On the Virtues of Killing Children

Posted By Grim

You are not going to like this. 

On the demonstrable virtues of not caring if children die, on hardening your mind for war, and other things we can no longer avoid discussing.

Beware that you are ready before you pass this seal.

Let us begin with a debate between a peaceful, gentle soul, and me.  The topic could be Israel's war, or ours in Iraq, or -- if they have the heart for it -- the one to come.

The gentle soul -- how I respect her!  -- will begin by pointing out how many innocents have died in the recent wars, and especially the children, who are the most obviously innocent.  She will point out figures for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for Lebanon, and ask:  "How can you justify this?  These poor children, who might have been good men, good women, lain in the cold earth?"

We have all had the conversation that far, have we not?  We are accustomed to reply:  "But the enemy is the one that targets children.  We try our best to avoid hurting children.  That makes us better.  Furthermore, the enemy hides himself among children.  As a result, in spite of our best efforts, sometimes children die on the other side also.  But again, it is not our fault -- it is his fault.  He endangers them."

She replies:  "But how can you justify their deaths?  Regardless of how hard you try, will you not kill them?  Some of them?  Should we not choose peace instead?"

Let us consider that.

What if we asked her, "Let us speculate that our enemy -- say in Iran -- seeks to kill our children.  If we attack them to stop it, we may or may not kill any of their children -- and we will do everything in our power to avoid it.  If we do not, they certainly will kill ours.  Should we attack them or not?"

She will answer:  "That is a false example.  Nothing is certain, and it is said that hard cases make bad law."

"Fair enough," we reply, "but where will you find the parent who will sacrifice her children for the possibility of keeping another parent's child alive?"

"It would be impossible," she will agree, but add, "However, nothing is that certain."

"Then let us make it conditional," I continue.  "Let us say that there is the possibility we shall kill a child -- but we shall do our best not to do so -- and only the possibility that they will kill our child, but it is their aim.  Now, should we try to stop them -- though risking their child?  Or should we refuse, and take the increased risk that they will succeed in their murder, since no one dares disrupt them?"

"It is always wrong to take the risk of killing a child, whether we do it or they do," she will say.

"Why so?" I ask.

"Because it endangers the innocent," she replies.

"If that is the reason," I answer, "then you are wrong.  It is best that we bomb without fear."

Her eyes grow wide.  "You are mad," she says.

"Not so," I answer.  "Consider:  when the enemy seeks to kill our child to motivate us to surrender to his will, is it not because he believes that the danger to the children will move our hearts?"

"It is," she must agree.

"And when he hides among children," I add, "why?  Children do little to deflect artillery.  Must it not be because he knows that we -- we ourselves -- fear for the children, even his children?"

She nods, silently.

"Then it is proven," I say.  "It is our love of these innocents that endangers them.  If we did not care if children died, they would be in little danger."

"That cannot be," she replies in anger.

"But it is so," I contest.  "If we did not care if our children died, they would not be targets.  There would be no reason to target them, because we would not be moved by their deaths.

"If we did not care if their children died," I add, "there would be no reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence.  If it were not that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy's children would be clear of all places of battle -- because they are, except for the fact that we love them, a hindrance."

She bites her lip.

"Of course, we cannot cut out our hearts," I tell her.  "Nor should we -- as we wish to remain men, and good men, rather than monsters.  Yet it is our love that is the chief danger to the innocent now -- to our own innocents, and theirs also."

"What do you suggest?" she demands of me.  "If you will not hate children, if you assert that it is right to love them -- but you say we cannot love them, without wrongfully endangering them -- what can we do?  Where is the right?"

"It must be," I tell her sadly, "Here:  That we pursue war without thought of the children.  That we do not turn aside from the death of the innocent, but push on to the conclusion, through all fearful fire.  If we do that, the children will lose their value as hostages, and as targets:  if we love them, we must harden our hearts against their loss.  Ours and theirs."

"How can that be right?" she wonders.

"It cannot be," I must say.  "Love should always rise, above war and fear and death.  Love should always be first, and not last, in our hearts.  It should never be that love brings wrong, and disdain brings right.

"And yet," I say, "It is.  I have shown you that it is.  That means we have moved into a time beyond human wisdom.  We can no longer know the right.  It is beyond us. 

"We can only do," I must warn her, and you.  "We can only do, and pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven."

Comments

[Beth* A.]

Powerful. Compelling. Frightening.

True.

I would add though, that when it is done and over, we will revert to type, and rededicate ourselves to being loving, peaceable folks. How do I, or anyone, know this to be a fact?

Our own history.

[cwe]

War and defending ourselves is not a pretty business and it is time for the public to wake up and realize there is no "quick fix" pill to make it all go away and feel better.

Even though reading this piece made my heart squeeze knowing that what was written is true and needed....God Bless those whom will be personally implementing what needs to be done.

Beth I agree with you that our own history does prove we will revert.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Grim,

I appreciate your writing most of the time more for the depth of analysis than sublime reasoning. We have all been tap-dancing around this issue and I appreciate your biting the bullet and addressing it. You choked me up once or twice because I have to think about how to explain to my kids that I agree with you.

The question is could any of us act with conviction given that belief?

Thanks for the bright light.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Roger]

I agree wholeheartedly. When confronted by those who value hate more than love, a demonstration of the willingness to completely obliterate them before they destroy you is the only solution. You *don't* have to obliterate them all, you just have to be *willing* to do it. One cannot apply a typical negotiating stance to an enemy that considers it a victory when the landscape is in ruins but they have won by resisting for an extra month. Blind faith, and the inability to separate religion from matters of state only posesses the logic of illogic, or the value of the antithesis of values. It's a hard, harsh and cruel truth, but just as compromise with adolf hitler was only an encouraging factor for adolf, so it is true of islamofascists. There is no clearer truth than the picture of israeli soldiers standing in front of their children to defend them, and the terrorists hiding behind their children to gain battlefield advantage. While I admire the humanity of Grim's friend, I cringe at her naivete.

roger

[Kay]

It is becoming more clear that if we want to survive as a nation we are going to have to change the way we fight this war, and it is a world war. These extremists are not going away until we put them away. They want us dead, they want our children dead, their whole being is to kill until they are the only ones left. Innocent people have been dying for ages and that will not go away either. At some point, you have to ask yourself, it is either going to be them or us? I would much rather it be them. We are a good people and always have been for anyone that needs help. We just need to face a fact, and that is we need to win this war, and whatever it takes we need to do it. I have never hurt anyone in my life and cannot understand how people just live and breathe for the destruction of an entire people. I would love to live in peace but not on their terms.

[mattd]

where did you find the liberal that would listen to reason?

[Grim]

"While I admire the humanity of Grim's friend, I cringe at her naivete."

That you should not do. Her understanding is not naive, but the natural understanding of mankind. It is right and proper she should feel that way.

The danger is that natural feelings lead us to the opposite of where they wish to lead. The love engendered in us for the protection of children instead endangers them. The natural emotion we have to defend is the very thing that ensures destruction.

I have warned that the wise man must prepare his sword. Swords are meant to strike things apart. We must strike apart that natural love from the end that it hopes to gain, and pursue the end while abandoning the love.

In that way, only, is the love truly served. It exists, not to be felt, but to guide us. If we feel the fullest love for the children, and thereby lead them to destruction, the love is not served. If we attain what love intends for us to attain -- the actual protection of children -- then it is served, though we have had to ban it from our hearts in order to serve it.

That is an order of wisdom that is not human. We should not blame anyone for failing to come to it naturally -- it is not natural. Yet it is still true. That means it must be supernatural: a kind of love that is not a normal part of the human heart. Yet reason shows that it is true love, however strange it feels to a mortal heart.

[TheNewGuy]

Well-written, Grim. Deprive a tactic of its intended effect, and they will stop using it, saving more innocent lives in the final calculus.

May God have mercy on our souls for what may be forced upon us before this conflict is over.

[seawitch]

A powerful post. It's a hard reality that this is what is faced in all wars. And this is what we are facing now and in the future. I rather my son be protected, though I feel sadness and grieve at the loss of innocents.

[Grimmy]

We can not reason with those that have proven themselves unreasonable.
We can not bargain with those that have proven themselves dishonorable.
We can not offer terms to those that have proven themselves irrational.
We can not offer mercy to those that have proven themselves merciless.

We must either fight toward total victory or submit in defeat.

We must not stop the fight until the enemy and all those that have stood with that enemy are broken and no longer able to be an enemy.
To do otherwise is to create a condition of continuous, never ending, bloodshed and that would be a great evil.

[tripper]

I was in Baghdad at the ceremony where 31 children were killed during the opening and dedication of a water facility. Insurgents exploded vests near kids who were only going after candy offered by the CA troops; NO ONE should have to see, have to pick up, the pieces of a 6-yr olds body parts. NO ONE should have to see the torment of parents faces as they look for the PIECES of their children. ANY being who would see some sort of justification of this is beyond the need for compassion, caring, or feeling of those that seek their justice. NO GOD who is 'of peace' could bring this upon anyone. NO justification.

I lost any compassion, caring, desire to allow justice to guide how we deal with insurgents; there is no justice for them. Only death. They seek it; they rationalize it; lets give it to them.

[BattleofthePyramids]

Griim:

Good post, and I am delighted to see people taking this sort of thing seriously, but - why exactly, is targeting enemy children even an issue, here? I think you and I can agree that we are in a total war against against Islamic Fascism, as the president called it.

Terrorists, their state sponsors, and a very large (IMHO) majority of Muslims worldwide want Islam to dominate the world, with all non Muslims converted, enslaved, or dead. Very well. I for one accept that a state of war has been thrust upon us, and I consider conversion, death and enslavement for myself and my family unaccpetable. That being the case, I have no problem with killing as many Muslims as will be necessary to win.

In the process of winning, no doubt many Muslim children will die. What of it? The responsibility for their death belongs with their fellow Muslims, who willingly bring war without limit, restraint, or mercy to me. Surely, they should expect nothing less in return - except, of course that we have spent the last 50 years teaching them that using children as human shields is an effective tactic. The sooner we harden our hearts, and treat Islamic Fascism as we did the Nazi variety, the sooner we will win the fewer casualties we will have to inflict.

However, we should be under no illusions - what we have seen so far is only the beginning. A truly massive war is coming, one which will require us to kill on a scale never before seen if we want to win. Many Islamic cities will suffer the fate of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and yes, Hiroshima. War is what the Muslims want. We must give them war until they have had enough.

[Grimmy]

The issue we still dance around with regularity is...

The active and overt 5th column we have working out in the open here in our own lands.

How are we to ever delude ourselves into believing we can win this fight when we cant even wrap our heads around the concept that there's a big difference between dissent and disloyalty?

The real question is, not can we win against a foreign enemy but instead it is, will we survive the rot that has nearly reached the very core of our culture?

We obsess with angst over the idea of having to kill the foreign born enemy. How do we handle coming to terms with having to kill people born amongst us?

[Stan T.]

My own acceptance of this inevitability has made me very depressed during the past week. Worst of all, perhaps, is the denial of it by those who claim to speak for us. A Jewish friend said "I don't believe that the end justifies the means". I shall encourage him to reflect on whether his opinion will change when a mushroom cloud rises over Tel Aviv.

[Froggy]

Grim,

You just wrote the post that I didn't have the stones to write myself.

[Final Historian]

Grim, have you read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness recently? If not, I suggest you do. I am digging out my copy now.

[bobg]

Grim:

Yes. This is heart wrenching. That "dead child abuse" has now also been proven against Hezbollah sadly shouldn't suprise anyone. The British knew this a long time ago. They've just forgotten it:

Sir Garnet Wolsel[e]y -- Former Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Sir
Garnet Wolseley wrote in The Soldier's Handbook (1869);

"We are bred up to feel it a disgrace ever to succeed by falsehood . .
. we will keep hammering along with the conviction that honesty is the best
policy, and that truth always wins in the long run. These pretty little
sentiments do well for a child's copy book, but a man who acts on them had better sheathe his sword forever." — prologue to Bodyguard of Lies, by Anthony Cave Brown.

Another way to look at it is along the line of my post "On Restraining The Police West". Sadly, a clarifying way to look at this war is as hostage-taking writ large. If bank robbers could always be sure of succeeding by taking hostages, the long term consequences are easy to predict.

No rational American would seriously contemplate retiring our Police snipers and SWAT teams short of arriving at Utopia. Are we at risk of moral collapse because of it?

I'll start worrying when we get within 40 light years of dead child abuse.

Sadly, the risk we face from the external "hostage takers" has become existential.

And don't get me started about the root causes lying near the "Tinfoil Apocalyphate"...

[Some Soldier's Mom]

I have recently posted it... but the saying is still the basis of all the arguments bared by Grim:

there cannot (and will not) be peace until all people love their children more than they hate [infidels][Jews][Americans][other]... and when death -- any death (their own, yours, anyone in the way) -- is not the reward for the violence... when you fight people that have no other goal and that goal is not negotiable.

[douglas]

Grim- clarity, persuasiveness, and poetry all in one post. You are a talent.

Effectiveness is the only moral choice in warfare. Get it done, then be a humanitarian. I believe that was the standard set for us in WWII, although, Europe's appeasement and our delayed entry into the war may well have increased the suffering substantially- probably to the tune of several million lives. But we never seem to be convinced till it's too late...
Is it too late yet, or can we still save lives in the long run? Or are we willing to pay in lives to be certain we had to act, for the sake of a 'clear conscience'?

[Sunguh]

We are rediscovering the horror of war as people think we are weak and can't fight. But don't expect them to appreciate our restraint up to this point.

Rereading Caesars 'Gallic commentaries' makes me reflect on what made him such a powerful leader. His ruling of the Gauls was not just due to military victory, but a very astute reading of their traditions and customs. When someone betrayed him, he took them to their own tribe and asked what was the custom for betrayal and means for prosecution. When the person was found guilty, they would be punished by their own rules. This was called 'more majorum', or the morals of the majority, referring to the land that was conquered.

This is because the 'barbarians' would not understand or respect gestures and privilege as understood in the Roman world. They only understood force and their own customs. So in order to impress upon them their seriousness, they would communicate in their own language, so to speak. Only Roman citizens and Roman territories were subject to the rights of Roman law, as well as the responsibilities.

Thanks for this post Grim. I think we're starting to look back and see the consequences of our well-meant policies, and the truth of the axim that the 'road to hell is paved by the best intentions...'or the fact that by trying to humanize war, as put forth by European/UN appeaseniks, just makes it a whole lot bloodier in the end.

[aridog]

Great post, Grim. I have tried for months to say clearly, to others, what you have said in a simple clear reasoned manner. Most of the time I come off sounding like Vlad the Impaler, in fact have been called that once. Circa 1968-1971 I had a bit of experience with asymetrical warfare and what insurgent sanctuary is and who it invovles. I've never been able to describe it well, especially where children are concerned. You just did so very well indeed. Thank you.

I have bookmarked it and will use your words shamelessly (with attribution) whenever I need to make the points you have made. I may sound less like a brutal idiot.

[tblubrd]

Very touching post grim.

You warned us - and that's what drew me in. I have been wrestling with this in the back of my mind ever since I saw Michael Yon's photo.

Thank you. At least I can work with this.

Tripper - I hope your pain will one day be eased. You actually made me cry more than grim did.

[Eric]

.. beautifully written, Grim.. I'm still processing it all.....

[jordan]

These gentle, peaceful souls are going to get us all killed.

When will they realize their views, as you describe, are born out of moral vanity, and not genuine humanity? ( This is merely lack of clarity on their part, not maliciousness.)

We all want to be considered the "good guy". But when we send our children off to war, isn't that exactly what we are doing? We're potentially offering our own children in a fight that ultimately will save even more children.

My nephew is like my son, yet we saw him off to Iraq knowing it might be the last time we see him. I hope he kills every last one of them. That's my clarity, right there. If this war is won, more children will live in safety and peace.

Peaceniks focus their protests and lectures on the people who are willing to lay down arms -- us. It's the Osamas and Zawahiris that need the peace lecture. Funny, never do you see anti-warriors protesting against the other side -- the one that begins warfare, that fights detestably and continues to fight even after "ceasefire."

Grim, you are a patient man.

[FVK]

Outstanding post, Grim... truly outstanding!

[Dadmanly]

Grim,

A harshly beautiful piece of work, my hats off to you on saying what needs to be said, that few will want to hear.

I would add, if only as post-script. We have an example, a supernatural one as you allude, for the kind of selfless sacrifice that in the end may be reuqired of all of us. "No greater love," a Book of wisdom says, "than that a man lay down his life for a friend."

There is a higher love, a love that goes beyond the mere mortal, and we only glimpse it as if looking through a clouded glass.

By looking past the deaths of innocent as we fight against evil, we can remain resolute, confident that there are the lives of many more innocents that hang in the balance, critically dependent upon our success.

It is for the lives of all those innocents yet threatened that allows us to stand strong and ignore the innocents who will surely die in the courseof defeating the evil that threatens them, threatens us all, threatens our very humanity.

