>>11323301yup, you're right he wasn't committing direct self-defense. But, by analogy, if you can see an enemy force growing stronger, you know they hate you and want to destroy you, and eventually they'll be strong enough that you can't do anything about it, isn't a preemptive strike justified? Surely there is some situation you can think of where it is, rather than waiting until you will certainly lose the battle just so you can claim the moral high ground of not having struck first. And avoiding innocent deaths is obviously preferable but there's never been total war in history that has avoided the deaths of civilians as collateral damage; it's considered a necessary evil, no one goes to prison for it, the world moves on.
Ted seems to have believed that what he did only way to change the path of the river, if it were ever possible for one man to do. From what I've read he thought it was necessary to bring attention to his ideas. I don't think he succeeded in changing the path of progress, But I also can't definitively say, that if he had succeeded, that he wasn't justified (though may his victims RIP)
