Here’s a “shocking video from Iraq, revealed by WikiLeaks, showing the killing of civilians and Reuters journalists.”
In a Facebook discussion, a man argued:
In cold blood? That’s a misleading statement. It makes it appear that they were aware it was a Reuter’s reporter and killed him for spite.
In truth, the tripod and camera being carried looked almost identical to a high powered rifle and ammo can and they were mistaken for terrorists.
In every war there are friendly fire incidents. You try to minimize them, but they still happen. How much more difficult is it to not kill a reporter intentionally traveling inside a group of terrorists?
It seems that what he was saying is that they did kill innocent people, but they had “good intentions.” Their fire was “friendly.” They only wanted to kill bad guys, but made an unfortunate mistake.
Well, how heartwarming. They weren’t evil then; they were incompetent. Is that really an improvement?
But why even grant the premise? If the war was unjust (and it was), then the people they were killing were not “bad” at all. They were all good who tried to defend their country from US aggressors and from government soldiers specifically.
The shooters were then deluded twice: first, they falsely believed themselves “good” and their victims “bad”; second, the victims weren’t “bad” even according to their own criteria, anyway.
This is more than incompetence; it seems like madness to me.
But you know, the murderers must’ve loved, loved, loved America and those they were heroically protecting — which makes everything Ok.