In fighting, we do not surrender our humanity, rather we do what's necessary to preserve it.

Tender hearted fools find that a contradiction, and thus a lie.

[FrauBudgie]

You're right.

[Peter]

Great post Grim. I have discussed the laws of land warfare before on this site and others. I have concluded that the current laws must be modified to fight our militant Islamic enemies. They fight with the tactics of 4th Generation Warfare. The laws of land warfare were created with 2nd and 3rd Generation warfare in mind. Your post demonstrates that the news laws to fight against 4th Generation Warfare will justify the deaths of many innocent civilians. It is a shame, because the laws of land warfare primarily exist to protect noncombatants. 4th Generation warfare uses noncombatants as shields; noncombatants are fast losing their protected status.

[Rosemary]

Is it not true that if we disregard all things peaceful during times of war (such as children, mosques, etc.), we could go in, get the job done, and be victorious in a shorter amount of time? This way, less time-less death.

The way we're doing it now, the enemy knows how to play the media. Boy, does the media eat it up, even though it is lies. Why not make it true?

I used to beat up my little sisters after getting punished for beating them up--because I never laid a finger on them in the first place. My reasoning?

If I was going to pay the punishment, I might as well get the satisfaction of at least Doing It!

[Grim]

The problem with that analogy, Rosemary, is that there is no satisfaction to be had here. We are not talking about beating up your sisters, but the deaths of innocents.

[pb]

I personally have no doubt that I would kill children to protect my own. I would kill my own people to protect my family. I would even kill a family member who threatened my life.

I am sad over the deaths of the innocent children in the MidEast, but my regret stops there. The enemy intends to wipe me out; I would not hesitate to wipe the enemy out, with his chilren, if necessary.

War should never be anything less than Hell on Earth.

[Grimmy]

Grim: I think Rosemary makes a valid point.

One of the issues facing our Soldiers on the field today is such things as the ROE concerning mosques and such.
If a sniper uses a mosque minaret as a shooting post then that mosque should be redused to rubble, post haste.
If hajii uses a mosque as a weapon/ammo storage area then the mosque is reduced to rubble.
If hajii runs into a mosque our guys run in right after him and anyone attempting to bar the way has 2 put through his face.

If our ROE was more like that then no mosque would be a refuge, storage point or sniper perch...at least it wouldnt be twice.

[Eric Blair]

You been talking to Sovay again, Grim?

[Fallschirmjager]

Hearts and Minds Grimmy. Two to the Heart, one to the mind.

[warthog]

I think I'll link this in my blog. Tough to read but necessary and true.

[Grim]

Grimmy:

I realize Rosemary is making two valid points, as re: getting blamed for things anyway, and the need to be able to act against targets that the enemy uses.

I only wish to be clear that the analogy wasn't accurate. What we're talking about here is a very important issue that people need to get their heads around, but that is deeply uncomfortable. As a result, we need to be careful how we address it. Even a slightly imprecise metaphor can give people a reason to reject the whole thing, rather than do the hard work of thinking it through.

That is an understandable reaction -- these are things we would rather not think about. We have to do so, though. Therefore, we must be careful to use just the right words.

Eric:

I haven't spoken to her in a week or more. She's been off at Otakon, viewing costume players and anime music videos.

[Grim]

Sorry about that Grim, I'll hush now.

[bruce]

Yet another fine piece Grim.

No more difficult a measure must warring peoples weigh, cold, clear reason on one side of the scale offset by loving, nurturing humanity on the other. Here wisdom must judge the balance.

I too will shamelessly use your /discussion/ as my guide if I find myself in a similar discussion.

[Fallschirmjager]

If I might add a bit of cogent, albeit divergent, thought. IMHO, the fundamental conflict here is, as Nietche might view it, the Dionysian versus the Appollonian. That is to say, the conflict of rationality versus emotion. The Islamofascist's strategy is to incite Muslims to emotional fervor and hatred, regardless of what their rational minds tell them. Induce enough doctrinal dissonance, and the mind is handicapped in its ability to control the primal rage within. That is what what fundamental Islam has fallen prey to in the last centuries. The days of Islamic leadership in science, medicine, and mathematics has been destroyed not by the Infidels, but by Islam's own fundamentalist factions who have traded the light of their culture for the darkness of concentrating temporal power in the hands of the Mullahs.

Furthermore, this dionysian strategy is also realized in how the Islamofascist's attempt to define the battlespace. Terrorism, is in a nutshell, the attempt to define the battleground in terms of emotional response over intelligent decision making. The targeting of children is a horrid embodiment of this strategy.

To win this fight, the first battle we must win is within ourselves and our culture. The battle for the primacy of rationalism over our own emotional responses. We have defined this conflict in America wrongly as the the "Cut and Run crowd" versus the "Stay the course crowd." Unfortunately, we have allowed the Tangos their first victory- by not generally even recognizing the nature of this first battle.

To achieve victory here, I turn to the east for inspiration. Miyamoto Musashi, the greatest samurai in Japanese history wrote a treatise know as the Go Rin No Sho or "the Book of Five Rings" (which was a big hit in the 80's for the Gordon Geckos of the time). Anyway, the nut of it is in the fifth ring, "the void". Only when we have coldly accepted the horror, including our own death, can we achieve victory. Unless we do, the bugbears of our own fears will cripple us. (My appologies for trying to summarize Musashi is such a way.)

So in a nutshell, Grim has pithily (and quite literately) captured this the essence of this conflict, as well as providing a very socratic walkthrough of the logic.

Bravo Grim!

Regards,

Jaeger.

P.S. Once we have have mastered our emotions, we can get on with the cold rational business of double-tapping tangos.

[jordan]

One need only look at the series of Reuters photos showing the manhandling and desecrating of children's corpses to see the problem. I'm afraid we're up against a degree of will that we can't match.

Has this nauseating display elicited the appropriate howl from civilized people? No. Not a peep. No mainstream media expose of this, or any suggestion that it is animalistic and inhuman.

We sit here agonizing, while our leadership flails, impotent and paralyzed. And the other side knows it.

If weakness invites attack, we are sending out an engraved invitation. This war, both Lebanon and Iraq, has revealed some depraved depths that should see the bright light of day: what did they do, who are they, and what are we willing to do to stop them. Still, we have a mainstream media that won't tell that story -- offends the sensibilities and all, especially when it involves children.

Some sensibilities need to be offended, and soon.

[Redhead Infidel]

I know what needs to be done. I’ve always known.

What am I feeling right now? Anger, disgust, outrage? No. My throat is closed up, my mind is still and I am motionless with …

SORROW.

[John]

heh, been reading the Socratic dialogues or The Republic there Grim??

[FbL]

Grim, you have verbalized much of what has been sitting at the edges of my conscious mind. As many have said here (and as you quietly hint at), the future is looking very dark--whether we learn this lesson or not.

Christians believe this world was created in perfection but became irrevocably flawed. Conversations and realizations like this post (and comments) convince me the latter is most definitely true. The horror of having to face the fact that the survival of all that is good is likely dependent on the creation of so much horror and pain is more than many can face, I think. And it again fills me with indescribable gratitude for those who have and will undertake the work that brings them face to face with that horror and pain.

[Mope]

Interesting. I wrote this last night. Seems like a good place to post it:

I had supported this war on terror. I still do. But this is crazy. What kind of target does the lines forming in the airports represent to the enemy? How do we match their assault on our economy? They have none to disrupt. The liberals among us have lamented the loss of freedom. I can relate to this. War is a terrible thing. I wouldn't wish it, and the U.S. military, on my worst enemy.

War is the breakdown of political negotiation. This cannot be disputed. War is divised to make life so terrible as to make your enemy capitulate. To effect this, our side must be prepared for the death of their children. Yup, you heard me right. Kill their children. Kill their children and make them impotent. I don't want my children to be forced to fight their children. I'm doing this for the children.

To this end, I'm calling for the end of the TSA. We don't need it. There will never be another aircraft pirated to crash into a building like a missile. The best they can do is destroy a plane and all aboard. To eliminate this threat, I propose each passenger be swabbed for DNA. When the aircraft lands safely, the swatches will be destroyed. On the other hand, if harm comes to the aircraft, the piracy would work corruption of blood. (See Artile 3 section III, to wit: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.) It is not treason for foreigners to attack, but this section shows "corruption of blood" is embedded in legal history. We destroy every living thing in the village the pirate came from. The village is never to be inhabited again. Ever. Push the people that quietly support these vermin into other places, only to be required to leave when the bombs drop again. To stop the bombs would merely require a call to inform of imminent danger to an aircraft and also their village.

Enough, I say. They have no concerns about our children, let them feel the taste of war where theirs become vulnerable. Everywhere they may hide.

If it is War they want, war they should get.

"No better friend; no worse enemy." Kinda says it all.

[hindmost]

Post saved to send next time the argument ensues... it's a terrible thing, but needs to be said.

[Crusader Coyote]

I have been havnig such horrible thoughts of late, such horrible dreams, that I have started to wonder "Am I delusional? Have I lost my mind? What kind of monster am I becoming?"

And then, I read what Grim has written, and I tremble, because I realise "No, I am not delusional, have not lost my mind. . ." And this is even worse than insanity.

On a happier note-- Grim, I hope she had fun at Otakon, I know I did. Spent like $200 on manga, anime, and plushies. . .

[RonF]

There's a concept here that people are using that I think is inaccurate; that children are being used by the terrorists as "human shields". That the intent is to try to deter us from attacking them by putting children in harm's way. I am now starting to think that this is erroneous thinking.

I think that the terrorists have a new paradigm. That is that they are putting children in harm's way to get the children killed. They are not seeking to halt attacks. They are seeking to attract attacks and are deliberately seeking to get children killed. This accomplishes two things:

1) It enrages those who are mis-informed on what's going on (remember that the vast majority of Moslems live in countries where the news sources are government controlled) against Israel and it's supporters.

2) It discourages the attackers and provides emotional fuel for their domestic opponents.

Hezbollah is not trying to avoid children's deaths. They are counting on them.

[Ymarsakar]

I've considered that moral dilemma as well, Grim. My conclusion was that if you truely loved someone, then would you not want them to be happy and safe? However, if your love of that someone is the thing that puts them in danger, that keeps them with you and puts them in danger, is your love strong enough to place the consideration of the loved one over your own feelings?

How would you protect someone that loved you from being killed, if your love was keeping him tied to the place of danger? You cannot convince the person to leave, because he loves you and is willing to risk his life. THe only way to convince him to leave the place of danger, independent of reason, is to demonstrate that you do not love him and that he has no reason to stay here with you.

If you truly loved the children, you would place their considerations first. If this means detaching your heart from your mind, if it means demonstrating a lack of love through action and rhetoric, then that will be it, if you have the willpower to sustain such an action of necessity.

That is the right thing to do, the honest thing to do for real love. Parents face this pretty early. Do they love their children and remove them from all bacterial and sicknesses, only to have them become allergic and sickly for their entire adult lifespan? Or do they harden their hearts, and expose their children to viruses and bacteria, hoping against hope that it will not kill them, in return for their future safety? Do you teach a child how to use a gun so that he can protect himself with one, or do you try to protect that child from reality by not telling him anything that is going on?

These moral dilemmas are challenges that people face individually. No one else can determine for you how you will react to these moral dilemmas, only you and your soul will decide. THe strength of your love, the condition of your mind, and the hardenss of your will.

Wars are a test. Total Wars are the ultimate test, the ultimate competition to see who is morally right, physically strong, and emotionally durable. Many people, Bush included since he's the chief, have attempted to limit this war. The power of the US buffers against the threat of terrorism, but this won't be so forever. No limited opponent can face an unrestricted opponent and win 10 out of 10. Not even if you are 10X more powerful. Tiger Woods with a gold handicap against that other dude with no handicap. Murphy wants in on that.

I appreciate your writing most of the time more for the depth of analysis than sublime reasoning. We have all been tap-dancing around this issue and I appreciate your biting the bullet and addressing it. You choked me up once or twice because I have to think about how to explain to my kids that I agree with you.

The question is could any of us act with conviction given that belief?

Well Jimbo, I tend to think you can act with conviction simply because there are two types of love, in general. Selfish love and selfless love. Meaning, selfish love is where the feeling of love is so strong that you are not going to do anything to threaten it, the feeling of it, even if it meant seeing the one you loved destroyed in front of you. Saving the village by destroying, remmeber that? (Save Japan by destroying it with nukes is actually an example of wisdom) Actually Saving the village by seeing it destroyed, instead of saving it. Killing a woman because she has been rendered impure, in order to save her in your eyes. Selfless love is where you put the safety of the ones you love above your own personal desires, feelings, and status.

What is love? Love is pain, to feel pain so that those you love, do not feel pain. I'm writing this in chronological order. So I read Grim's post first, some of the comments, Jimbo's comment, and then Grim's comments.

That is an order of wisdom that is not human. We should not blame anyone for failing to come to it naturally -- it is not natural. Yet it is still true. That means it must be supernatural: a kind of love that is not a normal part of the human heart. Yet reason shows that it is true love, however strange it feels to a mortal heart. - Grim

I came across that, and it is true it is wisdom, because I've always been intelligent so that is why I desired wisdom above intelligence. Wisdom had to be earned, intelligence was just inborn. I think I first encountered a good example of true love by watching Babylon 5. Where Linear and Denin and the Captain had this love triangle going on. Linear loved Denin but was loyal to her as an aid and armsman, so he did not feel that it was his place to interfere. So when Denin saw the Captain trapped in a poisonous chamber, and couldn't get out because the keypad was on the other side, Denin ran away. Giving into a moment of weakness, but he came back after he thought about the consequences of his actions. Denin openly loved the Captain and was married to him. Would Linear hurt his beloved solely in order to get rid of the competition? Is that not selfish? Since the door was clear, they both saw each other. The Captain had no idea of Linear's true feelings, and when Linear came back to save the Captain, he found Denin with the Captain, helping him gain back oxygen.

Then there were other things, like parents and child and immune systems. It is true love Grim, and while some people are Intelligent, they are not wise. Certainly the Left is not wise.

In the end, I think it's a harsh choice, that only the strong of heart, mind, and soul can make. You may be willing to sacrifice your life for others, but are you willing to allow others to sacrifice their life for you? If you could do something that could save them in the process? What if saving them meant that you could never see them again, what if saving them meant that you had to deceive them into believing that you did not love them at all? Are you strong enough to make that decision? Is your love strong enough or is it just a transient feel good emotion for yourself?

Is it not true that if we disregard all things peaceful during times of war (such as children, mosques, etc.), we could go in, get the job done, and be victorious in a shorter amount of time? This way, less time-less death.

Killing people's children on purpose is one way to get them to fight to the death against you. This way, you get more death in more time, not less time less death. Let's not confuse, Rosemary, between the means and the ends. The end is the saving of more lives, the means is the ending of those lives. To save the nation of Japan, you must nuclearize the nation of Japan, to save the village, you must destroy the village. It is not regular logic, because we are talking about humans here, and humans as we all know are very illogical people.

[Fallschirmjager]

John,

Nice to see I wasn't the only one who caught the nod to Socrates =)

Regards,

Jaeger

[Ymarsakar]

Hezbollah is not trying to avoid children's deaths. They are counting on them.

Hezbollah is not going to kill off their future terroists. Even terroists are humans. They operate based upon human reasoning. If things are favorable, they do it, if things are not favorable, they don't do it.

Hezbollah already gets whatever propaganda value they have, with the few deaths of children, and they'll stage whatever they need like Qana, in order to kill more. However, there is a limit to all things. Nobody is omnipotent, there are limitations imposed by God if not the UN.

So far, there are no negative consequences for human shields. And it does work, as we all know. Israel limits their firepower, we limit ours, it works. If you think it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.

RonF, I was reminded of this video they had of Palestinian children throwing rocks at an Israeli tank. Then there came this caption that said "Israelis shot 3 children just because they were throwing rocks". Yet we see a bunch of freaking children playing around in front of a TANK, throwing rocks, and nothing is happening to them. Why? It's simple. They get all the positive benefits, and none of the negative. The negative is also simple, the negative is that that one tank could have killed every child on the scene, and therefore demonstrated what is known as ruthlessness, and therefore no future child would be so suicidal as to do the same thing. They would surpass their limits, their propaganda would no longer work, not only because nobody would want to play for them, but also because instead of people complaining about Israelis killing 3 children they will start complaining that Hamas or Hizbollah are getting 300, 3,000, 30,000 of their children killed by sending them up against Israeli tanks unarmed.

There is a limit to all things, a genkai. Some can surpass those limits, as Grim refers to in terms of killing children and wisdom and morality. But you cannot exceed your limits without consequence. It's a test, it's a competition, between whose limits can be exceeded in longer durations than the other guy's. Who has more endurance, who quits first, who dies first, who ends up giving up first.

