Lets ask what came first. The threats from Iran to 'cause great harm' if they were brought to the UN security council? The threats of suicide bombers in America and Britain? The threats to remove Israel from the map. or the implied use of nuclear weapons against what in all reality should be seen as a rogue state.
As Iran has been the one thumping it's fist and threatening everyone, then there IS a difference. As for the threats against Israel, they are all implied. "Removed from the map". "Destroyed in a single storm". "A nuclear attack against Israel would totally remove it while it's retaliation would only harm a small part of the Islamic world". Quotes like that are not direct "we will nuke you" but it gets the message across so much that Helen Keller can hear it and she's deaf and dead. There is no bending of the law, there is a total lack of it's application when it comes to Iran. And as for China and Russia, they're preventing any sort of (non-military) intervention by the UN. No forced inspections. No sanctions. Nothing at all that carries any weight. Iran WILL get the bomb, they will get it soon and no one can stop them. The UN might have slowed them down a bit if.... > Whats the difference between the US threatening to destroy another > member of the UN with > 'implied' nuclear weapons over Nuclear arms which they have no proof > the country has? > > Can you find a quote where Iran threatened israel with Nuclear Weapons > btw? > I've seen teh words "should not exist" ,"False regime" and others, > but I've not seen ," We will destroy Israel with Nuclear Weapons" > anywhere to my knowledge. > > You see, you can't bend the law when it doesn't suit you. And what > goes for one nation, has to go for all otherwise what you are doing > makes no sense. > > And I don't see it as Russia or China which is bringing the world > closer to Armageddon at all. > > On 4/24/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It suprises me that no one calls to point that this is a member of the UN >> threatening to destroy another member of the UN with (implied) nuclear >> weapons. This is a member of the UN threatening another member of the UN >> with terrorist attacks directly rather than through a third party (Iran >> funds Hizballah and others). The UN is doing what about this? Giving them >> a gift of a position on the NNTP board. >> Schmucks (again) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205348 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
