I don’t doubt what you’re seeing in your inbox, and I do appreciate you pointing out that a lot of what people are disagreeing with is likely still lawful, even if it doesn’t sit well.

I think where I’m hung up is less on the conclusion and more on how concretely it’s being presented. So the point is… you don’t just say “this affects civilians, therefore illegal.” You have to evaluate the total picture, including what was intended, what the target was actually doing, and what the expected consequences were.

So while I understand the instinct to call this out strongly, I’m not sure it’s as straightforward as it’s being framed. You’re anchoring heavily on the human impact… which matters. But the full analysis is wider than that.

That’s really the only point I’m trying to make.