I keep seeing people say that if you kill a terrorist leader, you become a legitimate target yourself for that same terrorist group. Is legitimacy in targeting simply a function of children's playground practice of tit for tat?
By that same logic since Bin Laden killed 3000 American Civilians we could legitimately exterminate 3000 Bin Ladian civilians? Is that how it works, this school of legitimate targeting?
Do relative moral grounds on which both sides stand in light of their activities not matter? An elected democratic leader of a country that was brutally attacked is not at all justified in eliminating a leader of an international murder gang, without becoming a legitimate target for that same international murder gang?
Does that really make sense to some of you?
When a side that is objectively in the right (the right to want to kill Osama due to his actions) kills the side that is objectively in the wrong (Osama), do those moral placements not matter whatsoever?
And if they do not, how then does International Law provide for defending your country from an attack, since the mere act of killing attackers somehow confers legitimacy on those attackers to kill you back again.
I swear that is a vicious circle of legitimate wanking.
Would we not really want to target Hitler, simply because he was a leader of a government regardless of his actions?
Some say that this is against international law. Which international law?
Some say that this is against the rules of war. Which rules of war?