[tweell]

Our fathers met this same kind of challenge in WWII, if not so blatantly, chose and won.
The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear obliterations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate this quite clearly.
They knew the cost to their souls, and yet paid, for the sake of those to come - us.
Now we face the same choice - to give in to evil and so doom our own offspring, or kill when we must, accepting the taint and imperilling our souls for the sake of our children.
Even as I would go hungry so that my children be fed, I will kill other children to keep mine free from such savagery.

[htom]

Most very well said, Grim. Thank you.

[juandos]

Obviously this broad is a barking moonbat without a clue and apparently proud of it...

This relentless whinning about the so called, "innocent children" is just an attempt to divert attention away from the real situation, a situation that the people with alledgedly "innocent children" (future terrorists?) has allowed their government to put their children in harm's way...

[Esoterik]

Grimm,

Your argument is so masterful, the clarity it brings forth surges forward and crashes into the shore of sentimentality like a tsunami breaking on Sri Lanka. So inexorable in its terror one has only fate to look too for survival. Simply stunning.
I rejoice at your articulation of that which existed only as phantom mists in my mind, now coalesced and crystallized into a rapier tool with which to pierce the thin venire of arrogance armoring those so self possessed as to believe their shallow understanding of humanity should give all other intellect cause for silence, believing that from their flawed conception of compassion will arise the only pathway to peace.
Based on temperament we all wish to see as natural or not, denying the only hope of peeling away the horrors of war to find humanity ensconced somewhere within is the ruthless prosecution of wars inhumanity, will only result in the sarcophagus of all mankind resting heavily upon the catafalque of those whose mistaken reason cries forever, “I will be at peace with those who will destroy me, for I am better then they.”

[Rob]

There comes a time for every individual and every nation when to our enemy we must say:
"Beware sinner, I/we have just run out of cheeks. Smite me/us again and die."

Rob

[alexa kim]

Grim, you have illustrated a tragic truth. The children of the peaceful and democratic, look to us to protect them. The children of the violent and delusional look to us to protect them, for their parents forsake them. Another difference between those who value life and those who don't, is the thought occurs to us to save them from their own homicidal-suicidal fathers. The sight of the fauxtographers man-handling dead children, posing them for the camera is graphic evidence that the Hizb'allah, and their ilk, couldn't care less about their own flesh and blood. And honestly, anytime I don't see women enjoying freedom and respect, I am not surprised at the depth of violence and hatred that place suffers.

[David ps]

Grim - good stuff

As long as the humanitarian emerges afterward this is the only winning strategy. Of course, evil has a way of perverting hearts in unexpected ways. There is no turning from this burden placed upon us and there is no way to keep our innocence; it will be gone. We will forever bear the scars of this battle but we will live to bear the scars.

[Dave]

Well said.
I remember when the peace movement was very concerned about the development of small nuclear weapons and the doctrine of winable nuke wars. The reasoning being that a less catestrophic nuke war would be more palatible, and thus more likely to occur.
Todays so-called peace marchers seem to have forgotten this principle as they insist on wars being fought with restrictions (but not for the terrorists)and limitations.

[Kathy K]

"You are not going to like this."

You are correct. I don't like this. But you are, I'm afraid, also correct in what you said.

[Walter M. Clark]

Very moving, and very true. The sad thing is that so many people hold the view that all we need to do is hit them hard enough and they will have had enough and be willing to live in harmony. The Islamofascists will never have enough, never be willing to live in harmony. It is simply a case of them or us. We must, and I think, in time, will, kill them and keep killing them until we are sick to the very depths of our souls, then keep killing, until they are all dead. Only then will we be able to live in harmony with them.

[Jacko]

Great post Grim.

Here's a thought:

IF we loved our children more than ourselves, we'd fight the war in Iran, not Lebanon.

[Grim]

We shall do that in any event.

[pwrdwn]

Excellent post, and stated brilliantly. Many thanks.

[Pilgrim]

Words like "Excellent" and "Outstanding" are insulting to the quality of writing, supremacy of reasoning, and the harsh revelation given with kid gloves that you have provided Grim.

The very fact that you choked up Jimbo speaks volumes. ;)

This post should be bumped to the top of B5 for the next..oh...I don't know...decade.

The only thing I would suggest...put the whole thing before the fold. The sheeple MUST come to understand this before it's their own children having their throats slowly cut before their eyes.

[Tim]

Great post Grim.

We will not do it though, not until it is too late. The enemy will succsefully hold us back with human shields and media play of the dead children.

We will be held back untill the day that a nuclear fireball rises in one our great port cities. It wont be a big awesome multi stage fission-fusion-fisssion 10MT weapon that will destroy the entire urban area of New York, Seattle or L.A. with casualties in the millions. it will kill hundreds of thousands maybe a million or so long term, but long term won,t be an issue. The calls although few and from the weird side of the right for massive nonconvential retaliation were there in the immediate wake of 9/11. Multiply it by three orders of magnitude.

It will not matter then that we were trying to protect their innocent children. Within a day two or three at most the U.S. will systematically kill millions, billions may perish in the following weeks and months. It will not matter who is the President or who controls the Congress. In our good natured soft stance to prevent casualties of the innocent we are dooming them.

It will not be a good thing, I do not believe the republic will survive in any form that is recognizable after the act, but it will happen. A President who did not retaliate massively against all who even might have helped in the murder of a million Americans would not remain in office for a week.

[cwe]

Grim....you your post is wonderful in opening the conversation but it also goes beyond the we have to make hard decisions.....because there will be men and women executing this decision. As a matter of fact there are already men/women that have protected out children at the expense of other innocents. So I say we (the nation) need to look around and see the miliatry personnnel that have returned and recogise that they have initiated and completed missions the the behalf of the rest of us that sleep peaceable at night in nice cozy sheets. Yes we can say the we suppor the necessary but we (the entire nation) need to step up to the bat and take responsibility for what others (personally and phyisicall do on out behalf). Look around our neighborhood and cities and realize that those men and women that return from war have experienced things we can't imagaine and it is our duty to welcome them and ease their transition as best we can...backe to "joe suburbia" they are expected to assimalate as if they just finished a "project" TDY and back to "joe suburbia". God Bless these men/women and their families....because if it is not just "them" but the entire nation with blood and resolve on our hands.....Too easy to disassociate from the tough stuff...only paying more for gas...then the nightmares....self reflections....and skitishness in public. We ask alot of our military personal. I challenge many of you to not only think about Grims Post but to also sould search and look around their communities and how they can support those men and women that have already experienced the unimaginable and those that have even a tougher job in the future. I will now get off my soap box.

Grim thank you for approaching a very sensitive subject in the most humane and restrained manner....you and your friend are incredible human beings..

Respectfully,

cwe

[cwe]

Grim....you and your post is wonderful in opening the conversation but it also goes beyond the we have to make hard decisions.....because there will be men and women executing this decision. As a matter of fact there are already men/women that have protected our children at the expense of other innocents. So I say we (the nation) need to look around and see the miliatry personnnel that have returned and recognise that they have initiated and completed missions on the behalf of the rest of us that sleep peaceable at night in nice cozy sheets. Yes we can say the we support the necessary but we (the entire nation) need to step up to the bat and take responsibility for what others (personally and physically do on our behalf). Look around our neighborhood and cities and realize that those men and women that return from war have experienced things we can't imagaine and it is our duty to welcome them and ease their transition as best we can...back to "joe suburbia" they are expected to assimalate as if they just finished a "project" TDY and back to "joe suburbia". God Bless these men/women and their families....because if it is not just "them" but the entire nation with blood and resolve on our hands.....Too easy to disassociate from the tough stuff...only paying more for gas...then the nightmares....self reflections....and skitishness in public. We ask alot of our military personal. I challenge many of you to not only think about Grims Post but to also to search and look around their communities and how they can support those men and women that have already experienced the unimaginable and those that have even a tougher job in the future. I will now get off my soap box.

Grim thank you for approaching a very sensitive subject in the most humane and restrained manner....you and your friend are incredible human beings..

Respectfully,

cwe

[Wickedpinto]

I and a Democrat friend of the family have had the same attitude.

Don't! wage war as a humanitarian effort. Kill the enemy, that is the first priority, FAR fewer "innocents" will die, if we hit the badguys no matter the situation, and if we hit a mothers children while they are protecting a muderous father, other mothers might be willing to inform on their husbands, and older children might protect their siblings.

DESTROY strongholds defended by only slavish innocents, and there will be fewer slavish innocents, DESTROY Mosques that willingly house evil doers, and the worshippers of other mosques will chose a side, DESTROY all the infrastructure, and all the commerce of a city, and as soon as the people get hungry, or get thirsty, but we continue to act?

