The Muslims say that anyone who supports an "Infidel" army in Islamic lands is a legitimate target, whether the support is by taxes, or by logistical, or actual military effort, and wherever the support comes from.
Is it not time to take them at their word, and apply the same rules to them?
Otherwise, it seems we are fighting with one hand tied behined our back.
After all the concept of "total war" is not a new one, it was applied successfully to the Nazis, and the "Tojos".
At the moment we are unable to effectively deter terrorism, because the terrorists hide in the population. Terrorism is a crime that is without effective deterrance.
The population that allows them to hide amongst them must be made accountable. If they fail to "give up", or cease supporting terrorism, are they not equally guilty?
A change should be made to the international law to designate certain areas as "terrorist areas", and allow in those areas, collective punishment. the penalties need not necessarily be of a capital nature. Financial penalties could be a solution. If terrorists have sufficient time and resources available to them to carry out terrorist acts could we not remove that time and those resources, thereby forcing the terrorists and assisting populations to spend there time more productively, and peacefully?
For example, it seems to me that the Palastinians are only able to continue their war with Israel because of funds supplied by others. Shouldn't these funds be withheld, and only paid in the event of an outbreak of Peace?
After all in the normal criminal law, those who conspire with, and aid and abet criminal acts are deemed to be equally guilty.
Why is collective support for the crime of terrorism not treated in the same way?
For example, it seems to me that the Palastinians are only able to continue their war with Israel because of funds supplied by others. Shouldn't these funds be withheld, and only paid in the event of an outbreak of Peace? ....
Why is collective support for the crime of terrorism not treated in the same way?
------
Because the "funds" can be traced back to "Eurabia", mainly our darling france.
"War and conflict occur when a nation or people seek to impose their will on others who objecte to the imposition. The only way to therefore keep peace is to have a strong military capable of resisting aggressive overtures and act as a deterrent. An aggressor will attack the weaker due to confidence that victory will be assured. Considering Clinton administration's loathing of the military, and reducing the military as a means of "reducing size of government" as per a campaign pledge (rather than reducing redundant bureaucrats and incompetents shuttled off into a corner to 'count paper clips' rather than firing them), it was regarded by bin Laden as a sign of weakness. As a result, he and his terrorist minions figured the U.S. would cower rather than mount an aggressive response as did 'Dubya'.
The U.S. has never been territorial in using its military force to take over other nations or people for the sake of conquest, but has successfully used the military for defense against others who create war through aggressive actions. During WW II, my uncle in California compiled a scrapbook of WW II clippings. My mom had custody of it for a time, and it had some fascinating stories (I was 10 when the WW II 'argument" ended in '45) One I recall in particular was a map captured from the Japanese forces; it was a map of the United States showing a timeline for invasion of the continental United States showing the anticipated end of the war in 1950! The Germans were to invade the Eastern United States and march West, and the Japanese would invade the West coast to meet at the Mississippi river and jointly occupy the United States."
WAR was the "ANSWER to the above German and Japanese plans for the United States of America.