Those that are Western nations would like to presuppose that the world is basically differentiated between a clear black and white division, of which those that support all that Western nations do and justify are thereby right, and all those that are outside that realm, such as what has been painted by the Western nations as being a terrorist or supporter of such, are thereby wrong. From this perspective, the West justifies all their actions taken against a supposed enemy terrorist state, in which, that enemy is hunted down and no matter how much purposeful or accidental collateral damage that subsequently occurs due to that hunt, or how many civilians are ultimately killed or harmed, it is all okay as long as there are also those labeled as terrorists or bad guys that have been eradicated, as well -- of which, by these actions, Western nations are essentially behaving in a manner in which they are above the law, thus acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
It is important for the general public to have a basic definition of what terrorism really is, of which, one definition would be to recognize that a terrorist takes the law into their own hands with a preconceived goal in mind to wreak havoc and spread fear, which thereby typically through the usage of deliberate targeted violence achieves its objective of harming or killing the other, without judicial overview, and without having proved their case in an independent court of law, so that whoever is targeted for death or dismemberment is thereby subsequently accomplished at the discretion of the terrorist, and of which, torture and extraordinary rendition are all considered to be acts that are justified in that commitment to eliminate or to compromise the other.
The bottom line is that Western nations always consider themselves to be the white hat agents of justice, though we find that what is considered to be right and justified from a Western perspective seems to be a construct of which whatever deeds are done through the hands of Western nations no matter how extreme or how much they clearly undercut the unalienable rights of individuals as well as their constitutional rights, is somehow legitimized. So then, when we find, for example, that America extraordinary renditions of suspected bad actors, ends up killing those that they have been labeled as terrorists, that in the scheme of things, this has not been vetted by any real independent non-biased organization and seems to clearly be extrajudicial in its behavior, justified only because it is done by Western nations, which thereby means it must be okay.
In actuality, terrorism is terrorism, which means that those that behave just like those that they claim are terrorists, by using the same sorts of reasoning and similar actions but come from the other side of the equation, are no better than what they are trying to eliminate, and one could argue that they are worse, because they pretty much hold all the cards, but won’t work under the applicable rule of law, but rather work outside that law, as if they are saying, the ends justify the means.
All of the above would be indicative that those who commit wrongs in order to make things right are ethically suspect, and all those who take actions that are, in their way, consistent with terrorism, but declaim that they are not terrorists, but that they are the good guys, are, in actuality, also terrorists themselves.