Originally Posted by Meridious

Any action involving military fire and civilians that cannot possibly be the results of collateral damage should be investigated fully and a trial conducted if necessary. This incident is not as if a drone dropped a weapon on a target and civilian casualties resulted as collateral damage.

Burying firefights or the evnts leading to firing upon civilians in close-contact is detrimental to the reputation of our soldiers. Nothing good can come of it.

The reputation of the soldiers on the ground AS A WHOLE are at stake constantly.

It should be out in the open unless its disclosure is a matter of national security...as in the information puts our country at a tangible risk.

Originally Posted by varrussword

Liberals are self-loathing america-haters.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Well, half right, I hardly think they are self-loathing, the are largely self-important, self-agrandizing, and incredibly narcissistic. But yeah, the far left is almost exclusively america-haters.

Originally Posted by Slon

Sounds like the troops were either highly incompetent or were extremely desperate to nail the journalist.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Why? Isn't it plausible that the minibus could have been spiriting away enemy fighters and, therefore, a legitimate target? I doubt it was marked with a red cross or crescent. There are more options than two here.

Originally Posted by Slon

If it were carrying people "AWAY," then was there any immediate threat? If not, should they not have at first made sure it was not a civilian vehicle?

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Part of war-fighting is not letting the enemy escape. You do more than just defend yourself from incoming attacks. You strive to seek out and defeat the enemy ... even when they are fleeing, hiding, etc.

If a minibus is being used to transport enemy fighters it is no longer a "civilian" vehicle. It is a legitimate military target.

Originally Posted by Slon

Sure, but this was a situation where they could have been safe and certain, as opposed to a situation where a wrong decision would have meant death for them. Instead they got itchy trigger fingers.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

How do you know they weren't "safe and certain"? Just because this fellow was in the minibus doesn't mean enemy fighters were not.

Originally Posted by Slon

I said they could be safe and certain, not that they were. They were safe and uncertain. They were safe because the minibus was moving away from them, posing no immediate threat. They were uncertain because they opened fire and made a mistake. They COULD have been safe regardless of whether they fired or did not. They chose uncertainty because of their itchy trigger fingers (assuming they didn't flat out murder the guy because he knew about one of their atrocities or something to that extent) and shot anyway. What they could have done is check to be safe and certain.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

You're assuming there weren't enemy fighters in that minibus or that they did not reasonably believe that there were. This is something you're not in a position to do. And, again, the notion that you allow fighters to flee from a battle because you're "safe" from them simply does not wash.

Originally Posted by muspell

So, you're defending marines shooting people in the head at point blank - after the ones shot at were driving away - because it is possible that they were a threat? That's a really good defense you've got going there.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor