From a January 21 posting by Clark Rieke on the badly named website, nonviolence.org:

If we reasoned better about war, there could be less of it. An example of bad reasoning is the conventional premise that an adversary who targets innocent civilians is too evil to be worthy of a hearing and a negotiated peace. The goal of less war and less terrorism would be helped by reasoning about what causes terrorists to become terrorists, what their goals are, and whether their goals could fit into a mutually beneficial peace settlement.

This essay will make four points about the killing of innocent civilians:

• One, the conventional belief that civilians in a democracy are innocent is false.

• Two, the rule of war that civilians are not to be targets of military violence is inconsistent.

• Three, the rule of war that civilians are not to be targets of military violence is counterproductive.

• Four, this inconsistent rule of war is counterproductive because it is used to demonize the enemy and increase the emotions for war.

†