[rmnunez]

I oppose murder generally, when its in cold blood as well as by decapitation, which I find particularly cruel.

When at war there are intentional killings by members of the armed forces of parties recognized at conflict. Those acts would be murders absent confrontation in a war. These homicides are excusable and justifiable, no guilt attaches when they conform to rules of war including the famous Geneva Conventions. Irregular forces which formally cannot be recognized, where they lack rankings, a chain of command, organizational structure or a standardized decision-making process, dubiously can claim excusable and justifiable homicide in their attacks on members of regular armed forces, never when on civilians.

The argument those in supporting roles to the occupying forces can be legitimately targetted is not sensible. If collaborators could be legitimately targetted by terrorists, how about the parents, brothers and sisters of terrorists who unwittingly provide shelter and material support to the terrorist? Wouldn't their counterparts from the Coalitioneer's forces also be "legitimate" targets, this would mean anyone with a relative in Coalitioneer armed forces (even those not deployed in Iraq) as well as all Coalitioneer security guards at hospitals would become legitimate targets of anyone somehow associated with ending the military ccupation of Iraq.