> The ends justify the means. - attributed ([perhaps unjustly][1]) to Niccolo Machiavelli [Christian proponents][2] of [Just War Theory][3] would surely reject the quote above as being entirely antithetical to their doctrine, but are no doubt committed to 'doing something'* in response to the spread of evil. With these things in mind, how do they formulate an appropriate response to a foe that does not share their inhibitions in terms of means used? For example in [asymmetrical warfare][4], insurgents who utilize terror tactics will often be aware of the principles that their enemy operates under and will exploit them for maximum effect - utilizing [human shields][5], [booby-trapping corpses, or using children to carry explosives][6] etc. - what are the relevant principles that ensure that a Just War can continue to be prosecuted both **justly** and **effectively** in the face of tactics such as these and not sacrifice one at the expense of the other? Which, if any, scripture references are used to support these principles? ---------- *This is a reference to the quote of Edmund Burke in [the counterpart question to this one][7]: > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. [1]: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0603/Political-misquotes-The-10-most-famous-things-never-actually-said/The-ends-justify-the-means.-Niccolo-Machiavelli [2]: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17064/what-sort-of-christians-are-proponents-of-just-war [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield [6]: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=608103 [7]: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32830/what-would-be-a-typical-christian-pacifist-response-to-rampant-evil-say-in-t