Is everyone the US has killed really akin to Osama bin Laden, that you keep looking to him and him alone to determine whether illegitimate executions are happening? What about the examples like in the link I gave? What dire need led to the death of Mammana Bibi; did anyone even have to make sure such a need exists?
Would you please at least consider what bloodshed you country is perpretating before you brush it all away as justified, because countries get to defend themselves, and somehow that now means making pre-emptive strikes against anyone anywhere with no oversight?
Because you know, that’s what a lot of the terrorists have been doing, too; attacking a country they personally decided is a threat. And in that one point they’re right - it’s been running military coups and killing people they know for a long time now. It’s just that to those of us who oppose terrorism, that legitimate interest does not justify their actions.
But I guess that’s the point of insisting on particular terminology; if you can call something by the right words, you can say it’s right without facing what it really means, whether it’s the same as what you condemn in others using different names, or exactly what kind of damage you’re okaying.
Well, I’m not having it; forget whatever stupid words are involved, and look at the real situation. People should have rights to ensure they aren’t arbitrarily killed by those in power based on allegations of possibilities, and if someone won’t even so much as delimit a field of engagement let alone submit to real review or checks on doing that, saying wɔːr or prɪˈvɛnʃən shouldn’t give them a pass on it.
