diff --git a/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md b/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md
index e94ade0..253e774 100644
--- a/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md
+++ b/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md
@@ -21,7 +21,13 @@ To be even more cautious, we have decided to explicitly address each of the repu
      - However, this disavowal is not to be construed as a bias against the Israeli side or for the Arab side. This disavowal amounts to a disavowal of the reasoning Ayn Rand used when she stated her disapproval of the idea that the Native Americans had a claim to private property rights. We have explained that rights are derived from the Identity and properties (specifically the rational faculty) of the species, and that the cognitive content of an individual member of such a species' mind does not unfit that individual from securely possessing its rights.
      - The `WS` view on the Israeli-Arab situation is that we do not have an interest in the conflicts of foreign polities and they are merely, to us, two polities with their own dispute to resolve on their own. `WS` is an isolationist constitution, and unless a polity in the Israeli-Arab conflict triggers a condition in the `SovWI` law, we have nothing to say about them, whether good or bad; and should their actions trigger a response according to `SovWI` law, then whatever we may be forced to say about them, whether good or bad, will be based solely on their relationship to `WS` itself and on the interests of the residents of `WS`, and will have nothing to do with their past or present actions in the Israeli-Arab conflict. In short, **we take no position** on other peoples' conflicts.
 - Leonard Peikoff:
-  - We disavow the view that in war, the civilian populace of an enemy nation is in effect, fair game and acceptable collateral damage. We assert that in war, the ideological and political leaders of the enemy entity should be targeted directly where possible, and where it is necessary to engage in large scale destruction in order to destroy the enemy entity, all measures should be taken to be as surgical as is **reasonable and practical** (while also being sure not to paralyze ourselves with inaction in the face of a threat of our own destruction), and **if practical**, to warn civilians to get to safety beforehand.
+  - We disavow the view that in war, the civilian populace of an enemy nation is in effect, fair game and acceptable collateral damage. We specifically disavow this statement he made in an interview on with Bill O'Reilly: "I'm absolutely not concerned with innocents -- people in the enemy territory. If they get killed that is the responsibility of their government for initiating aggression against us [The USA]. In any war when you fight the enemy, you have to take anyone in that territory and regard him as part of the enemy, otherwise you can't defend yourself. If you're concerned with the innocents in those countries you are pulling your punches and thereby jeopardizing the innocents in our countries. It's either or: if you believe in self defense you fight it to the full.". And we disavow it for these reasons:
+     - Information, foresight and capabilities impose ethical obligations on an actor.
+        - A nation with the enhanced capabilities and technology to **feasibly** achieve its self-defense while limiting civilian casualties has an ethical obligation to employ those technologies in the manner which does in fact, limit those civilian casualties which its capabilities enable it to limit.
+           - Objectivists use this same reasoning when pointing out that humankind's morality consists of humans living **as humans** (i.e, rational creatures) with a holistic view of the human identity -- that a human has two hands to labour and fight with; but a human also has a rational faculty which enables him/her to observe and scientifically learn about the world, and to use that knowledge to produce with his/her hands instead of using violence, and to trade the produce of their labour with others instead of predating on others -- that a human is a being with **both** two hands **and** a mind. The enhanced capabilities granted by the mind bind the human with new ethical obligations. With increased capability comes increased ethical obligation.
+        - A nation with the foresight/knowledge that a particular course of action in war would cause avoidable civilian death, and which has an alternative course of action which would **feasibly** achieve its self defense objectives, has an obligation to choose the course of action which would avoid incurring those avoidable civilian casualties.
+        - A nation receiving information which changes the ethical implications of a course of action in an avoidable way, has a moral obligation to alter that course of action and avoid the negative ethical consequences if it can do so while still feasibly accomplishing its self-defense.
+
 - Antonin Scalia:
 
 ## Interpretation.