Abu Laith's children are all very concerned about the animals' well-being. Why do you think this is? Are they emulating their father? Is it just that kids love animals? Or is it something else altogether?

Abu Laith's children are all very concerned about the animals' well-being. Why do you think this is? Are they emulating their father? Is it just that kids love animals? Or is it something else altogether?

A oombination of nurture--their father has certainly modeled loving animals. But it is also nature--kids in general like animals, especially fuzzy soft mammals.

I also think that it gave them something to focus on and it gave them a task to find food for the animals. They were living in a very restrictive time

They have been raised by their father to love, respect and care for animals and have learned from his example. A caged animal is at the mercy of its caretaker.

Their father has instilled in them a love of animals. Also I believe the helping of animals takes away the fear of how they are living. And the fear of the unknown, something to take their mind off of what is happening.

Most children love animals. My parents both grew up on farms and as kids we spent a lot of time on my grandparents farms helping take care of animals. In addition, helping take care of animals got the children through the difficult times in Mosul.

I am going against the grain here again - sorry - but I don't agree that all his children were very concerned about the animals. Three of them were away from Mosul, several were so young they were housebound toddlers throughout the book. A few - is there evidence of more than three or four? - of the children, I agree, were committed to the well-being of the animals. Because the family was largely confined to their home due to the arrival of ISIS, not even Abu-Laith was able to get out of the house to look after the animals. His continual talk about and focus on the animals had an obvious effect of their thinking and action. Again, I thought it was odd that while the city was under siege, young children were going from shop to shop, house to house, begging for food. This did not make sense to me.

I think it's probably a combination of wanting to please their father and their natural love for animals.

But I also agree with some other comments here that caring for the animals was also a good distraction from the chaos around them.

I also wonder if there might be some inaccuracy in how the story is portrayed. When relating the story to the author after the fact and wanting to paint a positive picture of themselves, they may have forgotten quite how hungry they themselves had been.

I think there father's love of animals helped shape their love of the animals. It is amazing to me that they could get food for the animals when they were so hungry. That is true love!

Children often learn from their parents. It is most likely they learned about the animals well being from their father. Some kids are also more naturally compassionate than others. By being around animals and seeing their father care for them helps instill this concern and compassion.

I think kids basically like animals until they are taught differently. The children in this story were taught to love and respect the animals and were made aware that because they were caged there was an additional level of responsibility.

They grew up with their family being interested with the zoo. Therefore their father's concern would appeal to those still at home who were able to move about in the neighborhood.

A child’s initial response to animals seems to be curiosity and then to emulate their parents. If their parents love and care for animals, the children will, also. If the parents are scared of animals, the child most likely will, also. If the parents possess animals just to exploit them, the children will, also. Sad, but in my experience, true.