The wingnut justification for killing children

The Rev over at the woodshed has linked to a post by uber-sojer Grim at the milblog, Blackfive.

The post to which The Rev refers is a disgusting display of immorality, but it's a good snapshot of a warped mind justifying any act, regardless of how heinous, to accomplish a goal. If children are in the way of your objective, kill them.

"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."

It's good that Grim wrote that, because it tells all. Because war involves innocents, killing innocents knowingly and with forethought, is not immoral if we accept his twisted logic.

The Rev takes apart Grim with this:

Tortured logic? check
Complete lack of self-doubt? check
Morally indefensible position? check
Tough guy warrior posing? check
Utter conviction that end justifies means? check
Condescesion to any who disagree? check
Strawman arguement? check

I don't know Grim's background and personally, don't want to. I do know, however, that even in an ugly war the loss of one's humanity can turn fighting units into murderous death squads. A guy like Grim can spread an evil infection through a team of soldiers.

I'll be looking forward to a future post from this turkey where he justifies killing his leaders because they exercise restraint and attempt to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths.