Of course not. The terrorists chose to attack civilians and their attack suceeded. There is no telling what line of attack they would have chosen if the environment of air travel were different. They were the party that initiated violence. Now, it is the right of every American -- because every American is objectively threatened -- to demand retaliation from our government. Some of us do, and some don't. But our government either retaliates or it doesn't -- it can't do 90%-10% split on retaliation. Thus foreign policy cannot go by percentages of consent, which is my original point. Hope that clarifies.
The original point of this pair of articles was that attacking governments that (supposedly) support terrorism is a just war. Since demidog and Carry_Okie have quite ably put paid to this notion, you now argue that it is just if 90% of the people think it is. Obviously false. Perhaps I’ve got you wrong and you are instead simply arguing that the government should do whatever the majority wants it to do? Maybe it should. But then your argument is neither libertarian nor objectivist. For that matter, it’s not even constitutional.