>>The children "argument" is from the site - it is a rhetoric figure (or fallacy) probably hoping to evoke non-thinking, only emotional response, turning me off. > >I didn't read the url , but the "children" might not be a fallacy if there is substantial combat taking place. >For example - I read recently that there are hundreds of thousands of widows in Afghanistan and Pakistan whose husbands were lost in all of the endless fighting there. >Killing off fighting-age men disproportionately increases the number of women and children in the population.
From my guess after eyeballing these numbers this is not happening there:
