Evidently you don't know shit about the laws of war. Those of us who actually have done a tour or two will educate you as to how the Geneva Conventions (which you evidently have never perused) are written.JohnSmith wrote:They're reporters. It's what they do. It's risky, and they accept that risk. I'm not pissed because a war reporter got killed by friendly fire, I'm pissed because a bunch of civs got killed by friendly fire, and then the US government lied about it. Since several Canadian military troops have been killed by US fire, it hits rather close to home. What else is being covered up because the truth is embarrassing?
I guess that's a pretty concise summary of your view. The rules change in a war.
I disagree. Gunner's don't get to lie to their superiors so they can fire on a target. The military doesn't get to lie to the general population to keep their support.
a) failure to wear identifiable uniforms insignia makes you an unlawful combatant and subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals.
b) hiding in and among civillians, wearing civillian clothing, is a war crime subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals
c) shooting civillians as collateral damage while targeting unlawful combatants hiding among them/ using them for human shields is NOT a war crime by lawful combatants doing the shooting, those deaths are the responsibility of the unlawful combatants wearing civvies and hiding among civillians.
Ergo, terrorist / taliban in rag-head and other tribal wear toting AK-47 hiding among local civillians is the war criminal merely by doing that. An Apache can lawfully, under the Geneva Conventions, fire upon the taliban in such a situation, and any civillians killed by the Apache are considered victims of the Taliban by the conventions.