Iran Warns U.N. Of "Consequences" Should General Assembly Consider U.S. Assassination Claims

I got this email this morning from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations (*head swivels looking for drones in the sky.)

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

No. 1312 15 November 2011

Excellency,

We are surprised to learn that a draft resolution contained in document A/66/L.8 entitled "Terrorist attacks on Internationally Protected Persons" is proposed by the United States under Agenda item 118 of the General Assembly, which refers to the alleged plot against the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Washington. This is an unprecedented attempt with all its ramifications for the credibility of the United Nations. In this regard, I would like to state the following:

By submitting this draft the sponsor is inviting the General Assembly to consider an unsubstantiated allegation, and as such it would amount to an unprecedented, thus unacceptable move. While under Article 10 of the UN Charter any matter could be considered by the General Assembly, however, it is evident that placing hypothetical, circumstantial and unsubstantiated matters on the agenda of this august body would be a gross disservice thereto. The case at hand is a clear example in this respect. If the General Assembly allows the submission and consideration of such draft resolution, this principal organ of the United Nations would run the risk of turning into a venue for settling political scores through introducing countless draft resolutions on contentious issues, which should be seriously avoided. Consequently, such an action, if pressed on, would significantly undermine the role, authority, integrity, and credibility of the General Assembly as the highest and universal political body of the United Nations.

Furthermore, by proposing this draft resolution under agenda item "the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Strategy", the United States tends to exploit such an important document which is the symbol of global consensus against terrorism. Such a politically motivated move would indeed undermine the relevance and credibility of this major consensus document.

The United States attitude with regard to the alleged plot, which began with an explosive media campaign against Iran, and its long-standing hostile policies, is unconstructive and reveals once again the latter's ill-intentions. It is worth mentioning that this Government has supported acts of terrorism against the Islamic Republic of Iran in which many Iranians, including its diplomats were victims of such acts according to existing hard evidences, some of which were presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

As I explained in my letters dated 11 October 2011 (document A/66/513–S/2011/633) and 4 November 2011 (document A/66/546–S/2011/696), my Government categorically rejects the involvement of any of its officials or organs in the alleged plot against the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Washington as it has been claimed.

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms its full commitment to its obligations under the relevant international legal instruments, including the 1973 "Convention on the Prevention of Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents".

Member States should be cautious about the adverse consequences of such a move, which is in contradiction to the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations and 1970 "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

It would be appreciated if this letter could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly under the agenda item 83.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

　
(signed)
Mohammad Khazaee
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

H.E. Mr. Nasser
President of the General Assembly,
United Nations, New York
cc: H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary General
United Nations, New York
cc: All Permanent Representatives and Observers to the United Nations

"Member States should be cautious about the adverse consequences of such a move."

So now Iran is threatening everybody should they even consider voting on this resolution? This is a very veiled threat, but it is a threat nonetheless. What "adverse consequences" could the Iranians be talking about?

Methinks Iran protests too much.

Iran always plays the "victim" and failed assassination has given them the opportunity to hide behind the eloquence of their victimhood.

I know this assassination attempt is great for the conspiracy buffs, but what if Iran are complicit and guilty as charged. Maybe Iran should just let justice.

Regards

self defence i guess,

just like when a bully is about to bully a person, the person warns them not to regardless weather they can even defend themselves or not.

i think it's totally understandable, are they just suposed to stand there and take it in the chin???? doubt it.....

reply to post by OldCorp

"Member States should be cautious about the adverse consequences of such a move."

tough one, does sound like a veiled threat. But not a direct "we're going to attack you threat", I read it more along the lines of "open that can of worms and you might not like what you find" type of threat. And didn't someone already threaten to release information about us involvement in terrorism?

That's my thinking. Iran might not be Disney Land, but they are anything but stupid diplomatically, and threatening member nations would not be a smart move regardless of whatever play they might be making considering Israels determination to see a strike against Iran sooner rather than later.

And I'd have to agree, if we are going to start opening up assassinations abroad investigations and allegations as pretext to invasion, the US and Israel should be rather concerned that some of their skeletons might tumble out of the closet to haunt them.

This is going to be an interesting holiday Season.

reply to post by OldCorp


They clearly meant diplomatic consequences.

You are so adamant about blaming Islam for everything.

They were right by making this statement. The U.S. assassination program is illegal and must stop.

