&gt; Rule of law does not excuse or lessen atrocities, it defines them.<p>Are you saying that codified law is the only thing that determines what is and isn&#x27;t an atrocity? As in, anything that&#x27;s legal isn&#x27;t an atrocity? I certainly do not agree with that.<p>&gt; Having an open mind, I ask you to look within and ask whether the US is specifically targeting civilians, or has simply targeted military actors hiding among civilian populations?<p>I don&#x27;t have any clue, but I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s the primary concern. I think there can be unacceptable civilian casualties even if there is a legitimate military target in the middle of civilians.<p>&gt; No matter what you answer, you must acknowledge IS is responsible for planning&#x2F;executing military style attacks against civilians specifically.<p>Of course, but why is that relevant? The existence of a worse actor does not make the acts of another actor more excusable.<p>&gt; We can agree to disagree, certainly there is nothing wrong with an all life is sacred approach, but you should not feel deeply disturbed that the law distinguishes between responding to a military attack with the use of force targeted at those most responsible and a non-state actor engaging in terrorist&#x2F;quasi-military attacks against civilian populations?<p>That&#x27;s not what disturbs me. What disturbs me is the notion that a formal law in any way determines the acceptability of a violent act.