The same line states "although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity", which is a pretty important thing to omit.
> Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to unintended casualties in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy combatants on the London subway system? Who were the enemy combatants on the double-decker bus?
I'm simply arguing that the wording "can violence against civilians sometimes be justified" is vague enough it could encompass precisely those sorts of unintended casualties.
I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence specifically targeted against civilians be justified". I'd also be interested in the reasons cited by those answering yes. Plenty of Americans feel today that the bombing of Hiroshima was appropriate, despite it falling well within that category.