Nice way to twist an important story to insult a Muslim nation. I'm starting to see a trend here with you.

reply to post by OldCorp


Here's what gets me....

"By submitting this draft the sponsor is inviting the General Assembly to consider an unsubstantiated allegation, and as such it would amount to an unprecedented, thus unacceptable move. While under Article 10 of the UN Charter any matter could be considered by the General Assembly, however, it is evident that placing hypothetical, circumstantial and unsubstantiated matters on the agenda of this august body would be a gross disservice thereto. The case at hand is a clear example in this respect. If the General Assembly allows the submission and consideration of such draft resolution, this principal organ of the United Nations would run the risk of turning into a venue for settling political scores through introducing countless draft resolutions on contentious issues, which should be seriously avoided. Consequently, such an action, if pressed on, would significantly undermine the role, authority, integrity, and credibility of the General Assembly as the highest and universal political body of the United Nations."

Iran always speaking out against the very things that they continually do themselves. The U.N. has got to be tired of hearing it already!

"Member States should be cautious about the adverse consequences of such a move."

I read that differently. To me it does not seem like a threat by the Iranians whatsoever. I think they mean that member states should be cautious of letting the US submit a resolution such as this because it would allow the UN General Assembly to be used for political 'tit-for-tat' means. In fact I agree with the statement. If such a solution were allowed to be submitted by the US it would not only discredit the UN but also allow the US to strengthen their international position on Iran... without any credible evidence.

Originally posted by Truth4Thought
reply to post by OldCorp

 

They clearly meant diplomatic consequences.

You are so adamant about blaming Islam for everything.

They were right by making this statement. The U.S. assassination program is illegal and must stop.

Nice way to twist an important story to insult a Muslim nation. I'm starting to see a trend here with you.

Does it genuinely surprise you that the OP doesn't like Muslims when the below is his own works?

I was raised in a Christian home, and I went to a private Christian school from pre-K to high school, so I've had a fairly good working knowledge of Scripture since I was just a tyke; but being a largely left-brained person, I myself was never convinced of the absolute truth of the Bible until I began studying prophecy.

How To Stop Islamic Terrorism In One Easy Step

Notice the word Islamic?

Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by OldCorp

 

Here's what gets me....

"By submitting this draft the sponsor is inviting the General Assembly to consider an unsubstantiated allegation, and as such it would amount to an unprecedented, thus unacceptable move. While under Article 10 of the UN Charter any matter could be considered by the General Assembly, however, it is evident that placing hypothetical, circumstantial and unsubstantiated matters on the agenda of this august body would be a gross disservice thereto. The case at hand is a clear example in this respect. If the General Assembly allows the submission and consideration of such draft resolution, this principal organ of the United Nations would run the risk of turning into a venue for settling political scores through introducing countless draft resolutions on contentious issues, which should be seriously avoided. Consequently, such an action, if pressed on, would significantly undermine the role, authority, integrity, and credibility of the General Assembly as the highest and universal political body of the United Nations."

Iran always speaking out against the very things that they continually do themselves. The U.N. has got to be tired of hearing it already!

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you please elaborate?

Iran, like the US and any other country, has the right to defend itself. Not only is this morally accurate, it's legally accurate according to the UN charter signed and ratified by the USA. So far the US/UN/Israel has done nothing to prove their claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Iran has, until the recent UN report, been considered internationally to not be working on a nuclear weapons program.

It is also widely known that the US funds terrorism at every level. Anyone who swallows the latest pill the US/UN is trying to jam our throats without some very in depth and critical review is a zombie. Wake up, people.. Iran is no more a threat to the US than Iraq was. These are not wars defending our freedoms, our rights - these are wars of aggression for profit and expansion.

I don't understand how people can support this, or any other recent war the US has been involved in. Our children are receiving less and less quality education, our infrastructure is failing, we have a so called "super committee" on schedule to make drastic budget cuts that will most definitely come out of healthcare, education, and infrastructure and yet still some of us support costly wars (in lives and dollars) that will only further our economic slump. There are so many reasons to be against this potential war - why do people still support it?

