Terrorism is Sometimes Justified

Ok, well justifying killing works too... lol. But your justification of killing is still flawed because it is based upon a presumed end. You stated that the terrorists kill important targets in accomplishing their mission, but there is no way to insure that such an action would without doubt provide absolute and unconditional victory. For instance, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated (killed) by a terrorist suicide bomb. She was definitely a political target and opposition to some, but that doesn't mean that her death guaranteed the idealogical goal of the terrorist. That scenario is still being played out. It is easy to look back and say "Yes, they were justified because they won..." but it is not the same when dealing with a value debate that occurs in the very present. But even looking into the past you cannot justify based upon the now-known end because at the time of the action (terrorism) the end was still undefined. Therefore, your argument that the means of killing is justified by the end result falls because the end result is never certain no matter how good the odds. Which brings forth your next argument that terrorism was the last resort and final option: How do you ever know if you run out of options? I'm obviously not as well versed on the certain incident that you continue to refer to, but I do know that there have been times when rescue came from outside the persecuted, many times. First example: United States Abolitionist Movement All seemed lost for the slaves and they were beginning to give up fighting the "white man", but then some free Americans began helping the slaves and even offered safe houses on the underground railroad. To the slaves, it seemed violence was the last option, but they gained help from the outside, thus proving that the "last resort" can never really be last because there is always a future. Second example: Abolitionist movement in Britain Slavery was abolished in Britain without a Civil War like the US had and was achieved through the efforts of a single free white man. Again, I'm not using the examples as exact references, but they explain the point that the same uncertainty applies to the amount of options a group has. "Many of these revised tactics led to sniping operations, bombings of economic interests, and assassinations of political figures. Can this be justified? Yes. It is justified in that they are fighting a war of freedom. It is no different than any peoples fighting injustice and having to resort to extreme measures to wage that fight. The people dying are those who stand in the way of the achievement of the given goals." ^I will show why the above is unjustifiable in the way stated. You relate the intent of the means as freedom.... Just. You relate the means to killings/bombings....Unjust. You relate the end to the achievement of the goal...Undefined. Furthermore: "The people dying are those who stand in the way of the achievement of the given goals." ^ The achievement of the given goals is not guaranteed. Hitler's campaign killed people in order to produce a perfect world of Aryan Descent. In his view, the end justified the means, but he is commonly considered a "crazed killer" because his end failed. If his end had been achieved do you think that anyone would second guess the means? Of course not because they would have gotten what they wanted. This, however, would be looking back after the end was achieved, not whilst it was still undefined. So, after all of the above it comes down to two things: 1. You cannot justify the means with and undefined end as all ends are undefined. 2. You cannot assert that there is a last resort because there are endless possibilities that may be unseen to the involved party. I'm not trying to say that you're not right, but the arguments that have been presented have been proven logically flawed.