If you bomb property and people in another country without permission, is it a violation of sovereignty?

The US press says that many Pakistanis see drone attacks and the raid in Islamabad as "a violation of their country's sovereignty." "see" is the key word here.

Washington is also concerned that Bin Laden may have been protected by Pakistani security forces.  In response to the Pakistani sovereignty claim the Pentagon  says it was a legitimate act as it was in the interests of US national security. 

The US housed the murderous Shah of Iran who killed and tortured thousands. Unlike Bin Laden, the Shah had state power having a state's resources at his command; prisons, torture chambers, an army, navy and air force. He banned all political opposition and and spent both Iranian and US taxpayer's money on arms to defend the interests of western, predominantly British and US corporations interests in the region.

The US also is haven to many South American murderers, military thugs that were trained here at the School of the Americas.  The victims of these people in Latin America number hundreds of thousands.

We should ask ourselves this:  If Iran had sent in commandos and taken out the Shah would we consider this a violation of US sovereignty?  What about if If the government of Chile sent in a plane and took out Kissinger, a much more efficient killer than bin Laden?  Would we consider it so if the victims of the Latin American Shah's the US  funded and protect, bombed the house of one of them living in Virginia or Maryland?  Would we consider it a violation of sovereignty and be very upset if a few bombs missed and took out a wedding event at Big Sur or the Catskills?

I think we would not like this even if we were in agreement with them that their targets were bad guys.

If the official US view is "f@#*k 'em", our government has the big stick and we  can do what we want because they can't stop us, that's fair enough.  I don't agree with it but it's an honest answer.  But more often than not, the dominant view of the US in the world, that our mass media spreads,  is that the US is a paragon of virtue and decency, fighting terrorism and wanting to bring peace and democracy to the people's of the world. This is what many of us would agree with and argue.

So whenever US capitalism's actions abroad become evident, and most of what it does is covert which is why we should be grateful for Wikileaks and Bradley Manning if he is the one that exposed much of them, and when these actions are opposed (like drone attacks that have killed hundreds and hundreds of Pakistani civilians) and criticized by workers of other countries.  The first thing we should do is think outside the box; think of what it would mean to us if the shoe was on the other foot.

That seems a fairly simple way of deciding if you ask me.