> Perhaps, the poster is referring to assassinations by the West being overlooked and/or justified while those committed by other countries are vilified and even an excuse for the West starting another war, killing millions of people in the name of vengeance.
The situations are different because in the case of Ben Laden, the intent of the US was well known and publicized, and there was an international warrant for his arrest, and the US never denied responsibility. As such I don't think it makes sense to compare the situations as if they were equal and that it represents an application of dual standards.
I'm not saying it was ok (or not ok) to go for Ben Laden. I'm saying it's not a comparable situation.
> By the way, many “intrajudicial” killings are not justified either.
That's a political position which is defensible and thoroughly debated.
The situations are different because in the case of Ben Laden, the intent of the US was well known and publicized, and there was an international warrant for his arrest, and the US never denied responsibility. As such I don't think it makes sense to compare the situations as if they were equal and that it represents an application of dual standards.
I'm not saying it was ok (or not ok) to go for Ben Laden. I'm saying it's not a comparable situation.
> By the way, many “intrajudicial” killings are not justified either.
That's a political position which is defensible and thoroughly debated.