> you didn't qualify with "usually" or "often"

You're being pedantic. It is called involuntary manslaughter. And it's most often called that. And sometimes it is called other things. There is nothing false about my statement.

> same as if you had said "prime numbers are odd."

Not really. Same as if I had said "ALL prime number are odd". Which I did not say. "Prime number are odd" is a true statement. So is "prime numbers are even".

> The flaw in your logic this whole time is your insistence that anything unintended = accident

I never claimed that everything unintended is an "just" an accident, but at this point you are just being pedantic. Your original claim was that something deliberately planned cannot result in accidents. That if something is planned, then the outcome itself must have also been planned. That's the flaw in your logic.

If the Russian government intended to attack Ukraine and a US company was unintentionally damaged, then no, that result was not planned.

In your original comment you claimed "knowing full well there would be plenty of collateral damage". Do you have proof that they knew there would be collateral damage? Do you have proof that they took no steps to try to contain the damage to Ukraine but they simply got it wrong?

> it isn't "accidental" when a serial drunk driver kills someone

How did the drunk driver all of a sudden become a serial drunk driver?

> a government unleashes a computer virus that it knows will likely affect hundreds/thousands of computers

Where is your evidence that they knew this?

> you're maintaining a position about which few people would agree.

So what? Does majority consensus determine logical consistency? And I'll claim the same thing: you are the one who is maintaining a position about which few people would agree. It's that easy.