad on US soil, did I. that would be contraproductive, since then the principle of diplommatic immunity would be put at question, and this cannot be in the interest of anybody. We need to be able to send our enemy a message without getting the messengers shot. It's about most elemental communication, no matter what it is worth.

Concerning Hitler, if he would have been killed let's say one or two years before 1933, with the war still years away, it all would have become a different story. No other united the political powers around him, like he did - at that time he was not to be replaced.

Pressing further U.S. hegemonic doctrine (which I think many in Ahmadinejad's camp would be quite happy to use as fuel for their fire) is not going to make many angry people change their minds about war with the West.

Their fires get fueld no matter what you do. Islam is not driven in the first by hate on America and the West, but by wanting to push it's own agenda, no matter if there is a West or America (which will always being hated simply for being not Islamic). I have come that far in my conclusions that I don't give a damn if they are getting further infuriated at us or not - Cheers to all Muslims out there! If they want to yell and burn flags and demonstrate, okay, let them. I don't care. Get them into a psychiatry, and throw away the keys.

Some of the reasons for my desinterest on wether like me/us or not:

If you believe Ahmadinejad is an erratic and dangerous leader, then maybe it's better to have him in power. Plans to assassinate Hitler were ultimately scrapped because it was decided by British intelligence that it was better for the Allies to have Hitler alive and in charge - he was such a terrible strategist that if he was killed, not only would the Nazi party have more propaganda to throw at the Allies, but someone better and more competent in the affairs of war would take his place. I assume that if Ahmadinejad were assassinated, more invigorated and aggressive leadership would replace him.

So what? Can't get worse than it is now. they continue with their nuclear program - now. They continue with confrontation and provocation - now. They continue with intolerance and opressing foreign cultures and religions in Iran - now. EU negotiates and in the end achieves nothing but failed illusions, and starting with new ones over and over again - now. So what would be new with a radical leader different to Ahmadinejadh? Nothing. He maybe only would be more clever to try to lull europe with sweet, sweet lies, and try to be less provocative. European politicians love to hear what they want to hear. Tell them the words they want to hear, and you already have them bought.

I still favour dialogue to expose him for the rest of the [Arabic] world as the menace that we are confident he is.

What dialogue...? There is only a european monologue, while Iran carries on with what it wants to acchieve - getting the nuclear bomb. The UN - forget it. Syria has just been made the vice-president of the UN's nuclear watchdog. That really raises my trust. Like Lybia was made head of the human rights committee some months ago. Expose him by dialogue to the Arabic world, you said. You assume yourself to be in powers you do not have, and to be of a convincing example many people are not convinced of a bit. as a matter of fact, only the wealth of the west is attractive for islam - the rest of what makes up the West needs to be "cleaned" and turned Islamic.

Then perhaps the Iranian public, and maybe even the Ayatollah, will rethink the direction they are headed in. If it fails, at least we can say that we tried, and that we did not repeat the same expedited mistakes as in Iraq.

Amongst other nations in that region, I have been for months in Iran, you can safely assume that I am absolutely aware of the many different facettes of the Iranian public. I do not judge them by stereotypes, and if there would not be islam, i would even hold their old history and culture in high respect - all in all I would say I have seen more civilization and education in iran than in any other muslim country and often have been treated with great hospitality - but there are also the uneducated, the "extremist", the barbars and ignorants. I also see that public orientation has massively shifted it's sympathies from the careful reforms that were hoped for ten years ago or so, and were left in the rain by the West and the US, since they never wanted a democracy in American understanding, and still do not wish for that by great majority. The US played by the rule of all or nothing at all. That strategy has completely failed, turning many reformist into nationalists, disillusioned many of the young, and drove many into the arms of the clerics.

Ahmadinejadh, by the way, is by far not loved by the clerics - quite the opposite. Most of the clerics want the same thing thing - driving Islam into the west, drive the sunni influence in the ME back, and go for Israel. It's just that his stupdiity makes him seek appearances in front of the media that he is a heavy mortgage for these ambitions. Silent secrecy and superficial false friendliness would be much more serving their needs, instead of silly provocation. A lot of people in the West are naive enough that they would buy it.

