You would really have to kill anybody who is a Muslim.
I keep wondering why people talk about "war on terrorism" as if it can only be large scale military action. Maybe because they never learned about fourth generation warfare?
From Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org
But that's a different thing entirely than war with a state, like Iraq or Iran, with a large, modern army, or war with Hizballah, which is a quasi-army which doesn't adhere to the rules of war (no uniforms, they put their bases in civilian neighborhoods).
The battle has to be geared towards the enemy, and the terrain.
Hizballah fights like Arabs have always fought -- when they're in a tight corner, they fade into the background, and come back later. They are part of the general populace, therefore it's impossible to tell them from the general populace. They have the support of the general populace, so they move freely. If Lebanon didn't support Hizballah, if Syria didn't support Hizballah, if Iran didn't support Hizballah, they wouldn't be so strong or so dangerous.
But Israel has what they want, so they have to come for it on Israel's ground. And when they've amassed thousands of missiles and launchers, these weapons caches are vulnerable.
Similarly, the terrorists in Britain can operate without being detected as long as they're moving among their own population, but they can be detected when they're coming for their objective -- if only it can be done soon enough.
There are, no doubt, dozens, maybe hundreds, of British of Pakistani national origin who knew exactly who these people were and what they intended, but said nothing out of loyalty and support, because they agree with the objectives and the motivation.
You can't fight that with tanks and bombs.
What we can do is keep them from getting what they want. If we give in to terrorists then we validate terrorism. |
