And just because someone is a combat vet doesn't mean they were even in a role that would kill someone. Calling people "professional murderers" is wildly insensitive and is not even factual (murder is a legal infraction, which would also be punished if one were in the military and was caught committing it).
The 2 million killed Vietnamese and the approx 400k Iraqis would probably care to differ.
I hardly think that you are correct that fact that there is one of more jurisdictions that legalise oversee murder does not mean it is not murder (USA), it just means that a certain group of people don't regard it as murder.
It's also hard to see why one is obliged to be sensitive towards people who sign up to kill others. Calling a soldier a murderer is never even a fractal as insensitive as committing the violence in the first place.
You still don't understand the definition and concept of murder. It requires the intent to kill that person. Your notion that definitions can differ is fine, but how about showing me some evidence to back up your claim that other jurisdictions do consider it as such, specifically in that jurisdiction.
You posted some casualty numbers. Do you have the breakdown for which side was the perpetrator? Also, I don't think the numbers from Vietnam are relevant considering the vastly different technologies and ROE of today. How do you feel about civilian casualties in WW2? Should we have let Hitler do his thing? Here are some numbers that show a low percentage caused by coalition forces (12% and I believe the violent deaths were about 200k).
"Calling a soldier a murderer is never even a fractal as insensitive as committing the violence in the first place."
Here you are wrongly assuming the person committed any violence at all... even after I explained that earlier. This and the lack of factual support for your position makes it seem you are just trolling.
Isn't that illegal? I guess they would have to admit it, otherwise it would be hard to prove.