A Response to A Challenge - What is the difference between U.S. Intervention and the Intervention of Other Groups?
In the beginning, nothing. When you get past all the rhetoric, I do not believe that in the concept that it can be right/wrong for one nation/group of people to attempt to impose its will on another. International sanction or approval of an action in my view does not change this fundamental fact, for imposition is amoral to begin with. What is moral, or hence correct then? Nothing.

What is the difference then between what our enemies do and what we do? Two differences accomodation and moderation - (1) Accomodation - We are not looking to screw with other peoples. As long as you don't nationalize (steal) the property of our citizens, plant bombs that kill us, or build weapons that could be passed on to people that want to do one of the former two, we don't want to be bothered with you, with one or two disgusting exceptions for the war on drugs. (2) Moderation - If we decide to screw with you or your people, we will do it in a measured way. We've had 10,000 nukes for the longest time. We've only used two, and that was because we were afraid the invasion of Japan would call for even more life. Give Al Queda a nuke or two, and we are likely to see a few cities reduced to glowing cinder.

Why are these differences important? In an irreligious moral way, they aren't, because there is no morality. But in a practical way they are important because they signal that however much a foreign people can disagree with the way our citizens live their lives (material, without culture, obese, etc.) it is in their interest to not screw with us, which results that we don't haven't to screw with them.

Al Queda has altered this equilibrium. Al Queda by signalling that it will only accept univerisal adherence to shaira and is willing to go to any lengths (such as bombing fellow muslims) necessary to achieve that end has shown that they cannot be negotiated with. Since they are unwilling to accomodate our lifestyles, unwilling to leave us alone, and unwilling to use any but the most extreme force available, and unwilling to revise their goals, it is too risky to do anything other than ruthlessly and efficiently destroy them until their goals are permanently altered to accomodate our lifestyle. Is this right? No - there is no right, there is no wrong. But it is the way it is going to be.