I believe you are referring to this post. It is not exactly saying that it is okay to murder little girls, but rather a discussion of what collateral damages are acceptable in self-defense.

As it happens, none of the responses to this post agree with it, but unlike your post these other posts give reasons (whether implicitly or explicitly) for believing so. That is how one has a discussion that might actually persuade someone. Calling people names is not so useful in changing a person's opinion.

I believe most people believe that collateral damage is sometimes acceptable: if a shooter is picking off victims while hiding behind an innocent hostage such that anyone returning fire will necessarily hit the hostage, most people would agree that it is acceptable to shoot the hostage in order to stop the shooter and save many more innocent lives. That is not condoning the murder of the hostage - it is condoning whatever is necessary to save the greatest number of innocent lives. The calculus might be reversed if a shooter was hiding behind multiple innocent hostages while attempting to kill a single victim.

And that is where this discussion properly lies - in determining what is the best method for protecting the most innocent people. After all, there are sins of both commission and omission, which is to say that inaction may be worse than action - and we have the difficult job of determining the best path.

Your post was not deleted because of your opinion, but because you expressed this by calling another poster names - something which hinders useful discussion by creating a hostile environment. I hope you will rethink this.