Can we just start calling the evening news the evening narrative?

The two scenarios are not equal. No matter how you discount good argument, and acknowledge bad.

Actually, I understand that type of BS all too well. It’s still fun to point out the flaws in their beliefs.

You said: “If the US were to have shot the guy in Las Vegas, given what we know about him and what he had, would they have shot a terrorist, “terrorist”, or person? How would you describe the sitaution?

Futhermore, if the US were to bomb the guy in Las Vegas, what level of collateral damage would be acceptable to eleminate this threat? Let’s say they bombed the whole hotel. How many other people who have to had been in that hotel before you say “That’s just too many”?”

First, I’ll have to assume that the “guy in Las Vegas” is the man in the hospital suspected of having some alleged nefarious connection with the Ricin in the hotel room.

Second, let me address the second part first, and I think that my answer will illuminate the first part of the hypothetical. Your hypothetical tries to make a parallel between using force (bombing) overseas and using like force in the United States. I think this is why AJ, et. al., rejected the premise of the hypothetical. Since the operations in Somalia were conducted against terrorists operating in a country in which we had no lesser means of addressing the threat (i.e. Direct Action Units or other viable operational ground forces; according to open source information), other military means were neccessary to address the threat (i.e. NGF, Air Strikes, etc.). When these other means are used, the likelyhood of error or collateral damage increases because of the possibility of operator/techinal erros, flaws in intellegence/targeting, and a potential lack of confirmation of the appropriate targets being on site at the time of the operation. Good SOPs, training, and technology mitigate the risk, but they remain… All that being said, if the persons on site are the enemy and we reasonably believe that they are a continuing threat, then it is a decision, according to policy and ROE – there are no good options left because we have a distinct lack of options. That is unless you would advocate expanding military options/forces in Somalia, along with the attendant expansion of military personnel/resources, and of course gathering the political/popular support for those expansions… That is the cost of the increased fidelity with respect to collateral damage. Finally, On the MOVE incident, I believe the police were found guilty of using excessive force (which I believe is correct). That being said… it was ALSO bad planning and execution, looking at it from a purely operational standpoint.

Now, lets return to the U.S. – The government (both civil and military authorities) are restricted on the means and procedures that they may use to address various threats (criminal, terrorist, border security, etc.). Also, we have many more “ground forces” spread throughout the US that can react more quickly to address a particular threat. So, I think that the “if the US would have shot…” is a pretty big leap because we have multiple means of addressing the issue, far short of ’shooting first and asking questions later.’ If a higher level of response were warranted (presupposing we had accurate information that this person was indeed a terrorist with malevolent intent), then SWAT, FBI, etc. could address the issue with much greater fidelity and a far lower risk of collateral damage than bombing the whole hotel. Again, it comes down to the tools you have that allow you to specifically target an individual rather than an area target.

In conclusion, just to keep you from saying I didn’t answer the question of semantics at the start of your hypothetical, I would say that we don’t have enough information to make a definitive statement yet. Currently, I would say this is a person who is suppected of intent to commit terrorist acts. If more information on intent comes out that he did have intent to commit terrorist acts, then I think the proper term would be terrorist (no quotes). Also, MM’s point that the quotes are not needed goes to the fact the media uses quotes for things that the military experts say like terrorist, but not for things like “insurgent” or “freedom fighter” when the terrorists themselves are talked about.

Incidently I tend to refer to them as “Somali warlords” for that part of the world. An appropriate term for violent small-scale megalomaniacs who live in dusty hell-holes and spend most of their time trying to seize control of a rival’s equally squalid neighborhood.

Killing terrorists is one thing. Killing suspected terrorists is another thing. And targeting suspected terrorists is still another thing. And then there’s targeting suspected terrorists camp.

As the phrases get longer, the colatoral damage and uncertanty rises.

Words have meaning, and I agree with #4 Boomer – the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

In terms of policy, my hope is that it will be consistent. When terrorists are identified we should whack them, especially when those Governments will not act. Kind of like what happened recently in Waziristan, Pakistan.

This policy is not naive, nor does it demonstrate in-experience. Besides Pres Bush has said, “If a country is too timid to act. We will.”

If it were today, MOVE would have probably been classified as a terrorist organization. They were bombed. In Philadelphia. By the Philadelphia Police. Yes, bombed. There are arguments on whether that action was neccessary, as children were utimately killed because of that. At what point is bombing justified, and what level of threat needs to be perceived?

(via Hot Air) There’s a reason why the previous graphic said ‘hopefully’ dead. According to an account in another Pakistani newspaper, Gadahn is still alive despite rumors of his demise over the last two months.
Meanwhile, the Al-Qaed…

Hugo is simply livid…

He’s threatening war.

Some more….