What I was trying to say was, a person who believes in some form of after-life or who believes that there is more than just this world to live in cannot have a debate about whether it is right or wrong to fight, in war, independantly, for your right to live. They cannot have this kind of debate with someone who believes that this world is all they have.
If two different kids are told not to fight over their sweets by different parents, and 1 kid thinks this is the last sweet he'll ever have and the other kid is more than confident of getting more from his parents and a bully comes along to take their sweets, they both feel the same-that it is wrong for the bully to come and take their sweets, however the boy who knows he'll get more from his parents, gives his sweets up to the bully, which pleases his parents, and should in turn lead to more sweets-very sweet!
However, the other kid, may think, 'well, I know my parents told me not to fight over sweets, but surely I'm justified in standing up against this bully and trying to keep my sweets'. He is more inclined to stand up for his right to keep the sweets because he knows he will not get any more, and what's more he thinks he's quite right to do so.
Lets look at this scene, both kids know it's wrong for the bully to take their sweets, however, one gives up his sweets peacefully, the other stands up for his right to have his sweets.
WHO IS RIGHT??
I'm sure you can apply this analogy to war and the situation regarding terrorist clamp-down.
The 2 kids can't really have a serious debate about whether they should give up their sweets or not because they both have such different situations.
Hope that clears this up.
Chris
Anyone who agrees, please let me know