I would not compare Iran to Iraq, btw. corporations' (especially oil companies') interests would not play such a huge role in a war with Iran (except that of defense contractors, obviously), like they did in Iraq. Also, Iraq had no nuclear weapons, or was close to getting them. There is even no convincing proof that it was enaged in trying to get nukes after the mid-90s. All "reports" indicating the opposite so far I have not found convincing. With Iran, this is very different. I long was in an undecided balance over wether to allow them a nuclear program or not, for I look at the numbers and see very well that economically they do need civilian nuclear powerplants indeed, although that sounds paradox for an oilö-rich country, but they are loosing to much potential income fro m oil they do not sell, but consumme themselves. but over the past year I came to the conclusion that the immense danger of an iran with access to nulcear technology is too great a risk as that it could be accepted. Concerning the military program of theirs, I further conclude that it has to be prveented at all cost. Even if this would mean the total destruction of Iran. That is quite a leap from my opions three or four years ago, but I am sure of my reasons. since I also exprrienced some good things in Iran, I say that withoiut necessarily liking it. for me it is a tragedy in the first, but maybe a tragedy that cannot be avoided. Keeping iran functional and alive is not a necessity - but preventing more Islamic nations from becoming nuclear powers is a necessity. If we allow it happening, we will not only pay in loss of our culture, laying ourselves open to blackmail, and being defenseless to ever growing ammounts of Islamic terror, but we will also pay in many, many lives sooner or later. And when it comes that far, I leave my reasoning and arguments and I am clearly choosing my side and say: better them getting killed, than us.

[LtCmdrRat]

Sorry for repeating this endless times but ISLAM cant be peaceful- it is written in KORAN, some muslims, even majority(60%-70%) perhaps, but ISLAM idiology is VIOLENT and now it is in medieval stage like christianity(XI-XVcentury ) or jewdaism (II BC -IAD ) were many centuries ago. The only difference is that now we have WMD . Can you imagine what may happend if they decided to use it against West Civilization??? It is war between civilizations.
How peaceful Islam??? Watch "What West needs to know "(about Islam).

[Dunedain82]

Ahmadinejad is the elected president of Iran (perhaps not elected in democratic elections as you might like it, but still a head of state) and so international rules of diplomacy require certain ammount of dignity to his status. Now, I know some of his ideas are silly and unacceptable (doesn't believe holocaust, want's to wipe out Israel). But President of USA takes commands form imaginary figure so what you can do... This forums anti-islam atmosphere is really starting to be problem IMHO...

sincerely, J

[P_Funk]

What everyone always seems to neglect to mention is that Ahmadinejad isn't the ultimate authority over Iran. He has to answer to someone else too. And from what I've read this person isn't nearly as inflammatory as Ahmadinejad.

As for Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions I have a few thoughts on it.

Firstly Iran's nuclear ambitions date back to the 1950s when they were given help the US to begin a nuclear program though it was suspended at one point. Then in the early 70s the Shah began his program again with US support. Immediately after the 79' revolution however all existing agreements for the development of nuclear technology were terminated, despite Iran being owed significant resources. Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology.

In terms of the development of Nuclear arms, already Israel and Pakistan have a nuclear weapon. Both of these states are freindly to the US, for now anyway and hostile to Iran. Iran, should it truly desire a nuclear weapon, are most likely merely evening the playing field. If your traditional opponents, the US, and Israel and Pakistan, and they all have weapons and foreign policies which seek to weaken your state in the region, then would not any intelligent government seek such a deterrent? The US gave a nuke to Israel 40 years ago, and only now Iran is possibly getting one. You introduce a nuclear capability into the region and you have to expect oppositional powers to want to equalize the situation. The US wouldn't allow Russia to make any nuclear advances without opposition or reciprocal development. Iran if anything is late in getting its nuclear program up, and even then theres no guarentee it will be a completed nuclear capability. Gwynne Dyer supposes that its mostly likely a threshold capability they seek, one that will give them the ability to become armed in a nuclear capacity within a year should the appropriate political circumstances demand it; ie. foreign threat of invasion or attack.

