If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty?

[TheKentuckian]

229. I see no reason to support wrongheaded insanity because it is acting consistently

within its own framework.

That is fine for movies and fiction reading not so much for the world.

Look, they redefined the definition of war, battlefields, combatants, and deleted objectives and victory, as such there is no reasonable expectation that the old definitions and acceptable actions, tactics, and strategies would come with the new shit.

It isn't our job to accept insanity because actors use the label "war". I do not accept the Bushshit label of war on these actions and will not extend the same flexibility I would to an actual war defined by thousands of years of precedent that has existed side by side with terrorisim at least the whole way.

If you change all the definitions but wish to keep the former expectations of operation in a new paradigm, we are not expected to have the same mental flexibility and has nothing to do with lack of understanding of war, law enforcement, government, or terrorisim. Using such as an accusation is dishonest as you are changing the meanings of the words and the actions the represent.