[\] Basically it's something they want ie: dinner if you're an animal or mugging someone would be again for something you want but can't (in your mind anyway) naturally have. Hence force etc.
Otherwise it's to get rid of, destroy, something you don't want, something unwanted be it an illness or someone grabbing you.
So you attack an unwanted something and thus the aim is to get rid of and bring back to a good condition. [\]
I had said much earlier that we would eventually need to come down to semantics, and so we have. That's not a bad thing.
If we stipulate that "attack" = "bad," then of course I agree with you. But then we do need words that are appropriate for necessary destructive behavior.
For me, it makes more sense to distinguish between good attacks and bad (or with a bit more nuance, "better" and "worse"). More aiki, or less aiki.
I still maintain that predators attack, that the immune system attacks, and doctors sometimes destroy in order to promote healing. All of these things may be aiki. Yes, this can easily be perverted to justify heinous behavior, but an opportunistic spin doesn't change essential truth.
My question to you: When you are being uke, are you still doing aikido? Is what you are simulating aiki?
I want all my time on the mat, as much as possible, to be doing aikido. I want to be doing aiki as tori, and I want to be doing aiki as uke. In fact, to me it seems that aiki really only arises in the interaction between uke and tori. Neither does it alone.
I used to believe that there was no attack in aikido. For my own personal experience, this came to appear increasingly dishonest. I now know that my aikido must perforce always contain an element of attack, so the challenge to me is to find the most appropriate, measured, balanced, and aiki manner of attack.
It is hard to explain sometimes, because my overarching aim is to be as gentle as possible, to promote fitness and vitality for all involved.