Ah Ha! I got ya!
I still differ a little though I think. I think the first strike by a society that has specifically expressed a desire to destroy the US is enough to at least destroy those that are active in that endeavor.
I am conflicted on what constitutes a threat to some degree but I believe that the threat as expressed in the Koran could be construed to be enough to demand that they strictly adhere to our laws.
Bottom line for me is that every Muslim who has threatened the US is fair target.
That’s fine. What I said amounts to saying that what the US does is a matter of its secular policy and not something over which the Church has a veto power. If the US decides that certain nations or even rogue individuals constitute a clear and present danger, then it is probably moral okay from a secular point of view for the US to attack them pre-emptively. If the activity is going on in a place where we’re already engaged in war, such as Afghanistan, we needn’t even be this picky. I personally support widening the Rules of Engagement to permit our soldiers to pre-emptively consider any Afghan a potential enemy and engage with that assumption in mind. I don’t believe those are the current rules.