They will change their opinions.

Ignore the LIE of the UN, and the foolishness of false peace they want to force on nations who have faced oppression, but the lies of despots is counted equal to that of the US. Let those lies stand, but stand ready to finish the story.

This was a BRILLIANT post. The enemies are happy to target children, ONLY cuz we see the value of our children and project it onto them, though I think it is time for THEM to put their cards on the table.

We should hit the CRAP out of the schools that shield their terrorists, we should SHATTER their hospitals, until they stop using them as hiding places, we should CRUSH! their holy places, until their people realize that these people are not their allies, but rather the foundation of their own destruction.

If there is ONE gunshot from your childs school? It will be leveled, if there is one gunshot from your holy blessed mosque, it is a target that will be a convenient highway, if there is one shot from the hospital your human shield child might visit, it will be destroyed, along with your rare few doctors.

Soon? the people will hate the bombs, but when their ENEMY offers support at their own risk, while their own "people" still hide behind the "humanitarian" and infrastructure of their nation, they will quickly learn, or they will quickly die.

That is the nature of war.

[jordan]

Look at the staged Qana photos using dead children as props to be desecrated, and Michael Yon's picture of the Major cradling the little girl. Americans have more compassion for their children than they have for their own. These two images capture the reason any moral equivalency is obscene.

[Subsunk]

I've found my Winston. Well done, Grim. Keep it up. I need it. And so does our country.

Subsunk

[vilmar]

OUTSTANDING!! Thanks very much for this.

[observer 5]

OK, you set up a straw woman and knocked her down, you big brave guy, you.

It was pretty easy, because you relied on questionable factual premises and confused logic.

You make assumptions which are probably not true.

First, the "hide among civilians" theme. How do you know that it is only Hezbollah that hide among civilians? Israeli bases, military vehicles and formations are also located in civilian areas.

Second, how do you know that Israeli bombing is strictly against military targets, and does not have a retaliatory terror motive behind it? There have been statements of Israeli government officials which imply that Israeli civilian deaths will be paid back tenfold, after all.

Hezbollah's weapons are much less accurate, only unguided rockets, but so far, Hezbollah has been much more successful in avoiding civilian casualties. About 2/3 of those killed by Hez rocket attacks have been military. About 9/10 of the 1100+ killed by Israeli bombing have been civilians.

In Iraq, the latest stated mission of the US presence there has been to bring democracy. This succeeds the earlier, now accomplished missions of ensuring there are no Iraqi WMDs and getting rid of the terrorist-supporting Saddam Hussein.

The utter incompetence of our effort there, the lack of planning and sometimes-indiscriminate use of force has turned a lot of Iraqis against us. Now, what point would killing children have there? If we have to kill children, we have failed in our mission.

This post and the demented comments to it, reminds me of a speech I studied in college:

It is absolutely wrong to project our own harmless soul with its deep feelings, our kindheartedness, our idealism, upon alien peoples.
One principle must be absolute for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal and friendly to members of our blood and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, what happens to the Czechs, is a matter of utter indifference to me.

We shall never be rough or heartless where it is not necessary; that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude to animals, will also adopt a decent attitude to these human animals, but it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and to bring them ideals.
I shall speak to you here with all frankness of a very serious subject. We shall now discuss it absolutely openly among ourselves, nevertheless we shall never speak of it in public. I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race.
It is one of those things which is easy to say. 'The Jewish race is to be exterminated,' says every party member. 'That's clear, it's part of our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, right, we'll do it.'
And then they all come along, the eighty million good Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are swine, but this one is a first-class Jew. Of all those who talk like this, not one has watched, not one has stood up to it.
Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet - apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness - to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written,for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if - with the bombing raids, the burdens and the depravations of war - we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators and trouble-mongers.
We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us.
Altogether, however, we can say, that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.

Heinrich Himmler - October 4, 1943

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-posen.htm

[Cody]

I'm sorry, but by your crazy-ass logic, can't we also pursue peace by not caring if our children die? If we let enough of the little tykes get wiped out by terrorists, won't they stop targetting them, according to the rules in Crazyland here? So in the long run, we're just as successful whether we kill a bunch of terrorist kids or let the terrorists kill a bunch of our kids.
But sure, hell, maybe you're right. Maybe hardening our hearts is the only way. Maybe if we are scary enough, they'll bend to our will. Three years of war in Iraq and terrorists are still targetting the US. Weeks of bombing Lebanon and Hezbullah is still going strong. But maybe if we were just a little more monstrous, then they would back down.
It's the only way to save the children.

[donna]

It is a sin against God to hold anyone, including yourself, in a position of irredeemable hell. Remember, as you 'harden your hearts' to carry out killing of innocents and children, buoyed by your sudden burst of self-congratulatory 'logic' and infantile symplicity [dependent upon unquestioned notions of self-goodness vs other-badness], THE MEANS YOU CHOOSE WILL FORM YOU IN THE END.

[Richard Aubrey]

I believe that some of the people who object to Israel's tactics because of the impact on children are honestly moved by the issue. If they were as concerned about Israeli children, I'd be a bit more certain.

However, there is nobody whose blood is colder and humanity thinner than a solid lefty. There is no number of dead children that could possibly concern a lefty absent their political usefulness.

Lefties know, however, that the rest of us are softies.

It is the lefties who make the dead child worth so much for our enemies. They demand dead children and our enemies oblige.

If we ceased reacting to the "dead child carnival", there would no longer be value for our enemies in dead children. There would be fewer dead children.

[douglas]

Observer and Cody, please reread the post. Carefully. Draw a flow chart of the argument, if it will help you grasp the logic- clearly, you've not understood it yet. You're seeing what you expect or want to see, instead of what is there. Please, reread it and think about it. This is not some political exercise, and we are not Nazis. There is no correlation between what Grim wrote and The Himmler piece.

"Hezbollah's weapons are much less accurate, only unguided rockets, but so far, Hezbollah has been much more successful in avoiding civilian casualties."

Firing them at cities is certainly not anything but desiring to kill civilians. It's also a violation of the Geneva accords to use those types of weapons in that manner precisely because it only serves to endanger civilians, but they don't care, do they. That pretty much took apart your entire argument right there. But this time, I'm not interested in 'winning the argument', there are more important things at stake, like the lives of innocents.

[douglas]

Donna:"Remember, as you 'harden your hearts' to carry out killing of innocents and children, buoyed by your sudden burst of self-congratulatory 'logic' and infantile symplicity"

The call was to harden out hearts to do what we must knowing that innocents may accidentally be killed. It is in no way an objective- that is after all the difference between us and, for instance, Hizb'allah. Perhaps you should be more careful about sudden bursts "of self-congratulatory 'logic' and infantile symplicity".

[observer 5]

I've seen one analysis of Hezbollah's targeting and the impact points of its rockets that stated that they are apparently targeting the Port of Haifa, which is a naval base and a legitimate military/strategic target.

Again, Hezbollah has unguided katushya rockets. Israel has precision-guided munitions. Who has greater control?

The clear majority of those killed by Hez are military. The overwhelming majority of those killed by Israel are civilians. Israel is clearing whole neighborhoods.

By the rationale that Israel is using to do this - that Hez fighters are among the civilians, why couldn't Hez target anywhere in Israel, since reserve military forces are mixed among the Israeli civilian population. Sounds like a double standard.

The lone "evidence" of Hez positioning of weapons among civilians was a widely publicized photo of a dual 23mm AA gun among apartment buildings in Beirut. An AA gun in Beirut can only be used as a defensive weapon against bombing aircraft, not offensively.

Part of the problem is propaganda, part is military ignorance.

Don't buy everything you are offered.

Posts like these set up their straw women in order to knock them down on the way to indulging in fantasies of killing Arab children.

[donna]

Douglas, I notice you ignore my statement about 'sin against God' and about 'means forming you in the end'.
But you did rather nicely prove my point about infantile simplicity with your statement: " It is in no way an objective- that is after all the difference between us and, for instance, Hizb'allah", But, I guess that kind of infantile simplicity [us-good, them-bad] is what allows you to embrace this path that turns away from the laws of man and the laws of God.

[Magnus]

Congratulations.

You have met the enemy.

And he is you.