Lastly, why are we so scared of Iran? History has shown that even muslims, when in a position of power and wealth, do not suppose to be so foolish as to throw it all away on idiotic behavior such as an unwinnable war. Has anyone noticed Pakistan lately? That nation is if anything a greater threat to non-proliferation in the region than Iran since it is a hot bed of Islamic Extremism, which reaches deep into the upper echelons of the military, and which is only held at bay by a single man in power who is not likely to be able to sustain his own position indefinitely. Should a violent extremist revolt place extremists in charge of the military then we would have an Islamic militant power with nuclear capability, and this is a US ally.

The demonization of Iran is so irrational and emotional. The middle east is a far more complex entity than just this. Seriously, has nobody learned history? Half our allies today are our former enemies or at least work with our former enemies. The Taliban has roots in Pakistan. Iran's revolution is opposed by the US because it overthrew the Shah who was a vassal lord of the US's.

I think the real sinister threat to peace in the region or the world isn't Iran so much as the Western need to demonize Iran more than it is in reality. And what we may do as a result of these delusions may leave our children in worse stead than we know, and it won't be Achmedinejad's fault either.

[The Avon Lady]

What a farce of a post that was, P-Funk. Let's start with your usual moral equivalence:

In terms of the development of Nuclear arms, already Israel and Pakistan have a nuclear weapon. Both of these states are freindly to the US, for now anyway and hostile to Iran.

The only reason Israel is hostile to Iran is because Iran wishes to destroy Israel. If Iran were happy in their oil pond and would simplly not declare their desire to practice another Jewish genocide, Israel couldn't care what Iran does with itself.

So far, it's been Iranian terrorist proxies and Iranian provided weapons that have been terrorizing Israel and Jews around the world, in addition to civilians and military personnel of countries around the world.

Who are you trying to fool?!

Here's a little factual refreshing, absent of the usual "oh, I don't know", "yes, but" and "maybe or perhaps" of the left:

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?.

What a sad pathetic world we live in where the dregs of human brutality and thuggery are given respectable podiums from which to snake talk their opinions and so many people bend over backwards to give such filth some form of legitimacy.

[Skybird]

P_Funk,

Pakistan is NOT friendly to the US, or any other western nation. It is betraying the US, and very massively so, since at least the late 70s, probably earlier. Pakistans decisions until today have costed the lives of Western soldiers, they are supporting the Taleban, and presently their secret service has turned probably more Taleban than the Taleban are themselves. since they take benefit from the drug income in Afghanistan, they are not interested to keep the flow of drugs low. In the 80s they even accepted that a large proportion of their own population became addicted, to get the finances they needed to serve their foreign financial duties due to weapons deals. It'S a long story. what I mean is simply: they are not friendly to the US, in no way. If I would have been the americans, there would have been no war against Iraq, but after the war in Afghanistan a massive military display of combat power at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, to make them stay out and make it clear to them if they continue to interferte and play with cheats and marked cards, they would have to pay the price. It would have been no gesture, but a major great-scale deployment: all what had been sent to Iraq, and then very much more. That friendly to us I see them.

You also said "everyone is neglecting that Ahmadinejadh..." Well, I mentioned that the clerics are not happy with him, did I. Also, the former president Rafsandschani in the West was seen as pragmatic, West-oriented, less dogmatic - the prime exmaple of this strnage constuction of a "moderate Muslim". Short: the West bought the story this man wanted it to believe. While he certainly was pragmatic, he nevertheless influenced some very orthodox decisions and develeopements in Iran, and smiled and was kind to the West (in a way), knowing that this would appease western opposition to Iran, and it did. - If you think that the clerics are less determined to get the bomb, then you are fooling yourself. they are, but are willing to take longer time if that helps to hide the project, and would be willing to give the impression of being less confronting to the West, if that helps to go on with the work, maybe at a slower pace, but with greater safety and smaller risks to get engaged in war. So, they know very well that the revolution is no longer capable to fascinate the young, many of them are more pragmatic in the meaning of being clever enough not to provoke the west like this idiot in office now does, and almost commanding Western attention onto the program time and again. Seen that way, Ahmadinejadh has done real damage to the Iranian cause, and thus he is not very popular with the clerics. their program never will go on as peacefully and unnoticed again as before him. It's just that he is not cleric and thus apparently sees the need to raise public support for him by giving the people what his clients like: provoking the west, and getting away with hit: "see how tough I am! Vote for me, again!" In the end, he is just a big-mouthed, arrogant uneducated prole; maybe having instincts, but certainly lacking brain; crafty (=gerissen), but intellectually extremely stupid.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

