There's a fundamental distinction, which you're missing, between initiated force and defensive force.
When someone robs or murders, that's initiated force. When the police use force to stop a robber or murderer, that's defensive force.
A "call to violence" is only applicable to initiated force.
For example, if I say, "let's murder Bob," that's a call to violence. If I say, "The police should arrest the murderer of Bob," that's not a call to violence.
Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive force, not initiated force, and thus is not a "call to violence."
I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."
>Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive force, not initiated force, and thus is not a "call to violence."
You do understand what a NFZ in Ukraine is, right? It's not "hey fellas can ya stop flyin here, thanks". It's "we are now firing on all Russian aircraft within the zone, weapons away". Cut to WWIII, and so on.
>I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."
Of course a defensive call to action is a call to violence. This absurdist doublespeak is tuned to redefining words to fit how one views a conflict, and who is the aggressor and who is the agressed.
Well, if you're going to be pedantic:
There's a fundamental distinction, which you're missing, between initiated force and defensive force.
When someone robs or murders, that's initiated force. When the police use force to stop a robber or murderer, that's defensive force.
A "call to violence" is only applicable to initiated force.
For example, if I say, "let's murder Bob," that's a call to violence. If I say, "The police should arrest the murderer of Bob," that's not a call to violence.
Calling for a NATO no-fly zone is calling for defensive force, not initiated force, and thus is not a "call to violence."
I hope you can see how unjust and absurd it would be to call the defense of innocents a "call to violence."