I have come across an article by a scholar, comparing some aspects of Buddhism with Western philosophy:
One of the points he make is on anger, which should be avoided, according to both Seneca and the Buddha. Then the author writes:
Owen…asked the Dalai Lama a question…: if I had a chance to go back in time and kill Hitler before he starts WWII and the Holocaust, should I not do it? Would it not be okay for me to be angry at the thought of what Hitler did/was going to do, and indeed use such anger as a motivator to kill him? …The response of the Dalai Lama could have just as well come out of Seneca: “[he] explained that one should kill Hitler (actually with some martial fanfare, in the way — to mix cultural practices — a samurai warrior might). It is stopping a bad, a very bad, karmic causal chain. So, ‘yes, kill him. But don’t be angry.’”
In fact there’s a well known argument that WWII with all its destruction was allowed to happen because people did not stand up firmly to Hitler earlier.
Is there anything in EBT that would support killing say a tyrant who can cause so much damage to society, provided it’s done without anger?
There was a recent Dhamma talk in which Ajahn Brahm talked about Buddhists in the army, implying - if I understood it correctly(?) - that the two things are not necessarily contradictory. So again the question is: can you be a Buddhist and carry out violent acts if that is to stop, for example, a very bad and deranged person who is in a position of great power, provided this is not coming from anger or other negative emotions, but from a concern for say democracy?