The view that there are no innocent civilians has more in common with Jihadi Islam than with Western Civilization.
A lack of morally relevant discrimination between an aggressor and a non-aggressor is acceptable, even applauded --- in al-Zawahiri's madrassas. But it is condemned by the Judeo-Christian world, in an Aristotelian framework of reason and virtue, and in the principles of Natural Law which are the foundation of the American republic.
You can't prevail over Islamist fanaticism in this way. You've already accepted the single most loathsome thing in their philosophy. You may see yourself as the most staunch opponent of nation's enemies, but you deceive yourself? In your heart -- from which your morality proceeds --- you and the Enemy are in profound agreement.
God help you.
Absolutely.
I would also like to point out that Mohammed imposed requirements on who was subject to be intentionally killed in war. His standards were far below those, in theory, of today’s international law, but well above those routinely accepted in his day.
Mohammed would, again in theory, have been opposed to much of the practice of today’s Muslim terrorists. But it’s a complicated issue, with varying opinions reminiscent of the Talmud in their complexity.
Here’s a good discussion of sharia’s attitude towards “non-combatants.”
http://www.currenttrends.org/docLib/20061226_NoncombatantsFinal.pdf
I have a suggestion for the “kill ‘em all” guys.
Let’s gather up 25 little Muslim girls. Here’s a knife. You get to personally cut their throats.
Are you willing to proceed?
If not, you’re just a blowhard. Or you want others to commit the murders you aren’t willing to commit yourself.
If you are willing to kill those little girls, then you’re an evil person and unworthy to be called an American. Or a man, IMO.