Well, just for whatever edification, here's the fuller context:

. . . I imagine somebody will say, 'Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?' All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it... Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not so bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Other material on same themes at http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/why-shouldnt-we-celebrate-osamas-death/238424/

@ Scott Miller:
You don't need to hate people to make war on them. In fact, it's recommended against. Hatred throws off your aim or leads to poor decisions.

Here's what CS Lewis thought was possible and moral:

Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not so bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Now, the above easily converts into something very "not nice" at all, a ready excuse to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the right way, though that wasn't CS Lewis' belief.

It touches on a discussion we've had before: The emotions felt by the soldier, or for that matter by the entire people engaged in war, are in principle irrelevant, except when they're a problem, or can be channeled effectively, but they in principle have nothing to do with justifying the military operation or the larger war.

@ Scott Miller:
If you consider having to deal with pseudo-real pseudo-life stuff non-demeaning but mean, then, yeah.

I don't accept, however, that thinking about the belief system of those who support actions like the hit on OBL, taking it on its own terms and exploring alternative moral contexts, is demeaning.

I'm not a believe in absolute pacifism. Are you, actually?

@ Scott Miller:
You're also neglecting the fact that Bring Me the Head hardly expresses unambiguous joy in vengeance or in being a tool of vengeance. You're always giving me credit for all sorts of things I may or may not deserve credit for. Give me some credit for awareness of irony and tragedy.

@ Scott Miller:
It was just a little loose-written hyperbole, and a little metonymy, and some other stuff, you paranoid meanie, kind of making up for having expressed sympathy for your position, repeatedly. In other words, just a shorthand for "people who take Scott's position."

"Low self-esteem"? Only by your definition. Different concepts or constructions or estimates of self and esteem.

@ Scott Miller:
Believing we should react soberly, especially as regards the act itself rather than all of the other things it happens to represent or carry with it, is one thing. Condemning all military action or violence is another. The former may very well be an overwhelming majority position. Even some of the impulsive celebrants may come to acknowledge it. The other is the position of a tiny minority. That doesn't make it wrong, of course. But having "millions" who agree with you in a country of 300+ million doesn't say anything either. Millions of people believe... all sorts of stuff.