Example's one and two aren't the US. They are individuals. So unless you are suggesting that Saudi Arabia or Germany or Japan are intentionally targeting civilians, it doesn't hold water.
Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing.
Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.
A country is an abstract concept. On the battlefield, it is represented by its soldiers in uniform. There is no Uncle Sam in a uniform who represents the "US" collectively.
If I take your argument to the extreme, it'll be tough to hold any army anywhere in the world to account. Because they can always attribute it to "individuals".
Exactly. Which is why he is asking for evidence that there is a currently US military policy in place that states soldiers are to intentionally target civilians in the "war on terror".
Individuals acting on their own committing crimes is much different than an official policy, ordered to be enforced by the military chain of command.
Example 2 shows soldiers following the rules of engagement at the time. They even radioed in to get an (admittedly cursory) O.K. to shoot the people. They did what they were told to do, and the U.S. military told them to shoot those people.
"It showed an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed.
WikiLeaks said the men in the square included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in the incident.
"The gathering at the corner that is fired up on has about nine people in it," Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told reporters at the National Press Club.
The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
The helicopter opened fire on the small group, killing several people and wounding others. Minutes later, when a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded, the fliers became concerned the vehicle was occupied by militants trying to collect weapons and help wounded comrades escape." [Emphasis mine]
Now, going to the second link, we read the description of the video as such:
"5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff." [Emphasis mine]
Was the killing done without judgement? Without consideration? They weren't just firing on civilians. They were firing on what they could make out as militants.
You can argue that the rules of engagement are wrong. That we can't just rely on the eyes on the ground to give us reports. That someone saying they see a weapon is not a strong enough reason for allowing them to open fire. You can argue that we have to wait until people are fired upon, or die, before reacting. But your comment just spreads misinformation.
Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing.
Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.