[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: How is responding to violence with violence not retaliation? I think you're missing the meaning of what retaliation is. Without an initial action, there is no retaliatory action. For Sparhawks action to not be retaliation it would need to happen before, or at the same time of an assault, which would mean he instigated the violence - which is worse. Retaliating is a responsive action, and one which can and should be avoided where possible. See a) Israel/Palestine conflict, and b) IRA/Ulster Unionists conflict and c) Serb/Croat/Bosnian conflict for more details on how the cycle of retaliation is an endless spiral. Returning fire - is by definition retaliation, as you are RETURNING fire. That is the pure and simple definition of retaliation. There is no emotion to retaliation. Retaliation is not malice. Retaliation is responsive. Like vengance or revenge is also responsive.

Vengance and revenge have an underlaying reason for the action that seperates them from responing to an action while the action is going on. You've read the Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the begining that was simply a law that stated if you do this crime this is your punishment. It was soon preverted to mean if you do this I get to do this back to you. It got so preverted that there had to be cities of refuge set up to alow people to run to so they didn't have revenge acted upon them.