Well, that was interesting. The discussion of the last two posts about civilians and war clearly revealed that we've forgotten what war is and unequivocally demonstrated the need for such posts and discussions.
Fascinatingly, despite many "don't kill civilians" comments, no one actually disagreed with my definition of civilians and the classification of civilians as non-uniformed enemy combatants! That, alone, makes any "don't kill civilians" comment hypocritical. If you don't disagree with classifying civilians as combatants (albeit without uniforms) then you can't disagree with killing them. It's logically inconsistent to classify someone as a combatant but be unwilling to kill them. That position simply reveals the squeamish emotions of people who have forgotten that war is an ugly, brutal business.
The last two posts also revealed that far too many readers are not reading the posts slowly and carefully. Most readers completely ignored the "threat to national security" constraint of the post and leapt instantly into their own diatribe on the heartlessness of killing civilians under all manner of circumstances except the very circumstance that the post was written about, the "threat to national security".
These two posts simply reinforced my on-going contention that we have forgotten what war is. I'll keep hammering on this theme in the future because it's too important not to. We're preparing for a light, low end, precise, clean, dainty war instead of preparing for the ugly, brutal, high end massacres that are coming when we eventually engage Russia, Iran, China, or NKorea.
Yep, all in all, the last two posts were fascinating to watch!