i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm just trying to bring some nuance to some of the statements that have been made.
and you keep saying that is was an authorized assassination, which is not true. it was collateral damage.
do i really need to explain the nuance of this to you?
was it idealistically right? no. was it acceptable collateral damage in war? yes.
we firebombed entire civilian cities in WWII and we were the good guys. perspective is important.
EDIT: i do agree with you about how we have allowed the power of the executive branch to expand to a point that is now a crisis, but i will still defend obama as a president.
your original statement is correct, but i feel the need to speak up on behalf of obama.
the terrorist kill list was a little shady, but it was effective (although messy).
we really need to embrace the power of martial force for good. the good guys can't always take the high road. sometimes there is no better solution than to just apply a hammer.
this. the system is broken. the DOJ is owned. trump et al are above the law. they knew going in that the entire charade only operates under the threat of violence and they currently have a monopoly on that. if you don't have stock in violence, you don't have a place at the table. we all need to buy some stock.
the point is that it takes messy solutions sometimes. we need to come to peace with that if we want to truly resist the current administration. you can't stay on your high horse forever if you want to survive.