The more I think about the original post the more I'm appreciating it for what I see as being both provocative and subtle. My initial reaction was actually pretty similar because the language is couched in "bu." At first glance all I saw was militaristic principles of conflict...and frankly as a proud, peaceful, American, these days I'm particularly sick and tired of conflict and tough talking. But that's part of why I'm appreciating it more: just as Aikido is, at first glance, an art with weapons and fighting techniques, at a deeper level it's not about that much, if at all.
Intellectual honesty is always appreciated and refreshing. I'm speaking in generalities to others that might have posted to this thread not to those that admit to themselves there is something they might not understand and reflect further. I didn't really "get" the original post either but (waiting, watching, and reserving judgement) I interpreted post #5 as a hint: it looked to me as the same formula/idea (as post #1) with different values plugged in for the variables. Others saw this, though it came from the same poster, as diametrically opposed: post 1 bad (for example see post 2), post 5 good (see post 6).
Anyway, to say what the post definitely was/is about is harder than ruling out what it was not - a literal call for/praise of invasion which seems on its face absurd, given the context.
I suppose this is the limitation of the medium we are trying to relate to strangers... text loses much of the context we have when interpreting natural languages and subtlety is easily overrun.