Well if we’re going to bring morality into this, then we need to apply it on down the line to all the assumptions being made here.
Let’s do an exercise in logic.
We’ll assume that killing a terrorist is morally defensible.
Since the term “terrorist” is often politicized, then we need a working definition of what “terrorism” is.
So let’s adopt for the sake of argument a definition terrorism as the mass killing of innocents outside a legal framework.
The War in Iraq was illegal by international law and it has resulted in the deaths of 200,000 civilians, so you can make a case that the war itself is a terrorist act, and that those perpetrating it are terrorists, right?
The main argument for why Soleimani is considered a terrorist is that Quds Force killed US soldiers, whose job it is to commit violence in the context of an illegal occupation that has killed 200,000 people.
So if we accept that it’s okay to kill people who kill innocent civilians, then you’re agreeing that it’s morally okay to kill US soldiers?
If you agree with that, then Soleimani isn’t a terrorist and it’s not morally okay to kill him.
See how slippery that is? Maybe we can just agree that “terrorist” is a loaded term and it actually has no moral weight. Again, Nelson Mandela was a “terrorist.” If we were in the 1980s, would you have been justifying the murder of Chris Hani? Jeanette Schoon? Ruth First? “Terrorists” all.
The whole point of labeling groups and demonizing them is to render everything into black and white, which is actually the polar opposite of sophisticated and nuanced moral reasoning. It’s a tactic called bifurcation, i.e “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”
