This is incorrect. If one acts in such away he becomes as bad as his opponent and such a way of thinking is often hard to stop from spreading. Such morality and honour is as much for yourself as your opponent.Therein lies the error of your philosophy. The civil restraints men of honor impose upon their conflicts are not the preservative of honor and morality, but are rather preserved by the conjoined honor and morality of every adversary; they are the conclusion, not the predicate. When even one adversary lays aside that honor and morality, and shreds the civil restraints previously maintained, that adversary invites upon himself the same unrestrained horrors he visits upon others. Against such an adversary, to refuse him the horrors he craves would a most ungentlemanly act.
He knows that their must always be restraint lest all such rules dissolve and endanger what he seeks to defend. Your anything goes attitude is despicable, no society can function with it, it corrupts the very bonds of society itself.It not only easily moves towards the horrors of war, the honorable man accelerates their movement. The honorable man does not shrink from the task at hand, regardless of how unpleasant or distasteful it may be.
You imply above that you even accept the idea that taking an enemies children hostage and killing them is okay. Perhaps you simply did not read this but it is not a position worthy of a man who would call himself civilised.
Rubbish. To save them when it takes betraying the very principle and honour they have instilled in you is the creed of a savage. It turns them a lot of what they are and mean to nothing, simply the most animal of bonds.There is no victory in sacrificing friends, family, or countrymen for the sake of benighted principle. Dead kin are a disgrace when strength and fortitude might have saved them.