Sorry to have to take issue, Bowser, but defining "terrorism" as "deliberately killing innocent men, women and children" is the bloody shirt the right loves to wave, but it corresponds to no existing formal or legal definition of "terrorism". Words like "atrocity" and phrases like "slaughter of the innocents", not to mention adjectives like "despicable" and "reprehensible" match those actions, and anybody could agree with those characterizations.

But "terrorism" is the use of tactics which inflict fear on a civilian population with the intent of influencing the actions of the population's government (usually through pressure brought to bear by terrified citizens); or failing that, to drive a wedge between the people and the government by shaking faith in the power of government to protect the people.

The proper definition doesn't invalidate all of your observations, Bowser. The "Shock and Awe" campaign does match the definition of terrorism to a T; and the atom bombs dropped on Japan could not be seen as anything other than terror weapons. Yet, both those incidents have in common the assertion that the use of terrorism saved more lives than it took. Is ER right in his flat assertion that the A-bombs saved a million lives? The people who made that argument originally made a persuasive case, but how can we really know what might have been?

We live in a morally ambiguous world, Bowser. I wish it were better than that. But saying that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to try to do better, and your sentiments are admirable even if you built a somewhat shaky logical case. The important thing is to have a moral compass, and for that I salute you.