Your argument is considerably more elaborate and well-worded, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you basically trying to draw the same "moral equivalence" between warfare and terrorism against civilians that Bowser has been?

...The only "warfare" that will achieve the broader objective of ending terrorist activity except as an abberation (we will always have criminals) is one that addresses basic questions of justice, physical and intellectual freedom, access to diverse information, personal safety, and equal economic opportunity. Wherever one looks, even in the past, if terrorism exists as an expression of political will, at least one of these issues has not been addressed. Insofar as no nation (even the US) is perfect, the self-examination necessary to pursue those goals is difficult to conduct.

If your enemy insists on your extinction as a race or culture, it makes the "basic questions" a little difficult to address*, but that's not the main issue here.

I will continue to refuse to accept ANY political complaint as a justification for the deliberate targeting for death of innocent civilians.

Is America totally blameless in this area? Of course not. We have a long history. While a military case can be made for bombing Hiroshima, the bombing of Dresden, as one example, is much more difficult to justify. And deliberate genocide on Native Americans ("nits grow up to be fleas") was carried out, if not as official policy, at least by official representatives of the government.

Still, one has to recognize that there is a real moral difference between dropping bombs from 10,000 feet, and realizing logically that certainly innocent people must be dying down there among the factories, and going up next to a woman and child, looking straight at them, and killing them in their tracks by detonating high explosives in their faces. Granted, it doesn't make much difference to the charred little corpses in either situation, but we're talking about the perpretator's moral situation.

When we went into Afghanistan, we made a real and honest attempt to pick out the bad guys from the bystanders, often to our own detriment. From a military standpoint, erasing the nation from the face of the Earth would have been a lot easier, and by the logic of "your killing of our people justifies any action that I choose to take against you," would have been legitimate from that point of view.

*Try and work out how a reasonable compromise could have been achieved in 1935 between the Nazis and the Jews that both could accept.