> You assumed for some reason I was talking about deporting people and not attacking people in boats with hellfire missiles.

No, I understood you clearly as you said “outside the United States.” My point was that American military adventurism still wouldn’t justify terrorism. I then went on to describe how the majority of deportees have plainly violated the law, and that even if some proportion of deportees had their rights violated during the deportation process, it would not justify the extrajudicial killing of law enforcement officers.

> I was discussing the disconnect between legal and moral.

What the great grandparent comment was advocating for is battering and / or murdering law enforcement officials on the basis that he doesn’t think foreign nationals should be bound by American immigration law.

> Your usage of "narco-terrorist"

It’s an accurate description of what these organizations are. Latin American history is basically a story of central governments trying to control these crime syndicates, failing, and then descending into civil war as landowners and urban elites figure the more practical solution is to just massacre all of them. This is true of Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, and half a dozen other countries. Venezuela attracts the attention that it does because the government is effectively part of the syndicate. [0] Mexico is like this too but has either established backroom deals with the feds to avoid scrutiny or is considered too risky to intervene in.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcosobrinos_affair