Defensive and offensive fighting are still both a form of fighting. If the opposition is unwilling to waiver, is willing to kill you if you refuse to settle, you won't kill? Ideals always require bloodshed, every religious founder has embodied this truth. Every nation has had to shed blood for its ideals, it is simply not possible to avoid. You are infringing on another ideal whenever you engage in creating the circumstance of your own.
If you are suggesting that we allow aggressors to kill and torture us and those who are vulnerable in our society, I'm calling you out as an extremist
This is the problem, you see opposites as necessary, and you group me into one of them for ease of your own expression. I am as against passivity as I am aggression, both are poisonous. I just think that fighting for the power of something artificial - like a country or religious organization - is stupid.
Having to fight in defense against self-serving and foreign aggressors is simply our reality. Ideally, we would have not that need, but this is the world we live in.
I am saying that the extremes should be removed, that we are fighting to push out ideals while killing someone that believes in another ideal. If all are given individual empowerment and freedom rather than choosing a particular group, there needn't be war at all - without large groups, war is simply impossible.
But this isn't our reality, lunitik. We live in a dangerous world with enemies who wouldn't bat an eye at our destruction. Your ideology is dangerous as it condemns those who fight for those most vulnerable. There ARE people who are simply aggressive, whom have channeled their aggression in a positive manner -- To serve and to protect others from violent self-serving men. On that same note, there ARE those who are more passive in approach, those who appeal to love, compassion, and unity. Both create a balance in our society. Without one, the other would fall.
You call it defending, but those foreign aggressors are defending their ideals as well. They usually fight because there are individuals in that country which are part of their community. Take 9/11 for instance, there are Muslims in America that are seeing things which are against Islam. Their freedom is to work in America, but the Muslim ideal means that they should not be witness to such things. Now, to defend the American freedom - really to enforce democracy, another ideal - Americans force this on other countries. It is all a matter of perspective, but always we create and empower us vs them, there are few truly individual people in this world because of this.
I have suggested three times now that we are not to force our ideals on others, but rather that we defend them against aggressors, those who are attempting to force their ideals on us with violence.