"Legal mumbo-jumbo doesn't fool everyone as easily as you, I guess."

THE DEFINITION OF ASSASINATION IS LEGAL MUMBO-JUMBO!!!

I said Assasinations were outlawed, you point out several incidents that DID NOT meet the legal definition. How does this mean I was "FOOLED"?!?

Your debate style is, well, hard to get a handle of. It's a mix of non-sequitors, straw men and red herrings. In short: All fluff and no substance.


The "Legal mumbo-jumbo" is VERY important. As I mentioned, bombing a building is am INEFFECTIVE way to get a kill on a specific individual. A .308 bullet to the head is a VERY effective way to kill an individual. The fact that the president can ONLY use bombs means that's what he's going to use. If he COULD authorize covert sniper assasinations I'm CERTAIN he would.

Saying that the legal distinction between the two is insignificant shows that you don't understand the situation at all.

Please stop, it's obvious you don't understand, and won't, because you are either PLAYING dumb or truly are, either way I don't have the patience for it. Dan Z and others can follow along in a real discussion, so I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply trying to derail the debate instead of add anything of substance.