I didn't mis-phrase anything. I sez whut I mens and means whut I sez! It's an observation, anyway - so I needn't back up, explain or retract. (However, you might want to...!)
Ok then, your fully-claimed observation "War very seldom kills the guilty, you know..." can't be backed-up, explained or retracted. Which brings up the point what's it doing here?
So its value in this discussion is, well,
what?
could you cide any war were mostly the guilty were killed?...
No more valid to claim "Mostly the guilty were killed" than to claim ""War very seldom kills the guilty." Neither can be cited as neither is sustainable.
Where are you going with this? If your point is actually that innocents are killed in war, why not just say "Innocents are killed in war," which is totally sustainable. It can be backed-up and explained, and no retractions are necessary.
I'm not understanding the need for truisms here when the facts are plenty ample enough to make any valid point. Ultimately, aren't truisms just a form of exaggeration employed to convey "impact" in the goal of "winning" a conversation? We need to mess with that here?