Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
Imagine the situation: a group of soldiers are told to clear a house. They go in, find what looks like dead people on the floor. They have to secure the room, and make sure there's not going to be any surprises. So they move closer to the bodies, weapons at the ready. One of the bodies moves a bit. They have to make a split-second decision; is he going for a weapon, or isn't he?
The proper military reaction supposedly is to shoot the moving person. Sounds harsh, but you have to remember that it's a hostile area, and the soldier's *own* safety comes first. They're trained not to take any chances.
|
I understand your point - and I'm sure that many unfortunate, but understandable incidents happen on the battlefield.
However, if I have understood correctly, in this particular case the US soldier shooting the insurgent, he is seemingly not in "combat mode" as he just walked there and shot the guy from three or four feet distance, standing, not crouching or taking any cover as for example I would do if I'd be clearing a house full of enemies. And if it was a combat zone, why on earth was the camera man there? I have a feeling that this subject has already been debated on the other threads.
Anyway, media tends to function like this - and I'm quite sure that if there was a video of a Dutch soldier similarly shooting an unarmed, wounded insurgent, the international audience would be just as shocked.