The question has been framed so as to exclude collateral damage to civilians, that is, where the primarily intention of the use of force is destruction of a military target, and the civilian casulties are mere incidental. An example of this would be bombing a munition factory or a rail yard and taking some out some houses. Civilians so unfortunate as to be unwilling human shields of combatants fall within this case. Willing human shield are not merely combatants but are themselves war criminals,and their losses are of no moment,

The discussion steps around the special case of deterrence, by which the primary intention is to deter the enemy from killing our civilians by credibly offering to kill his.

One of the issues fairly presented by the question arises when civilians are themselves a military asset, as when they are working in war industries. Now they may be targeted as civilians, their status as protested persons having been compromised. I do hold that protected persons may not be targeted for purposes of terror, outside of the deterence scenario.

The notion that we shouod be deferring to mass opinion on a matter of the law of war is laughable. Civilians should never be targeted, the civilians say. The decision is not up to speeches and majority votes, is is a responsibility for the Caudillo.

For we who believe in the inherent power of the demos civilians are always a politico-military asset.

Polls are pretty silly generally but this one is plain old stupid. It all comes down to one's perception of 'terror'. It's even dumber if the polled are of a metaphysical persuasion which necessarily precludes the Anglospheric understanding of terrorism. Let's find out their opinion of total war when 'total war' is defined as disabling your enemy to the point of offering them no option other than submission. I have an inkling they'd understand. One thing about losing to the U.S., it's enemies usually end up better off after defeat.

86% of Pakis believe that terror is "never justified"? I find it hard to believe that only 14% of them want to kill Hindus, Christians (particularly Americans), and Shi'a, much less Musharraf and their own daughters.

Stories like this are useless. The Islamists won like 35% of the recent election (more in some provinces). That is a more solid figure, no?

Islamists aren't generally pro-terror.

The Anglospheric definition of terror is what others do to us.

So, they are merely trying to nudge Musharraf? Or persuade him?

The Anglospheric definition of 'terror' is correct.

?

The Islamists won enough votes to form majority governments in Baluchistan and the NWFP. Those two provinces have a combined population of 16m while the country's is about 150m. Their share of the popular vote in 2002 - the most recent parliamentary elections - was about 11%. I'm not sure where you got the figure of 35% from.

Even then, they're not encouraging terror attacks even if they're opposed to any relationship with the US. If anything, they've been clamping down on attacks against Shias, Christians and Hindus.

About a week ago, the chief spokeswoman for the PPP was attacked by an extremist and hospitalised with a spinal concussion. Three days ago, Punjab's female Social Welfare minister - and cousin of the Chief Minister of the province - was shot dead by one at an open meeting. The bulk of the casualties on the train from India were Pakistani families. A month ago a suicide bomber tried to blow up the VIP lounge at Islamabad airport.

So I'm not surprised by the results of that poll.