Two questions.
1) How in the world do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in this kind of war?
I don't think you can because I think all are either front line warriors or support line staff. So therefore, unless you can clear this up for me I don't think there actually ARE any "innocent" islamic civilians. They all support jihad and are all invested in it for their eternal soul.
2) In a hot war, if you don't approve of killing people as an appropriate kind of negative feedback for performing forbidden activities then what exactly do you propose that is going to be effective?
I served a year in Vietnam, a similar kind of war. You don't destroy a village to save it. Nor do you indescriminately kill men, women, and children in a country you are supposing trying to help. Why do you presume that everyone in the village is your enemy because of the actions of a few. These radicals killed five Afghans as well.
2) In a hot war, if you don't approve of killing people as an appropriate kind of negative feedback for performing forbidden activities then what exactly do you propose that is going to be effective?
This is really a guerrilla war. The tactics you use are different than in a conventional war. Killing innocent people as retribution is counterproductive and morally wrong. Do you want to carpet bomb an entire village as payback for the attack on the UN staff? Or do you want to round up all the adult males and shoot them? This was a mob of 20,000.
"Police tried to stop them, but protesters began stoning the building, and finally the situation got out of control," said Gen. Abdul Rauf Taj, the deputy police commander for Balkh province.
The mob burned down part of the U.N. compound.
The victims were killed by weapons that the demonstrators wrestled away from the U.N. guards, Noor said.
Noor blamed what he said were Taliban infiltrators among the crowd for urging violence and even distributing weapons; he said 27 suspects were arrested on charges of inciting violence.