> Take the case of self-defense. Am I justified in using the means of
killing
> to obtain the end of preventing someone who is about to kill me ? Yes.
===================
No, you're not. Preventing him/her from killing you does not necessarily entail killing him/her.
>Are
> Iraqis justified in killing Americans who are killing and about to kill
them
> ? Yes, on the principle of self-defense.
=====================
War is the apotheosis-negation of justification. The inaugaration of aggression is never justified or else you're on that road to all the problems [paranoia etc.] surrounding pre-emption and cribs.
>
> Are we correct to say that what the Iraqis do in that regard is just ?
yes.
> Their means are justified.
======================
No; they're defense may be necessary [and from their perspective, desirable] but once organized violence has started, claims of justification are moot, not wrong, moot.
>
> "Celebrating" it is evidence of a certain level of enthusiasm for
justice,
> but does not go to the core issues. One might consider that the
enthusiasm
> for justice in this case "should" be tempered by sadness at loss of "any
> human life". On the other hand, are we sad at the death of Hitler ? J
Edgar
> Hoover ? Saddam Hussein ?
>
> Disclaimer: This is not a sleazy lawyer's argument.
>
> Charles
========================
Maybe not, but it is a poor one.
Ian