Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
After the Gulf of Tonkin incident, babies being tossed from incubators and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction I think a little skepticism is justified.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law
The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test). This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient[how?] definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend off an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
The Caroline affair has been used to establish the principle of "anticipatory self-defense" and is also now invoked frequently in the course of the dispute around preemptive strike (or preemption doctrine).
Don't these guys know that Islam is a religion of peace?
Don't these guys know that Islam is a religion of peace?
Don't these guys know that Islam is a religion of peace?
Like in pretty much all religions, it boils down to which verses and teachings in the scriptures get more emphasized.
Could it also be which messages and teachings get repeated over and over and over and over again in the scriptures?