The natural right of self-preservation. Jefferson was a big advocate. You know who Jefferson is, don't you? "No man has a right to unjustly take the life and property of an innocent other ..."
Back to your original statement. The first part is a truism. However, it has no relation to the issue. I said, in war, one had the right to destroy the enemy's war-making capacity. If you take up arms against the rightful government, either as a civilian or in uniform, you can be killed. If you have a factory thats makes munitions, or a shipyard that repairs vessels, or a ranch that supplies horses, or a farm that grows food, or any activity that is used in making war, it can be destroyed.
"But intentionally going out of ones way to wage warfare upon innocent civilians like Lincoln and his henchmen did is out of the question."
Gratuitous accusations. No one who actively supports a war effort is an "innocent."
Word games. There is no greater act of self preservation than defense of the self and home. The right to pursue that act necessarily trumps any other act of invasion, even when the invader falsely cloaks himself in self preservation or claims to be preserving something of the larger picture.
I said, in war, one had the right to destroy the enemy's war-making capacity.
And I asked you, "who gave you that right?" Did Hitler have a "right" to destroy his enemy's war-making capacity and blow up all those ships in the atlantic? By your bizarre reasoning it sounds as if he did. Did Tojo have a "right" to blow up the war-making capacity of the americans at Pearl Harbor? By your bizarre reasoning it sounds as if he did. Sorry capitan, but simply calling an act of injustice a "right" does not make it so.
If you take up arms against the rightful government,
Rightful government! BY WHAT "RIGHT" DOES IT GOVERN ANYBODY, CAPITAN? Who gave it that "right" and where did it come from? Answer me that and we'll test your little theory.
If you have a factory thats makes munitions, or a shipyard that repairs vessels, or a ranch that supplies horses, or a farm that grows food, or any activity that is used in making war, it can be destroyed.
Pearl Harbor was used for a lot of those things in 1941. Do I take it that Japan had a "right" to destroy it?