The problem with the posited question is that it implies the occupying force started the conflict. While you cleverly tried to compare what has transpired with Americas response to 911, your analogy is fallacious in several respects. Your scenario assumes that the occupier had no reason to invade. While the US is not the occupier in your scenario, the point you are trying to illustrate is obvious. I am of the mindset that the members, supporters and funding base for terrorist organizations that murder innocent noncombatants should be dealt with in the most horrific manner possible. Torture, violence and any means available to the interrogators that can extract information and intelligence should be employed. In that same vein, I don't support innocent people being subjected to the same treatment. However, if innocent people somehow end up in the same camp as the guilty, I do not blame the powers that be for whatever hardships may befall those individuals. I blame the terrorists themselves. They choose to hide amongst civilians and embed themselves in areas where they know the military cannot indiscriminately attack. They choose to prey on the innocent. They send others to their deaths and to murder innocent people while they plot more terror and destruction. If an innocent person is swept up and suffers, I am willing to give my military the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing and those individuals will eventually be freed/ exonerated.
