|
So if war is war and it is all about perspective, I think an important question needs to be raised. When is war justified?
It would appear to me that, at most, the difference between a freedom fighter, rebel, terrorist, soldier, murderer, mercenary, or anyother individual who professionally takes lives for a cause is intent, cause, and method. All of which are subjective and personal experiences.
At that point, we are still claiming that is it justified to take a fellow humans life under certain circumstances. It would appear we all agree that when another person is positioned in clear opposition to your life (soldier vs soldier on the battlefield) we all agree it is okay. However, when it is less clear (economic devastation caused by globalism vs arab way of life) it is questionable. Now those are the extremes, when is an issue of something like state taxation (revolutionary war) compared to terrorism (globalism, WTC, etc) the line is blurred. So where do decent human beings draw the line between threat and implied threat that justifies attacking those perceived to be at ends with us? Or, in another manner of speaking, where does defensive action end and pre-emption begin?
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|