It is a terrible act - but - if terrifying retribution were to be carried out with resolve for a long enough time, the terrorist cause, recruits and jihad would cease. This is an effective and historically proven tactic.
The same thing is done in every war by deliberate design or inevitable mistake. In modern total war, such as WWII, families, babies, hospitals, schools, nurseries and all other kinds of facilities were de facto targets by deign of being in the target area (i.e., civil population in cities). So, I believe, the difference between what appears to be an impending and savage response by the Russians is little different from what we are already used to accepting as a given action of war.
The image of the dead baby being carried out of the Murrah building and the chilling picture of the people trying to get air in the floors above the fire at the WTC (there appears to be a woman holding a baby in one photo) are evidence enough to me that this deliberate child-killing tactic is being used on us already.
The real question is, are we willing to go to ANY lengths to stop this assualt on Western civilization and protect ourselves (and our children)? At the least, we MUST abandon politically correct limits on military actions. We MUST deny the enemy the freedom to define the limits of warfare (i.e., holy this, holy that, extremely holy whatever). Finally, we MUST act with overwhelming ferocity and anihilate the enemy, and his support, wherever they are found. To do less is to continue to encourage the barbarism of Islamofascism.
The great canard in current thinking is that by brutal actions we become like our enemies. This is laid to rest when the question is examined in light of what we, and they, are like in times of peace. For my money, life in America is as far from the continuing brutality and the low, mean animal barbarism of Islam as you can get. For these animals, the murder and torture never ends. This is why ancients were honest enough to admit to, and practice, the ruthless extermination that is needed in the face of implacable, inhuman enemies.
We can do no less if we wish to survive.
....The great canard in current thinking is that by brutal actions we become like our enemies...
So, this means no war?
This is merely a statement from anti-war proponents and we should in no way allow it to color our decisions.
With this statement, under indian attack, the settlers must wave flags and seek to negotiate. Wonder how that would have ended.
With this statement, the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been meet with negotiations or a discussion with all other nations as to how the U.S. should react - wonder how that would have ended.
With this statement, Hitler's assault would have been met with negotiations or a blind eye. Wonder how that would have ended.
With this statement, the slaughter of the Russian children would be met with negotiations and any endeavor to prevent another assault no matter what had to be surrendered. Wonder how that would end.
Agreed. Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved lives and was the civil and least painful approach in the end.