-Magnus

[Esoterik]

Observer 5,
I am left to somewhat ponder by what means you decide to qualify that which you choose to observe. Your dual citing of , “Hezbollah has unguided katushya rockets,” I find of interest. Are you of the belief that a katushya rocket is inaccurate? And if that is not what you would imply, why then compare them to the very broad term “precision-guided munitions.” Are you of the opinion the intentional use of an inaccurate weapon in a manner inconsistent with its design somehow excuses the “collateral” deaths of civilians? The very fact Hezbollah chooses to use such weapons is what make their ruthless disregard to whom or what they target so apparent. They are like a kid closing their eyes and throwing rocks into a crowd. They don’t care who they hit so long as someone bleeds.
As to “the clear majority of those killed by Hez are military. The overwhelming majority of those killed by Israel are civilians.” Why don’t you try telling that to the victims of the last 50 or so buses filled with 40 to 60 tourists from all over the world the Hezbollah has targeted with their “precision-guided munitions.” You know, that 20 year old fanatic raised since birth by his mother to strap 10 pounds of explosives to himself and secure his eternal place in paradise by murdering as many people as he can? Yeah…. that “precision-guided munition,” the very favorite of the Hezbollah. Do you really want to ask “who has better control?” The killing of civilians, and getting civilians killed is Hezbollah’s’ specialty as well as their mission.

[Esoterik]

Observer 5,
I am left to somewhat ponder by what means you decide to qualify that which you choose to observe. Your dual citing of , “Hezbollah has unguided katushya rockets,” I find of interest. Are you of the belief that a katushya rocket is inaccurate? And if that is not what you would imply, why then compare them to the very broad term “precision-guided munitions.” Are you of the opinion the intentional use of an inaccurate weapon in a manner inconsistent with its design somehow excuses the “collateral” deaths of civilians? The very fact Hezbollah chooses to use such weapons is what make their ruthless disregard to whom or what they target so apparent. They are like a kid closing their eyes and throwing rocks into a crowd. They don’t care who they hit so long as someone bleeds.
As to “the clear majority of those killed by Hez are military. The overwhelming majority of those killed by Israel are civilians.” Why don’t you try telling that to the victims of the last 50 or so buses filled with 40 to 60 tourists from all over the world the Hezbollah has targeted with their “precision-guided munitions.” You know, that 20 year old fanatic raised since birth by his mother to strap 10 pounds of explosives to himself and secure his eternal place in paradise by murdering as many people as he can? Yeah…. that “precision-guided munition,” the very favorite of the Hezbollah. Do you really want to ask “who has better control?” The killing of civilians, and getting civilians killed is Hezbollah’s’ specialty as well as their mission.

[Esoterik]

Observer 5,
I am left to somewhat ponder by what means you decide to qualify that which you choose to observe. Your dual citing of , “Hezbollah has unguided katushya rockets,” I find of interest. Are you of the belief that a katushya rocket is inaccurate? And if that is not what you would imply, why then compare them to the very broad term “precision-guided munitions.” Are you of the opinion the intentional use of an inaccurate weapon in a manner inconsistent with its design somehow excuses the “collateral” deaths of civilians? The very fact Hezbollah chooses to use such weapons is what make their ruthless disregard to whom or what they target so apparent. They are like a kid closing their eyes and throwing rocks into a crowd. They don’t care who they hit so long as someone bleeds.
As to “the clear majority of those killed by Hez are military. The overwhelming majority of those killed by Israel are civilians.” Why don’t you try telling that to the victims of the last 50 or so buses filled with 40 to 60 tourists from all over the world the Hezbollah has targeted with their “precision-guided munitions.” You know, that 20 year old fanatic raised since birth by his mother to strap 10 pounds of explosives to himself and secure his eternal place in paradise by murdering as many people as he can? Yeah…. that “precision-guided munition,” the very favorite of the Hezbollah. Do you really want to ask “who has better control?” The killing of civilians, and getting civilians killed is Hezbollah’s’ specialty as well as their mission.

[truthurts]

Exactly how many Iraqis were targeting American children? (And no, Iraqis weren't responsible for
9/11, and Sadaam didn't have weapons of mass destruction--in case anybody is still seriously arguing this). I can't think of one.
Was the bombardment of Bagdhad called "Shock and Awe" or "we love the Iraqi children so much". Was the firebombing of Japan, or
Hiroshima, or Nagasaki (those Japanese, they've built these cities just because the know that only Americans love children!), or Mai Lai, all because the real enemies were hiding amongst civilians?

War is peace, freedom is slavery...whatever...go and read a book and learn something of history. And, not only Americans love their children. And, yes, you are implying that.

[Anandakos]

This is certainly an interesting hypothetical, and it can't be disproven that unscrupulous and depraved human beings will indeed sacrifice children to gain a political or military advantage. They have and will.

But so what?

Should we assume their moral standards?

Should we justify our own blood lusts by claiming theirs are worse?

Should we become them?

No. No. No.

The founder of western morality as we understand and at least theoretically practice it was very clear on this: not only are we not to kill children, we are to allow an abuser to abuse us again.

Now that's pretty hard, I admit. But it's what we claim to believe in this "Christian" nation, and he certainly did it.

In any case, this hypothetical is so ridiculously one-sided as to be laughable: the terrorists offer NO existential threat to the United States or any European nation. They do so to Israel of course, and they certainly have a much more ambiguous position. But, they're not Christian; they believe in and practice an eye for an eye, but this is NOT our ostensible way, nor should it be. Absent a large thermonuclear arsenal with means of delivery middle-eastern radicals can do nothing more than present a large and menacing shadow on the cave George Bush has us living in. Oh, and deprive us of oil, which is of course what this entire charade is about.

Is it moral to kill children for oil? Answer that one killer-boy.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Does it worry you that perhaps the enemy wants us to kill the children, so that their parents will be radicalized and take up arms against us or our allies?

I think that happens pretty often, and it's one of the reasons I'm with Kevin Drum on forbearance.

[Aghast]

This is all fine and dandy given that you have a reasonable expectation that the entity you're fighting is truly your enemy and a real threat, and that you are capabable of defeating them militarily.

The way I have seen commenters use the term 'Islamofascist'...I can see they have a completely unreasonable expectation about their enemy's identity and intentions (I mean, talk about oversimplification of an extremely complex situation). Making it so we can feel alright advocating military force that results in the death of children is a form of mental masturbation that provides emotional cover for those who make far too many decisions emotionally. You know what, killing children is wrong...you just have to be willing to be brutal when survival is at stake. Problem is, it rarely is, and most cannot recognize where the true threats lie. So I just worry that emotionally driven people will take your argument and use it in their heads to justify the fact that they want to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass based on their emotions of fear and fear's child: hate.

[Peter]

Amandakos,

Like it or not, oil is a strategic resource. That is why we should research alternative energy sources: so we don’t have to wage war over it.

[tripper]

"HIDING AMONG THE CIVILIANS"

For one, the Israelis are going in wearing UNIFORMS. Hezbollah's uniform is that of the street, of the locals, if that can even be called a 'uniform'. The west fights in the open, for all to see. Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents, etc fight covered up, hiding among women and children, who are stronger than they are. The Iraqi and Hezbollah insurgents are cowards, weak dogs and rats that scurry from warren to warren like cockroaches.

If the kayatusha rocket COULD be guided, not a civilian would be alive south of the border; not a house would be standing. God help us if they ever learn massing of firepower or any other decent tactic.

No worship of a 'god' that could condone this is worthy. As said, if they could love their children as much as we do ours...

[mama_bel]

Actually, my child's life *does* depend on oil. How does her ventilator continue to breathe for her when the power stations shut down? And lest you justify "renewable power" stations as being oil-free-- how long do the wind turbines continue to turn without lubricant and parts delivered by truck? What do we make plastics out of, when all the raw petroleum is unavailable? (plastics like the trache she breathes through and the feeding tube she eats with) How do the men and women that make our world operate, get where they need to go? Some children take "a village". My child takes a major metropolitan area with all the civilization that implies. (see ejectejecteject.com) It only takes one or two terrorist attacks to disrupt that web enough to endanger my child- and every other innocent who depends on technology to live. How many depend on insulin or thyroid hormones? How many know how to make them? There are not enough sheep and pigs around our city to keep everyone supplied, even if we knew the process.

I choose life: for my child, for the children like her, for the children growing up now in a world these people want to destroy. As for the argument that they won't kill off their own next generation of fighters out of self-preservation:
1)many believe the apocalypse is near already, after which it will be a moot point. The survivors will have every opportunity then to replace those killed off.
2)it doesn't take many children to keep the population up when the girls are married off at puberty in a polygamous culture and kept subjugated to pump out more cannon fodder.

I am a mother, and agree with the grim logic above. I would advocate kidnapping their children to raise in our culture, if I thought there would be no legacy of poisonous rhetoric to radicalize them later. (This includes the MSM fifth column here)

This is about shame and honor for them, and nothing less than the worldwide caliphate will do. Everyone will eventually have to choose between that future of dhimmitude and the one described above.
Assuming, of course, that against all history they stopped at the caliphate and did not then turn to scapegoating us dhimmis for the lack of all the benefits of the civilization that will no longer exist.

[Mike Filancia]

Once again I am astounded by Americans who refuse to see how we tromp all over much of the rest of the world and then are amazed that these people want to hit back or at least defend themselves. First, we unconditionally support Israel in its brutal campaign against Arab countries. Read what some of the founding fathers of Israel had to say about exterminating Arabs in the region--truly chilling and very Nazi-esque. And what about Netanyahu celebrating the recent anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel which killed some 91 people? How are the Israelis not terrorists? If the Israelis weren't such cowards, maybe they would have sent in ground troops to fight Hezbollah instead of bombing civilians and Lebanese infrastructure--when did it become so acceptable to kill civilians in a war?? Second, all this palaver about "saving" Iraqis--it seems like we just couldn't care less about whether they live or die--Sadaam was OUR creation, we gave him the chemical weapons he used against his own people, as that idiot Bush is so fond of reminding us. We installed the very brutal Shah of Iran who tortured and murdered many Iranians. I won't even discuss our activities in Latin and Central America. Maybe followers of Islam just want us the hell out of their affairs, as bin Laden has stated. To say they want to destroy us because I guess you think they aren't rational is based on what?? Ignoring US policy in the Middle East for the last few decades?? Wouldn't you have feelings of revenge if your family was wiped out, your business destroyed, your house leveled? And then to have to listen to the lies of Israel that are accepted by the sheeple of the US? Are you on this board aware that Israel attacked a US ship the USS Liberty in 1967, after tracking it for five hours--some 36 US soldiers were killed...the story was buried--no investigation--What was that again about saying that Jews control the media/government being anti-Semitic? Israel's reason: "It was a mistake"--just like all their other "mistakes"--they are vicious and vengeful and I am fed up with them using my tax dollars to support their evil. And the lady here who talked about her kid needing certain things and she didn't care how she obtained them--all you "righties" who babble on about the moral relativism of the left need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

[Jason B]

Like all the intellectually lazy, willfully ignorant or just plain incurious, I suspect you know little blog is riddled with sundry laughable affronts to millennia of philosophical thought.

I further suspect you know it makes you come off as bit of a, as the kids say, douchebag…

However the type of person that would write this sort of haphazard philosophical ransom note is unlikely to care or else have bothered abuse themselves of at least Introduction To Philosophy and Ethics 101

What should concern you however are your mewling pack of sycophants, who somehow manage to be even MORE ignorant than you (no mean feat by the way).

You’re readers, drawing their own natural conclusions, say things like “God Bless Those That Kill Children, It Needs To Be Done!”

Who exactly do you suppose yourself to be fighting again?

Oh and congratulations on that, what was it? “Best Military Blog” I imagine that’s quite a high bar you set. Shoot me an email when you win a gold metal in checkers at the special Olympics, I suspect you’ll want to put a fancy little image up there for that too.

[Jason B]

Like all the intellectually lazy, willfully ignorant or just plain incurious, I suspect you know little blog is riddled with sundry laughable affronts to millennia of philosophical thought.

I further suspect you know it makes you come off as bit of a, as the kids say, douchebag…

However the type of person that would write this sort of haphazard philosophical ransom note is unlikely to care or else have bothered abuse themselves of at least Introduction To Philosophy and Ethics 101

What should concern you however are your mewling pack of sycophants, who somehow manage to be even MORE ignorant than you (no mean feat by the way).

You’re readers, drawing their own natural conclusions, say things like “God Bless Those That Kill Children, It Needs To Be Done!”

Who exactly do you suppose yourself to be fighting again?

Oh and congratulations on that, what was it? “Best Military Blog” I imagine that’s quite a high bar you set. Shoot me an email when you win a gold metal in checkers at the special Olympics, I suspect you’ll want to put a fancy little image up there for that too.

[LL23]

OMG, I have now officially seen it all.

Is there any action that the US or its allies could take that you would say, "Enough. We have gone too far." Anything? Torturing prisoners? Preventing water, food, medicine from reaching civilians? How about torturing childern? How many people have died in Israel -- close to a hundred. In the past weeks, how many people have died in Lebanon -- close to a thousand. If Hezzbollah is trying to kill as many Israelis as possible, they're not doing a very good job. If the IDF is trying to kill only Hezzbollah, they're not doing a very good job.

The comments to this post are all busy justifying the killing of innocents because -- hey, they're not us. This is the logic the Assyrians used when they impaled their vanquished enemies; when the Romans crucified Sparticus' army; when the Crusaders slaughtered every man, woman and child as they took Jerusalem -- or of nineteen guys on planes five years ago this September. "Hey, they're not us so they don't feel as we do. They're not really human, they don't really count." People who know they're right can talk themselves into doing anythng. On either side.

The British stopped the latest attack not with tanks but with good police work. The only way to really end the terrorist threat is to undercut their recruitment and dry up their base. You can't win hearts and minds if they're dead. And it's either winning hearts and minds or killing everyone who disagrees with us (though some commenters would obviously prefer the latter). Saying that our only option is to use vicious force against vicious force is the logic of army ants. We're human, we're supposed to be smarter than that.

I need a shower.

[LL23]

OMG, I have now officially seen it all.

Is there any action that the US or its allies could take that you would say, "Enough. We have gone too far." Anything? Torturing prisoners? Preventing water, food, medicine from reaching civilians? How about torturing childern? In the past weeks, how many people have died in Israel -- close to a hundred. How many people have died in Lebanon -- close to a thousand. If Hezzbollah is trying to kill as many Israelis as possible, they're not doing a very good job. If the IDF is trying to kill only Hezzbollah, they're not doing a very good job.

The comments to this post are all busy justifying the killing of innocents because -- hey, they're not us. This is the logic the Assyrians used when they impaled their vanquished enemies; when the Romans crucified Sparticus' army; when the Crusaders slaughtered every man, woman and child as they took Jerusalem -- or of nineteen guys on planes five years ago this September. "Hey, they're not us so they don't feel as we do. They're not really human, they don't really count." People who know they're right can talk themselves into doing anythng. On either side.

The British stopped the latest attack not with tanks but with good police work. The only way to really end the terrorist threat is to undercut their recruitment and dry up their base. You can't win hearts and minds if they're dead. And it's either winning hearts and minds or killing everyone who disagrees with us (though some commenters would obviously prefer the latter). Saying that our only option is to use vicious force against vicious force is the logic of army ants. We're human, we're supposed to be smarter than that.

I need a shower.

[Jason]

Well, I knew by the title of this post that it was going to be jaw-droppingly stupid, but your choice to write the thing as a mock dialogue really made it one for the ages. Congrats.

[Bruce]

Get thee behind me, Grim.

You wish to tempt us into accepting the murder of children as normal, and even necessary.

You are Satan's unwitting(?) agent.

Go camping for a few days, and a post you thought buried suddenly becomes a center of interest. Very well.

There are a few commenters with negative comments who had good points that deserve to be addressed.

Cody asks if we can't pursue peace by not caring if children die. Indeed we can -- it is a philosophical position, the Quaker position, for which I have a great deal of respect.

That kind of pure pacifism holds that you do not do an evil thing under any circumstances, though it leads to your destruction or the destruction of what you love. The Quakers believe that an evildoer harms, finally, only himself. Thus, you can pursue peace by hardening your heart against the desire to revenge your children.

This is, to my way of thinking, an honorable position worthy of the greatest respect -- but it is not mine. My family were Quakers until the American Civil War, at which point they -- living in Tennessee -- were forced to choose between adhering to the pacifist belief, or struggling for justice in this world in spite of the need to do evil to accomplish it. They chose to fight. I am one of them.

Several commenters voiced the position that killing, particularly killing the innocent, is sinful under any circumstances. There are several branches of Christianity that believe this, although there are others (most notably Catholicism, which has a highly developed line of thinking on when violence may be justified) that does not. For myself, I agree that some of what we do may be very sinful indeed -- which is why I ended the piece by saying that we would need forgiveness.

One commenter mentioned taking some trouble to determine when there are existential threats, versus lesser threats that justify lesser responses. A good point. I take it as certain that Iran will finish its nuclear program, and that it intends to use that nuclear program as a shield with which to protect itself while it increases the terrorist operations that it has used since its inception in its present form. If that analysis proves wrong, we may avoid the horrors I expect to come -- but,