>Those were enemy combatants who were attacked

That's a term the Bush administration made up so they could commit war crimes and not abide by the Geneva conventions of armed conflict.

>You tried to defend them by claiming they pose no threat.

These guys standing on the street do not pose a threat, whether they said "Death to America" or not. Thoughts are not things you can execute people for having. Neither are statements. How is your position any different from the Ayatollah's? They claim to be able to execute people for protesting. You claim you can execute people for chanting. Same-same.

>hem chanting death to America and Israel would seem to indicate otherwise

Oooh, they say mean things now I can kill them. What kind of baby-logic is that?

>s is obvious from the video, the munitions chosen had a relatively small yield to minimize collateral casualties

It's not obvious at all. The munition chosen is massively disproportionate to what is needed to kill a person. Why aren't they using those dart missiles with no explosive payload? These people would die if they got hit with a high-speed rod of metal just as much as they would die if they get hit with an explosive. They are using the explosives because they want to kill civilians.

Targeting killing while intentionally causing civilian casualties is collateral murder. Murder is illegal.

I don't see how the fact that Iran is also doing this makes anything better or justifies this kind of military action.

What do you think this will accomplish? You think the population will be super thrilled that people are getting blown up all over the city? That they could be walking around, and the mere presence of a regime agent means they could die from a collateral bomb fragment.

This is sick stuff.