Examples, Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, and so on. I don't know that there is anything directly from the Buddha as far as approving or disapproving killing in defense. I've never read it if it is there. If anyone finds it, you are welcome to show it to us. We interpret the practice as your intention is most important, what are your intentions? Kamma is made by intention. Our intention is not to kill, we want to keep that as our intention. Our intention is also, though, to help others. Our intention is to stop Dukkha, to stop pain. If we see somebody who is harming others, we can we try to stop them. If we could stop them without killing, then of course that would be the best thing we could do. If it seems to necessitate killing, then we leave it as a personal decision at that time.
This particular question is very real in present history. Since September 11th, there is a very real question about what each one of us is going to do... we all go on airplanes. What are we going to do if we are on a flight that's being hijacked? It's very real, what most people are thinking today, and it's happened a few times already. It seems, at present, that every able-bodied fellow and any strong women are going to get up straight away and they are going to attack that hijacker. And they are going to risk their life, they are going to risk their life trying to save the people on the plane and hopefully, as we have seen, maybe thousands on the ground that the hijackers want to kill, too. So their main intention in trying to stop the hijackers is that they wish to stop harm, they wish to stop more killing. If that attacker fights back so hard, that in their trying to stop him, he dies, if they did not have the intention to kill, if their intention was based on trying to help, then, as we understand, that is still going to be an okay Kammic action as far as their part goes.
Now, take somebody like Hitler. Imagine it is 1939, and somebody sees quite clearly what's happening, and this person has the chance to kill Hitler, in a room somewhere, whatever. Once again, what's the intention, to save lots of people. Will it actually work though? When we stop the hijackers on the plane that's going to work, but if somebody killed Hitler, what was his next person in line going to do, was he going to do exactly the same thing? This, of course, is a major question when you think of someone like Saddam Hussein. And it was part of the argument many years ago that there was no use getting rid of him if you didn't get rid of his sons. And then there were others there, too.
This is something to consider as an overview, what are the results of an action going to be? So at times even though someone might think it's doing wonderful goodness to kill a person in charge, if it doesn't stop the whole mechanism... And we may look at Afghanistan a little on this as well. It's possible they are never going to find Bin Laden or it's possible he is already dead, but his organization is the problem, not just the one person. It's quite clear that even a fifteen year old in Florida wants to join in with the Bin Laden people. If you haven't heard, a fifteen year old took off in a plane in which he was taking lessons, and flew it straight into a building. Killed himself, that was all. So when you think of killing, to look at the overview, to look at what the results are going to be, not to have the intention to kill, if possible, but an intention based on a compassionate wish to stop suffering.