You have no grasp of how to discuss this subject.<quoted text>
Harris didn't make that claim in absence of an argument based on actions. Imo, he needed to include more about past behavior of violence, etc., but he didn't.
Anyways, your argument, and his, equate to the same thing. You'd call for pre-emptive strikes against high ranking Al Queda, regardless of whether they have personally killed anyone, b/c of their complicity in their dangerous and violent organization, which you claim we're at war with. Harris is interpreting your argument to suggest that calling for attacks on them is akin to attacking them for their propensity to act b/c of their belief system of jihad and all that.
It surprises me that you don't get that. Anyways, what are you smoking and will you share?
Harris' premise relies totally on the absence of actions. He would not need to bother to convince us that actions can justify killing. He asserts the case for thought and beliefs justifying killing. That is his only point.
You do not understand the distinctions between killing for belief (Harris) and killing terrorists (my position). Maybe it would help you understand if you thought of it as our troops shooting a Nazi soldier on the battlefield in WWII when the soldier had not personally killed anyone.
I hope this helps you.