Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
One was of a looter acting illegally (not an "innocent" civilian as dragonlich put it) and the other was of a wounded man laying prone in a mosque after being illegally left there for 24 hours by the US troops who injured him. And the reporter present has much to say about what he witnessed go down in regards to how life threatening the situation was to his perspective.
|
Ah, you make it sound so very simple. But of course, reality kicks in. The guy in the mosque wasn't as nice and friendly as you paint him here, but we already discussed that.
The Dutch DOJ said this looter was just as innocent as any other Iraqi. Human rights organizations agreed. Fellow soldiers who witnessed the action agreed - the looter wasn't a threat, was part of a group of people trying to get food, and the guy shouldn't have shot him. Finally, the rules of engagement also seemed to agree that the guy shouldn't have fired.
Luckily, the Dutch population and politicians by and large supported the soldier's actions, and condemned the prosecuter trying to put the soldier in jail. Wouldn't want our boys go down in history as murderous bastards, now did we?
I suppose you could go over to the Iraqi family members and explain how the looter being shot was justified; they didn't agree back then, and I doubt they'd agree now.
But of course, shooting a poor, innocent insurgent who tried to kill you a day earlier is *much* worse than shooting a poor, innocent Iraqi trying to get some damn food.
Or perhaps... there is indeed a hint of bias here.
I do agree that the video wasn't very damning - it showed a group of Iraqis, well, looting and running around, and one man lying on the ground, shot, IIRC. But still, the rest of the things, including witness reports, should have been enough. Or is something only bad when it's on video??? Because that would be the logical next step...