No.
He was an enemy soldier, a commander of an irregular army at war with the United States.
And legitimate target.
No.
He was an enemy soldier, a commander of an irregular army at war with the United States.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Terror can, and often has been, state policy and/or military policy.
He was an enemy soldier, a commander of an irregular army at war with the United States.
—
So we shot back.
In a war.
Right?
You have a problem with that?
We’re only allowed to get shot at?
Never shoot back.
(And BTW, the guy is ALSO a terrorist. But I realize you don’t want to entertain that idea.)