I'm unsure if you're unwilling to understand or unable to understand. Either way, we're not going to make much progress. I must make a final cla[r]ification lest other readers assume that your (inaccurate) interpretation of my words is correct.

you repeated your same absurd argument where you aren’t willing to accept that Russian journalists are propagandists even though it is illegal for them to be critical of the war.

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the Russian journalist was making propaganda. Being a propagandist does not count as direct participation in war under international law. That means that even propagandists are counted as civilians. Therefore it is illegal to kill them.

I also told you that the propaganda point was a red herring. I'm not making any claim as to who is or who is not a propagandist. It is irrelevant.

And you assert that western journalists are just as likely to be propagandists even though they are actually free to report what they want.

No, I do not. I'm saying that Russia could claim that, and that westerners do not have a monopoly on truth. So if the propaganda point was germane (it's not), it would apply to both sides and grant carte blanche to commit war crimes.

You are arguing in bad faith.

You have said this before and then attributed claims to me that I have not made. That is almost the definition of bad faith, but I am willing to put it down to simple confusion. I'm going to call it a day here because I can't work on improving your comprehension while you think I'm saying things (which I am not saying) that clearly upset you.

Edit: grammar