You have indeed followed my line of reasoning. The events I related actually happened and are a matter of historical record. I substituted “Qadafi” and “Qadafi’s forces” for the names of General James H. Lane and General William Tucumseh Sherman. They are related in The Conduct of Federal Troops, commissioned by Louisiana Governor Henry Allen during the Civil War.
Those heinous actions and more were carried out by the two Generals on the orders of The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln against citizens of the States that attempted to rebel against the government.
Lincoln was assassinated. We have condoned the assassination of Qadafi for same while branding Lincoln’s assasination a murder.
I don’t maintain that Qadafi shouldn’t pay for his crimes. But to stoop to assassination would be tantamount to bringing ourselves to his level. If we believe in fair trials and the rule of law and order, we can’t make exceptions. By doing so, we would make all our posturing about “justice” a farce. I maintain that Qadafi’s assassination would be no less a crime than was that of Lincoln. No one, Obama included, has the right to try and convict anyone without representation.
I said you had a good argument if limited to your facts, essentially outsiders not responding to a government's despicable conduct within the borders of its nation.
I then argued the reasoning should be quite different if the leader of one nation kills civilians of another nation.
For instance, your view does not address what action is warranted in the event the U.S. is attacked by another nation. I argue a hit on Qadafi is warranted not because of what he is doing within his borders, but rather because of clear evidence he was directly involved in the murder of many Americans. There is no statute of limitations for such crime.