Peace calls for the situation like 911 & enforcing peace when there shouldn't be one is immoral & illegal aside from peace meaning hatred or action. Enforcing peace when there shouldn't be like 911 is immoral & illegal. There is certainly no law against "not having peace" when there is a rightful reason. There are only laws on enforcing something unwanted against someone's free will protected by the laws. Aside from that, peace calls for the situation. I didn't say peace is not a comfortable, nice, "desired" thing. I said peace is not a "rightful (good)" thing. Justice & consequence. Also, it matters whether we are talking about peace when it is consequential & when it is not consequential (not supposed to have peace). That goes for "either meaning by peace", whether hatred with civilized actions or whether uncivilized actions or war. Peace has 2 meanings, but it is irrelevant. So, 2 things to focus here. Whether peace is consequential & rightful, & whether peace is rightful (good) or simply what you want. (want is not really righteous). Peace has 2 meanings: hatred with civilized acts or uncivilized acts. Even war is rightful sometimes. Not saying “always war”. I am talking about consequence & righteousness. Also, even when you don't do war or do uncivilized acts, you can still act civilized while entitled to hatred & having hatred. Like I said, peace has 2 meanings. Either way, uncalled peace is not from righteousness. Peace is not a rightful thing & it calls for the situations. When the peace is uncalled (not supposed to have peace consequentially), no to “not having hatred while acting civilized” but yes to “having hatred while being civilized in actions”. Of course, sometimes, even uncivilized acts or wars are rightful. I said uncalled peace & consequential peace call for the situations. You need more? You deny 911 war or whatever such historically? Yeah, that "peace calls for the situation" idea is so genius that the rest of the world looks so dumb, huh? Aside from these facts being “logical” & “a matter of definition (not including righteousness)”, the world has always known the concept of “peace calls for the situation, peace is not rightful, some situation does not call for peace (whether not having peace means having hatred while acting civilized or whether not having peace means uncivilized acts or wars rightful sometimes depending on the situation as 911 war)”. Whichever of 2 meanings, “rightful”. As for 911 war, it is the second meaning for peace (not having peace means war in that case “rightfully”). In case it's not clear, what I value & emphasize also (instead of just the "called" peace direction) is the "right to hate". "Right to hate" is an entitled right morally, logically (definitions), legally (the laws guarantee & entitle that "right"). It is easy to see just the "called" peace direction. Any moron can do that. I am just "also" seeing the other direction. Any moron can cry “peace! Oh yeah! So nice to have!”. It's about both directions. Rights. Rightful entitlements. Fighting for the "right to hate" doesn't look as cool or great as fighting for "called" peace? They are all entitled rights. Also, there are plenty of airheads fighting for "called" peace so that there are even "idiots" fighting for uncalled peace. The important part to focus is righteousness to both direction. I happen to value, emphasize, fight for the "right" to hate.