o sung wu, you ask; <<Can you (paul1405) see any circumstance whatsoever, where violence is morally justified?>> I am not a total pacifists, if subjected to an unprovoked attack, and I would hope never to provoke a person into physical violence, but give an unprovoked situation I feel a person has the right to defend themselves in a reasonable fashion. I do not see violence as the first alternative but only as a last resort, if you can walk away from a violent situation you should always do so, but I am realistic enough to know there could be a situation where violence can not absolutely be avoided. Should note the police could play a roll in such situation if at all possible. The use of guns in society as a violent instrument is something I totally oppose, vigilante action I also oppose.
I believe in the rule of law, and part and parcel of that rule is a well organised, well disciplined and well trained professional police force, and in Australia we generally have that. That is not to say police should be given 'carte blanche' authority to do as they please. Community vigilance of police through our political and judicial representatives is most necessary, after all as a society we give police a lot of power. As police officers are human, they can do the wrong thing at times.
State sanctioned violence, is another area I feel strongly about, and too often Australia has become involved in wars, without any real justification or prevarication. I hope the day will come when mankind has reached a level of enlightenment and war has become a thing of the past, but given the state of affairs in the world presently that seems a long way off.

Jay, your attempt to associate Greens and people on this forum with this mad man Sheikh Haron, is pathetic. A clever tactic, my friend, if I was to say I agree with the content of his letter, and his letter is quite reasonable. His letter gives no indication of his forthcoming actions of recent days, but you would like nothing better than to link me and others to this mad man by extrapolation. Agree with his letter, dar, dar dar, then you must agree with his recent actions! You show your stupidity and insensitivity and not your intelligence.

"remind you of any of the writing on this forum" NO!

Paul 1405,
You're being overly sensitive, Sheikh Harun was preaching to the choir on social and foreign policy issues, his views got him kicked out of mosques but got him coverage on TV.
I'm using the same tactics the Left use every day, Harun, was using extreme Leftist rhetoric to make his point, just like Wade Page used so called "neo Nazi" rhetoric before attacking a Sikh temple in 2012.
I'm not talking about any one poster specifically but the style of Harun's letters comes from the John Pilger, New Statesman school of thought, a style admired and imitated by many in the pro refugee and Islamic apologist category.
Monkey see monkey do, Harun was rebuffed by conservative Muslims but he knew he'd get sympathy from progressives so he adopted their style of activism, when that didn't work he jumped on the Jihadi bandwagon at the last minute.
It's all connected to this discussion and people's attitudes toward authoritarian regimes and their policies, maybe Harun was tortured in Iran or in prison in Australia, maybe not but he definitely knew enough about how Australian society works to assume he'd get a knee jerk reaction and big hugs from the left and stony silence from Shia Muslims and the right.
Read my previous post on torture, sometimes troublemakers are detained and tortured as a way of discrediting them in the wider community, better to have a few disgraced and dispirited radicals like David Hicks, Mamdouh Habib and Sheikh Harun walking about as examples to others than have every such individual disappear from view.

Jay, show me where this mad man got "big hugs from the left", maybe you can post something from your favorite Neo-Nazi site, which will give you that evidence you need. Obviously you are itching for a "debate" about this, thinking it would be another opportunity to unleash some more of your extremest opinions. You have got about all the reaction you are going to get from me on this, at this time.

To say "Oh golly O Sung! Do the language and themes used by Sheikh Haron remind you of any of the writing on this forum?"

Then say "I'm not talking about any one poster specifically" Cop out by a coward. You must known of posts on here which have language and themes the same as or simmilar to the language and themes of this Sheikh Haron and what is contained in his letter, assuming the letter is not a fake? All individual posts can be attributed to individual posters. Please answer the question.

Good afternoon to you PAUL1405...

I refer to your answer concerning my last enquiry of you. I'm unable to say anything remotely intelligent in which to adequately respond to that answer ?

It's as if you'd managed to comprehensively articulate exactly my own personal thought's on the philosophical approach to violence. If and when it's ever vindicated ? Whether or not it's perpetrated by the 'white hats' or the 'black hats', is immaterial. Violence is evil and rarely excusable or justified, save for under the most extreme circumstances, which you've so lucidly identified !

Paul, my initial summation of you and your political beliefs during our various exchanges apropos the Vietnam War, and the method you dealt with conscription - Were clearly wrong ! For which *I unreservedly apologise* ! Your opposition to the whole moral and ethical question of that War, I would, with respect, (still) utterly disagree with you...but that's what people do in our enlightened society - politely and harmoniously disagree ! That is of course provided one is not required to accommodate those with serious hedonistic and vanity issues ?

Thank you PAUL for your candid and thoroughly honest answer, I greatly appreciate it ! And I sincerely hope will we continue to disagree on almost everything, in order that we may continue with further spirited discussions !