No, your original point was that terrorist attacks against civilians are inherently worse than attacks which try to minimize civilian casualties as far as they

No, your original point was that terrorist attacks against civilians are inherently worse than attacks which try to minimize civilian casualties as far as they can. Then you added that civilian casualties are horrible but justifiable when targeting an even more dangerous terrorist. But you are confusing two aspects that are completely unrelated: the first is a matter of means (how can you wage war), the second of objectives (why you do it). And then you assume that the western justifications can be taken at their face value (we kill to prevent more being killed, no political purpose implied) which is even more naive. Finally, you seem to admit that having higher precision weapons would make terrorists better people. Maybe, who knows, as good as we are? That was much of my point.