What a sad pathetic world we live in where the dregs of human brutality and thuggery are given respectable podiums from which to snake talk their opinions and so many people bend over backwards to give such filth some form of legitimacy.

Well said.

P-Funk
"Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology."

Wrong P-Funk. SA developed Nuclear weapons and was the pole-cat of the West at the time.

P-Funk
"Lastly, why are we so scared of Iran? History has shown that even muslims, when in a position of power and wealth, do not suppose to be so foolish as to throw it all away on idiotic behavior such as an unwinnable war."

Wrong P-Funk. He went by the name of Saddam bin Hussein at-Takriti, remember him?

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The only reason Israel is hostile to Iran is because Iran wishes to destroy Israel. If Iran were happy in their oil pond and would simplly not declare their desire to practice another Jewish genocide, Israel couldn't care what Iran does with itself.

So far, it's been Iranian terrorist proxies and Iranian provided weapons that have been terrorizing Israel and Jews around the world, in addition to civilians and military personnel of countries around the world.

And what moral qualifying are you trying to do? What does it matter why Israel is opposed to Iran? The reality is what it is regardless of which side you believe. Frankly neither Israel nor Iran are saintly in their regional conduct, but then which power in any place in the world is? The point I make isn't one of trying to root for the Iranians. The difference however is that this propoganda that is constantly spewed is not practically useful except to galvanize people to hate Iran and possibly prepare for war. People who were in charge 30 years ago with the US's blessing were as bad or worse. Whatever justification for Israel's stance on Iran there is blood and guilt either way , in my opinion. I don't buy the innocent self-defense cries of Israel, not that I deny that Israel has a right to defend itself. The extremist need to place people in one category or another and to avoid critical analysis of both sides is what I am avoiding, but yet again you place me in an extreme.

*Sigh* But then I expected this and its why I post.

@Skybird

Again why do people insist on assuming that everyone must be merry freinds to be involved in one another? Of course Pakistan is not a true ally to the US, but Musharraf is in bed with them at the moment. The point I was making was that we fear Iran getting the bomb yet we encourage the power of those that already have it but may soon become a more immedite and ultimately less predictable power than Iran. The politics of the Bush administration make him friendly at the moment, but then that is the classic foreign policy M.O. Make freinds of your enemy's enemy, or something to that effect. Its not very smart is it, but thats my point.

And again I am not stating that Ahmadinejadh is my personal savior. But to assume that he is some madman on a mission to annihilate the world is folly. He might be dangerous in some ways but not in the proto-Hitler way that is being touted. He is far more shrewd than anyone allows him credit.
@Von Tonner

Yes I recall him. He was an interesting figure. Encouraged by the US to invade Iran after the revolution I believe. Many of his atrocities were coverd up by the US prior to the Gulf War since Bush Sr. still desired to keep him as a regional proxy.

[Skybird]

Show me the subtelty of a nuclear armed Iran. It simply means this: nuclear bombs in the hands of global Islamic terror, sooner or later.

Musharaf is struggling for survival, simply that, and it was like that from the beginning. Not an ally I would put my money on. He is not in control of his house, and the ISI actively supports and assists and sympathizes with he Taleban that shoot live bullets at American soldiers. And that you call a classic case of foreign policy? I call it suicide on rates. there are reasons why the mission in Afghanistan is failing so miserably, and constantly detoriating. This "classical example of foreign policy" is the major reason for that. If you want to win in Afghanistan, you must defeat Pakistan first.