Whether or not to provide the victim with the means of defence. I have to acknowledge the contradiction and I fear I am not the only one.
We demand the floor. That the solution comes from the culture of consensus, that the warlike logic must be banished, that violence implies violence, that the spiral is infinite. The law of force makes the winner strong and weak loser. That force, moreover, does not guarantee justice and truth, and that it is not sustainable, because the thirst for justice will ever take its head. But what do you do when the word ends with force?

This people praised the feat of the Counterparts of Roncesvalles, when the Franks took stones; they applauded the sabotages of the French resistance III. He understood the battle against the Reich and, more recently, against the army of the warriors, when the invasion of Franco before and the Francoist oppression later fought.

Is it justified to take arms to the aggressor? Armed defense seems more justifiable when aggression is closer. Tiranicide was also justified when the disaster was paid. But looking further, we see more clearly that violence causes violence. With contradictions.