***Moreover, libertarian principles tell us that any response to a truly unprovoked attack must respect the rights of innocents. Actions that can be expected to harm people not involved in the original attack should be avoided. War must not be an occasion for dispensing with normal moral prohibitions. Those who disagree lose their standing to object to the murder of innocents on 9/11.*** 
 
 
I agree in principal that innocents should not be killed in response to an unprovoked attack. But War will do just that. When the aggressor "junta" has taken control of an aggressor nation's resources and economic capacities to launch its high impact attack, any response to it will necessarily have to include "innocents" that would rather have it otherwise within their own country. Not being able to respond at all would merely give license to said junta to attack from behind their innocents from then on. 
 
Translating it best as possible to a more individual based situation, if my house is being attacked by an armed band and I have access to automatic weapons to protect myself, and I do so, there is a likely possibility that neighbors my harmed, themselves or their property. Am I not able to do so? Of course there may be limits, such as not being able to blow up the whole block, killing a fly with a sledgehammer, but operate within a narrow band of protecting oneself yet may harm others. Responding to unprovoked force isn't within some hermitically sealed region.

Guest