Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... but I believe you are wrong when you make a very broad statement saying, 'usually have the same goa

Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... but I believe you are wrong when you make a very broad statement saying, 'usually have the same goals as "we" do: peace, respect, safety, prosperity.' Let me give a specific example, the Islamist terrorists who follow the Wahhabism Islamic doctrine, the very same doctrine of Da’ish (ISIS). They have no respect for Kafir, the Arabic term for "unbeliever", or "disbeliever". The term itself alludes to a person who rejects or disbelieves in Allah and the teachings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and denies the dominion and authority of Allah; or otherwise does not heed the beliefs and prescriptions held by the religion of Islam. Indeed Kafir are deeply loathed by Allah with specific passages of the Qur'an that would amount to what we in modern times would categorize as hate speech: 2:10, 2:99, 2:171, 3:73, 3:28, 6:106, 8:55, 9:28, 48:29. These passages specifically refute your argument regarding a mutual goal of respect. I could go further arguing "peace" with Kafir cannot exist in the face of jihad, for example 8:12: "I will instill terror into the hearts of Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them". Sadly I could go on but I think my point is made. The root of your argument is cultural relativism, and the fallacy that all culture is equivalent. Some cultures are superior to others if we compare merit and achievement. For example, when faced with the decision to live under a secular state (where there is a separation of religion and government) or to live under a theocracy (government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives) I submit that history has shown that it is far better to live under a secular state. If you agree with this than you are making a value judgement that a secular state is better than a theocracy... and therefore rejecting cultural relativism. At this point your whole argument unravels.