Whether it's targeted or not, it's an execution. There have been countless civilian deaths, claiming it's unintentional is like driving into a park and saying you didn't target anyone so it wasn't murder.
Don't know what to tell you, other than that's not the way the English language works. Regardless of your feelings about the moral and geopolitical aspects of the situation -- the verbs "to murder" and "to execute" obviously mean very different things, in plain functional terms.
That's all there is to it.
The President is nowhere assigned any legal authority to waste US citizens on his own say-so, so everybody involved participated in what is, by strictest legal definition, a murder. There were accessories before the fact, and after, with copious documentary evidence.
I'm not playing word games about anything. And it seems you're getting weirdly hostile about something completely straightforward and basically trivial.
There was never a question about the comparative effect on the victims. The issue is that execution and murder are different. Replacing one term with the other as if they are interchangeable is dishonest. Specifically, this tactic is posed to evoke an emotional reaction and implies the victim was targeted specifically.
I don't actually need to explain this to you, as you already know it, but (often paired with ncmncm) disregard it in some perverse trolling exercise.
If you walk up to my initial comment (which everyone seems to have forgotten about) - it had nothing to do with whether one was "better" than the other.
But rather, and exactly as stated in that comment: it was about the blatantly dishonest attempt, in the parent comment, to portray the situation as something that it obviously wasn't.