I understand your analogy, OceanWinds, and agree, but this whole equation has too many elements. I agree that it's always preferable to choose a peaceful solution, based on love rather than revenge, so I don't want to argue your point, but this situation still raises some questions in me. And I don't have clear answers, there are just too many unknowns.
Abusing your analogy a little, reading the beginning I first thought diverting the stream was analogous to the Illuminati's actions. Then returning the stream would mean getting rid of the Illuminati
Just a different perspective.
Then there's this notorious question: would it have been a good or bad thing if someone had killed Hitler a couple of years before 1945? Same thing now with the World Elite. My dilemma is this: if you take drastic measures, like killing, you're committing a crime, not only by our judicial system, but against universal laws too. On the other hand, say at least hypothetically, by not killing these relatively few people, you're allowing for mass murder, torture, mind control, rape, extensive economical scams and similar things to happen. It's a bit like sitting and doing nothing.
Yes, I get the point that there are other ways to go about it. But that brings the question, are these ways quick and effective enough? I believe in the long run the peaceful solutions are necessary and they should be worked on all along. I'm raising the question whether additional, more extreme measures, are cathegorically a bad thing, or a rather necessary support for the less extreme ones. Because in my opinion time is not on our side here. Neither is money and many other things. Not that money is important but it's still an effective tool to achieve many goals. And They have lots of it.
I'm not really taking a side here, I'm not entirely sure what's right or wrong in this situation, so I raise this as a question for everyone to share an opinion. Also, Ben's agenda is "assassination is coming IF you keep killing people [through war/disease etc]". So 1. there is a clear warning, and 2. it's a few assassinations as a response to mass murder basically. So what exactly is ethical or unethical here? Both options have pros and cons. I believe a peaceful way is prefferable. But I'm not so sure that NEVER going to extreme measures, even when dealing with extreme conditions, is always correct.
So what to choose? In a way I like this prospect and in a way I do have a moral problem with it. But I also have a moral problem with letting a few *******s abuse billions of people. I'd like to know people's opinions on this point.