Effortless, thank you for your link earlier in the thread; however, having examined the URL, since when have the terms "BBC" and "Factual" appeared in the same sentence (except with a negative modifier inbetween?)
What would one expect from that institution, anyway? They are,
by their own admission, a bunch of Jew-hating pinko lefties, afterall....
BBC confesses bias on religion, politics
JN,
I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat
No, it would not be illegal. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence has long been enshrined into international law. This was done
specifically to counter exactly the kind of threat ArmyDinnerjacket has made. In fact, IMHO, this is the most clear-cut case in modern times of justification for a pre-emptive strike. Let's summarise:
1. ArmyDinnerjacket says "Israel will be wiped off the map".
2. ArmyDinnerjacket starts building nuclear weapons.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
You (and many others) claim that "Oh well, he didn't
really mean it" - that IMHO is a bogus argument; whether he meant it or not is irrelevant, he
said it, and that's all that counts. Under English law, one can be given a custodial sentence for making "
Threats to Kill" - there is no requirement to prove that the threat is real, or to wait and see if it is carried out, just that it was made. In fact, the pivotal point is whether or not the victim
believes the threat, since the true intentions of the threatener are, in a legal sense at least, indeterminable.
One last point - if it were
your country, and
your children he was threatening, would you be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt?