Not sure why you're drawing a magical difference between the US military telling its troops to do it and the US military telling some other troops to do it. Both are happening at the request of the US.
Tying yourself up into knots over explaining legal definitions to the barrel of a gun.
The rules are made up and interpretations are deferred until after the fact to justify the actions and interests of a state.
Any political or historical education would make this abundantly clear but Americans are raised to believe fairy-tales into adulthood.
Liberals really don't have the tools to pick the world apart, only the most educated and outwardly evil liberals like Kissinger are comfortable being honest with themselves.
Yes it is. What the fuck do you think extrajudicial killing means? It means a killing that took place without a legal judgement. That's it. That's all it means.
You are inventing your own idea of "extrajudicial" here, in which you have decided entirely in your own head that one means "good killing" and the other means "bad killing".
And at the end of the day all of this is just you trying to divert away from the issue - both are killing at the orders of the US empire. You're dancing around this because you're trying to argue that one is more acceptable than the other because you are a nationalist supporter of that empire and its campaign of mass murder, which you view as something to your personal benefit like a rube.
I love how debate nerds get so caught up in whether something is legal or not. News flash, laws are worthless without enforcement, and there isn’t currently any entity capable of preventing NATO forces from murdering people whenever they please
Not sure why you're drawing a magical difference between the US military telling its troops to do it and the US military telling some other troops to do it. Both are happening at the request of the US.
The word "extrajudicially" should explain that difference
It's extrajudicial BOTH WAYS you fucking dipshit. It's not magically different. Both are extrajudicial.
Why the fuck are you treating it differently?? Answer the question.
no more half measures walter
me every time I see this bit account
Because killing someone in a battle as an act of war isn't extrajudicial killing.
Tying yourself up into knots over explaining legal definitions to the barrel of a gun.
The rules are made up and interpretations are deferred until after the fact to justify the actions and interests of a state.
Any political or historical education would make this abundantly clear but Americans are raised to believe fairy-tales into adulthood.
Liberals really don't have the tools to pick the world apart, only the most educated and outwardly evil liberals like Kissinger are comfortable being honest with themselves.
No wonder you hate socialists.
Yes it is. What the fuck do you think extrajudicial killing means? It means a killing that took place without a legal judgement. That's it. That's all it means.
You are inventing your own idea of "extrajudicial" here, in which you have decided entirely in your own head that one means "good killing" and the other means "bad killing".
And at the end of the day all of this is just you trying to divert away from the issue - both are killing at the orders of the US empire. You're dancing around this because you're trying to argue that one is more acceptable than the other because you are a nationalist supporter of that empire and its campaign of mass murder, which you view as something to your personal benefit like a rube.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I love how debate nerds get so caught up in whether something is legal or not. News flash, laws are worthless without enforcement, and there isn’t currently any entity capable of preventing NATO forces from murdering people whenever they please
Murder becomes not bad if a judge says "murder is okay."
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator