Originally posted by Surtur
You already answered. Your last two sentences practically scream that your opinion is "if you take feelings out of this he's not a terrorist".And the meaning of civilians could be "non-combatant" but I will note it said "especially civilians". It is not saying acts of terrorism can only be carried out on civilians.
So yes, he has committed acts that fall under the definition of terrorism IMO. You clearly feel otherwise so just explain why.
Again Surtur, can we just forget my feelings on the matter. Im asking you to justify why a guy who was fighting against ISIS and was a military commander for his country suddenly comes under the definition of terrorist. Especially when you yourself admitted that you did not even know who this guy was until he was killed. And given ive seen no evidence he was on any terror watch list (I have asked you to correct me if Im wrong on that)
So what exactly have you learned about him in the last few days that makes you certain he was a terrorist? Please explain.
As for why im questioning this? Well.... it doesnt appear he was ever targeting non-combatants. And in terms of it being lawful, whose law is that? U.S. law? International law?
Because it seems to me the definition of terrorist here is anyone on the opposing side to the U.S.