Quote

I have never said that people 'should' engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy.

Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an 'assassination.'

If you militarise a situation, you beg for an armed response.

Missile strikes - or any other such action - against a sovereign nation is an act of war.

War is an attempt of one group to impose its will upon another group by armed violence.

This experience actually means the very opposite: the largest military power was unable to stop such a sensitive attack and will be unable to rule out such a possibility in the future. Precisely this is the background to the United States' military interventions.

In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.

War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

You are attached to what you attack.