I think that the answer to that question can be summed up in two words. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There is no doubt that the hardline Iranian president - who "won" the Iranian "election" by the simple expedient of having all those who stood against him disqualified by his Islamofacist backers and who survivors of the American Embassy siege identified as one of the hostage takers - would use such weapons against Israel.
Ahmadinejads anti-Israeli rhetoric, his personal history as a terrorist, his public holocaust denials and threats to "wipe Israel from the map" lead both Iranian and international observers to believe that, given a nuclear capability, Ahmadinejad would use it against Israel, a sovereign nation and member of the United Nations, without a moments consideration of the consequences.
The deeply anti-semitic Galloway is well aware of this, but seems unwilling or unable to understand that a nuclear conflict between Iran and Israel would have consequence far beyond the Middle East region. And why is a "peace protestor" trying to bring about a nuclear war? (TIP: Galloway isn't anti-war. He's on the other side.)
Either Galloway doesn't understand the global consequences of his comments, or simply doesn't care.
|
