You bring some interesting points. Indeed, not all terrorists are intrinsically bad people. But we can't treat them based on their values. We treat them based on ours (backed by law, preferably). Otherwise we would have to grant them virgins and statues with their names. Anyways, despite the fact you seem pretty smart; pragmatically speaking, I think you are inserting as many moral variables as possible to justify inertia. The speech is convincing, but impractical on a pragmatic level.What strikes me, though, is that the phrase, "innocents are gonna suffer no matter what" could well be used to justify a terrorist act. Kill a few people on a bus to get the attention on a bigger problem that will save more people.
I think your reference is to collateral damage and not intentional damage to non-combatants which makes it different from the application I mentioned, but still, the reasoning is troubling for its direct similarity to the justification for a terrorist act.
I'm watching a documentary on tree-hugger eco-terrorists. That term "terrorist" includes people who have plausibly positive motivations to help the world. It includes people who have never killed anyone. And most problematically it includes people only suspected of terrorism who are tortured in order to determine their guilt. There was a quote in the documentary, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter depending on whether or not you agree with his motives". It was somewhat chilling to hear that. Terrorism is the tactic used by those who don't have the resources to have an armed forces necessary to confront a powerful country head-on. It's called asymmetrical warfare because it grows out of strong power imbalances and so overcompensates for its position of vulnerability with strong violence and fear. I am not convinced of the reasoning to remove human rights from people who happened to end up on that side of a conflict. I don't think it is possible to isolate guilt so clearly to the level of individual - they are operating and reacting within a system. There are comparable instances in which soldiers have been accused of committing violence against innocent civilians and yet they are not labeled "terrorist" for these acts. Why? Perhaps because they are on the correct side of the power imbalance?