errorism

I find it interesting that if a terrorist wishes to make the move into politics then they are expected to give up violence, and yet if they were through political means to become priminister or president of a country then they would have an entire army at their dissposal and at that point if they did not take up violence, once more, then it would undoubtly be said that they are soft on national security issues.
The fact of the matter is that, logically speaking you can't go up to someone and tell them that if they want to negotiate with you then they must give up violence and then say if they don't then there will be swift millitary reprisals. And yet, there really isn't any other way to do it. Whats the alternative, just let them walk all over us, i suppose it worked for Ghandi and for the civil rights protesters or atleast thats how history records it, perhaps it didn't happen like that perhaps it was the violent groups that made things change and not the passifists. Perhaps sometimes violence is the only way to get things done.
History is littered with tyrants who wern't bad enough to survive and emblazoned with those who got the balance between compassion and cruelty just right and were loved and admired for it.
Ultimitly there is no real difference between terrorrist action and military action and surely when a terrorrist group is sponsered by a state then they become a sort of military and should be loved respected and hated as such.