Originally posted by Mushii

1) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
2) What's the difference between our attack on Iraq and the "terrorist" attack on 9-11? Both actions were pre-emptive, both actions were spurred by a fear of what would happen if no action was taken, the only difference is that the U.S. had the ability to follow through.
This is moral relativism at its absolute worst. Furthermore, it is wholly inaccurate. You have equated in the first sentence efforts of popular revolutionary fronts with 'terrorism.' The purpose of a terrorism is to cause political change not through popular efforts, but target politically sensitive targets with such force as to illicit fear and change in other party. Terrorists are not interested in gaining popular support or wide ranging rights of the population, they are interested in what they believe is an evil world that must conform to the minorities desires. A freedom fighter is a person with much broader issues. They are concerned with oppression and condition of their people. You can claim they are the same thing, but they are far from it.

In the second, you claim that 9/11 was a preemptive strike relative in value to the war in Iraq. This is so horrifically misplaced. The terrorists attacked both a civilian target and a military target if you wish to use the analogy. Their desire was to kill and cause harm to people indiscriminately. There desire was to bring death to as many people regardless of their association to the underlying regime or government. The war in Iraq is a classic example of a war against a government and effort depose its leadership and to replace it with a domestic, non-hostile government. The people who have been targeted (and to an amazing efficiency given the nature of war) have been the combatant themselves. While all war has civilian casualty, they are not the targets of the war effort. We are talking two different views of life and one is very much a strike against innocent actors, while the other is a political fight that has goals and directive that try to limit harm to people. To equate these two acts as the same and only different because the US can follow through is horrendous.