A weird phenomenon that I have observed is the general public does not seem to consider killings that incorporate the use of aircraft to be assassinations.
Drone attacks, Apache missile strikes, and even dropping Navy SEALS on people with helicopters all seem to fall into some sort of "standard act of war" category when talked about in public. If you even merely refer to these things as assassinations you are written off as trying to use exaggerated or at least loaded language.
It's almost like people think "assassinations" are limited to snipers and James Bond figures breaking into your hotel room and making it look like a suicide.
That's because only the Good Guys(tm) have Hellfires, Apaches and Tomahawks to fire at will. The Good Guys also have restraint - the US won't send a cruise missile into an apartment complex in Islamabad, for instance - and only attack people who are both in a war zone and lack public support. The scary thing about covert assassinations is that they could happen anywhere and be committed by anyone (IMO the "anyone" part is the key bit for differentiating "war" and "murder"), whereas large-scale strikes are carried out by political figures who are (presumably) accountable for their actions.
Drone attacks, Apache missile strikes, and even dropping Navy SEALS on people with helicopters all seem to fall into some sort of "standard act of war" category when talked about in public. If you even merely refer to these things as assassinations you are written off as trying to use exaggerated or at least loaded language.
It's almost like people think "assassinations" are limited to snipers and James Bond figures breaking into your hotel room and making it look like a suicide.