It is my belief that your religions have been used against you, to control you. So many Americans want a world war because they believe it will usher in the second coming and they'll go home to heaven.. I have news for you people - If God exists, he doesn't have room for people who support murder and pillaging at all, let alone murder and pillaging based on lies and deceit. Sometimes I wish I could believe in God, because I think I would get a satisfaction knowing that many who consider themselves good, Christian people, are most likely not at all the type of people God would want to fill heaven with.

reply to post by OldCorp


The title seems to suggest that Iran will take action resulting in "consequences" however the method in which the term "adverse consequences" which is actually used suggests something completely different. What Iran is saying IMO is that if the UN goes down this road it will lead to further draconian rules and decisions taken without proof.

Iran is certainly not threatening with this statement IMO, just advising as to the road this will lead to. Kind of like, voting in Herman cain or rick perry will lead to adverse consequences

reply to post by jrmcleod

You've definitely found OldCorp's obsession.

I don't like to point out ever member on their obsessions, but I'm very tired of all the hate around here.

People, if you were to turn all the sound off on all news what would you see? Who are the agressors? That's all I'm asking?

It really is that simple.

reply to post by TheMindWar


Yeah, well, Iran claims that IAEA reports on Iran are fake too. The truth is, we don't know how much information the U.N. or General Assembly is holding in order to consider this resolution. The General Assembly could decide there is proof and Iran would still deny that there ever was any. I guess we'll have to wait and see how they respond to it.

reply to post by jrmcleod


Hi Roo.

How the heck have you been?

You must not have seen my last few videos.




I defend the human rights of Muslims in both of those videos, even the rights of an obvious scumbag like al-Awlaki. I don't hate Muslims or any other ethnic group, I just call it the way I see it. If I see a Christian group acting like idiots I will call them on it, and I have in the past; just ask Westboro. If I see Jews using unnecessary force or abusing someone's human rights I will call them on it; case in point the Israeli soldiers that used a Palestinian boy to walk into booby-trapped houses ahead of them. And if I see Muslims acting the fool, I will not cut them any slack just so that I can be politically correct either.

The thing is, I could fill my days - and nights - writing about or producing videos of Muslim atrocities. Nearly all of the violence we see in the Muslim world is Muslim on Muslim violence. The "Religion of Peace" is anything but; they kill each other at a rate so high as to make Israeli and US deaths statistically insignificant.

So you found four threads that I authored over the past year that cast some Muslims in a bad light. Big deal. Why don't you go search for the threads I wrote vilifying Harold Camping and Westboro Baptist? I think you'll find an equal number.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, because some people obviously don't pay attention: I don't care if you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. You could dance naked around a bonfire and bark at the moon for all I care; but if you're a scumbag, I'm coming to get you.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

You've definitely found OldCorp's obsession.

I don't like to point out ever member on their obsessions, but I'm very tired of all the hate around here.

People, if you were to turn all the sound off on all news what would you see? Who are the agressors? That's all I'm asking?

It really is that simple.

My post above relates to you as well. The "aggressors," by the way. Hmmm. How do you define aggressor? Would a Muslim that blows up the mosque of a rival sect be considered an aggressor? Do some homework and you might find that they are killing each other far more efficiently than we are.

DELETED...Cant be bothered getting into ANOTHER religious debate.

2nd

It will truly be a glorious day when all 3 Abrahamic faiths finally accomplish thier goals to wipe each other out. I am tired of the victim/bully nonsense they play at, and innocents get caught in the middle.

Originally posted by jrmcleod
DELETED...Cant be bothered getting into ANOTHER religious debate.

2nd

edit on 16/11/11 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

As I said, it's not about religion; it's about actions. Try to keep up ok?

reply to post by OldCorp

So now Iran is threatening everybody should they even consider voting on this resolution? This is a very veiled threat, but it is a threat nonetheless. What "adverse consequences" could the Iranians be talking about?

The kind of "veiled" threats that comes with masked men who go and shave and clean themselves up before they go "boom" in key places, being the adverse consequences.

I might die for God but i am not going to kill someone for him. He is the one with all the power, he doesn't need a piss ant like me to do the job for him.

All this crap going down between Israel, Iran, Turkey and Russia stinks of the battle of Gog and Magog. Israel's enemies close in around her and soon even the U.S. will be unable to help her. The OWS movement opposses Israel and were so spread thin, even Obama opposses Israel with his and the french presidents comments about Netanyahu being a liar. What we need to be doing right now is withdrawing our troops out of Iraq and get ready for the Gog and Magog battle coming for Israel by sending everyone we have in the middleast to Israel because this junk is going to go down. It is no longer a matter of if but when.