I think what they did was wrong, definitely, but not evil. --Emerald Aeris

This is the only definition of evil that I know. So yeah, I misunderstood.

I don't think the terrorists are JUST evil. I don't think they're mindless animals or something. I don't think they're completely devoid of all humanity. I do think that they hold certain beliefs which ARE evil, and that those beliefs are evil enough to invalidate everything else. Maybe Osama loves his mom and kisses her good-night every night. Maybe he has kids and buys them presents all the time. Those things just don't matter when held up against the fact that he kills innocent people for a reason which isn't justifiable to anyone but himself. I think it's completely pointless to even look at for good qualities. His good qualities don't matter because his bad qualities are so bad.

Violence first is just a waste of human life. War should always be the very last option, in this situation, it was the first.

They attacked us first. Did we go ram a plane into Afghanistan before 9/11? No we didn't. Did we do something to make them mad? Maybe. Very likely we did, in fact. Did we do anything to make them mad enough that it's justified to kill innocent people in our country? I certainly don't think so.

You yourself say that violence should be a LAST resort. That's a nice rule to follow. However, the terrorists didn't attempt to communicate with us. They just killed people. So they've refused to play by your rules; now what? Should we continue to play by your rules of non-violence, while they happily continue to murder office buildings full of people? Should we bend over backwards trying to spare the poor terrorists, while they've already proven with their actions that they won't do the same in return?

I, for one, don't think I have a duty to reason with someone when they have a gun to my head. I don't think I have a duty to sacrifice my well-being and possibly my own life just for the possibility of saving the life of someone who's proven himself a killer. I don't think the life of the person who initiated violence is any longer worth as much as the life of the person who has had violence initiated against himself.

Do you even know why they attacked the two towers?

This kind of question makes it seem like you think it's possible that their reasons are justifiable. There is no justification for an initiation of violence. I will agree with you; violence is justifiable only in retaliation to violence. And because there is no justification for uninitiated violence, and because they've opted to use such violence, who cares what their reasons are? Maybe their reasons are really great. Maybe they want to defeat America so they can take our wealth and build hospitals and buy everyone puppies. It doen't matter. Their reasons are invalidated by their actions.

Is fighting and killing them going to bring those people back, or stop them from killing more people before they die?

Yes, it's going to stop them. Anything less, and you're relying on the good nature of the murderers. Why should we take the chance? Why should we gamble with innocent lives, to spare the lives of murderers?