Murdering Babies

In the last post, I referenced murdering babies.  This sounds dramatic—too dramatic to be true—but mostly, people were not actually using guns on babies or even clubbing babies to death.  Rather, what happened was eliminating the caretaker(s) it was known damn well that baby needed to live.  

Detail: imagine that the mom and dad are taking care of the baby in a house that is home.  Soldiers come, see everything, want the land on which the house is built, and so shoot the mother and father.  After this, they leave for a week.  What do you think happens to the baby when it gets no food or water (which might just be the same thing depending on the baby's age) for that week?  That’s right.  That is how babies are murdered: by eliminating their caretakers.  

After that week, the area is cleaned and then new settlers show up and get some new land or a new house.  If anyone notices the missing adults, it is claimed that they were fighting.  No one ever notices the babies.  

People never have to kill babies; they just have to kill that/those baby's(babies') caretaker(s) and then go away for a while.  Result: job done.  See how it works?  

The U.S. and associated junior partners in NATO have been doing this for a long time.  Think about it: when you kill the caretakers of a baby, you imprison a human because the baby can’t go anywhere without its caretaker (or associated other adult) carrying it.  You torture someone, because dying very slowly without water and food (fluid and calories) for days is very painful compared to getting shot in the head and then it’s over.  Depending on the baby, there is some sleep-deprivation in there too, because it gets harder and harder to sleep as time passes with no food and water.  Besides that constant torture and imprisonment of a complete non-combatant, there is also the fact that babies can’t change their own diapers, so killing a caretaker leaves the baby to not only be tortured in the ways previously discussed, but to be tortured by having its lower parts being covered in urine and feces for a few days, and developing whatever infections result from that.  

The U.S. and associated have killed so many civilians that the raw nastiness of doing that has lost its verbal flavor.  People tend to consider killing civilians bad, but they usually don’t think about how nasty it is.  What happens when that happens is so incredibly bad, badiferous extremous, but it has ceased to shock the way it should.  When Dubya has a lot of Iraqi civilians killed, that is very bad, and when Obomba supports the troops by not sending them home, people tend to know those are bad things if pressed, though they can, of course imagine various reason why they are OK (such as, “The war wasn’t Obomba’s fault, he didn’t start it!”).  However, the immense badness of targeting civilians needs to be remembered.  It is so horrible—the worst that humans can be—when that happens.

Humans nowadays tend to be desensitized, and to not know they are.  They think they are normal humans.  In fact, we have been fed a decades-long diet of such bad things that they no longer shock us as they should.  When we hear that So-and-So targeted civilians, we don’t react like we should: like that person has just ordered babies tortured to death.