Reply #105: Can I answer that question for you? The one about this being a liberal site. [View All]

Because classical liberalism (in the Hobbes, Mill, Rousseau, Jefferson, etc. sense) is first of all a moral philosophy for governance based in a rejection of moral-equivalence or moral-relativism in favor of a strong belief in objective right and wrong with its' foundations in the Enlightenment and the supremacy of reason.

It fairly explicitly rejects unconditional-pacifism as illiberal and contrary to reason. Repeatedly. It may be one of the very few things all those old dead men in the first paragraph agreed upon.

It's irrational to think that one should not kill an enemy bent on your murder and unwilling (or incapable) to be subjected to any law, reason or social-contract but his own. Hobbes would disagree but only in so far as no man (as part of the Leviathan (by which he means society)) can acquiesce to his murder; Hobbes nevertheless conceded the capacity (if not the moral justification) of the Leviathan (society) to kill him anyways.

I'm not going to shed a tear for the death of evil men regardless of the circumstances there-of.