Is that a little too "insensitive" a title? My point #1: War isn't about being sensitive. This utterly assinine story has been circulating through the media over the past few days. My inital response: Tough ****. The media, in my view, should be utterly barred from all battlefields. Warfare happened just fine for thousands of years without these stupid moral critiques written by people with less battle experience than a garden slug. This sort of shooting happens in EVERY war (most notibly in WWII), and its just giving the Al-Jazzrel propaganda machine more fuel for the fire. Let me be more clear, I believe the rules of war should be followed, and they are for the most part by Western nations. If prisoners are taken they should not be abused. HOWEVER, there is a fine line DURING A BATTLE between what is a POW and what is a combat soldier is blurred. Tt times, these "Rules of Engagement" are shackles that get good soldiers killed when they don't have to. Anyone remember a little film called Rules of Engagement? The term, "take no prisoners" is seen by the MEDIA, behind closed doors of course, as this abhorrent abomination when in fact it has been practiced for thousands of years. We cannot IMAGINE the kinds of strain a soldier goes through in combat. Then the media trys to make murderers out of good soldiers who are fighting for their lives. It reminded me of a History channel special where they practically interogate this old Russian soldier who admited he slit the throats of several unarmed German prisoners: "These people had killed my family, my friends, and a few minutes ago they had tried to kill ME. The outcome of the battle was in doubt. How dare you judge what I did? It was war, and I was a soldier" I don't know whether what that man did was right or wrong. *I* wasn't there, so I'm not going to judge what he did as evil, like the HC did. God knows how much of a modern day spin they'd give to Patton, MacAurther or Andrew Jackson. They'd make them into butchers to rival Ghengis Kahn. Be honest, when you saw Saving Private Ryan, and the US soldier at D-Day shoots the two surrendered Germans, did you think those soldiers were MURDERERS? Or simply made a wrong choice? Personally I didn't think anything of it at all. Navy SEALs are specifically taught to shoot downed soldiers in the head to make sure they cannot continue to fight (or at least they were). You would not believe the kind of crap they took over this unofficial rule. Its for a very good reason, and you've seen it in movies a thousand times. A wounded soldier can still pull out a grenade and blow himself and his enemies up if he has the will to do so. This is what that Marine in Iraqi thought he was facing, who the hell are we to judge? We weren't THERE, and neither was the media! Richard Marcinko, another great soldier malinged by the press (He was refered to as 'Legendarily ruthless' by Newsweek), relates a similar experience: In Grenada, a soldier was put under house arrest for doing something very similar to the situation above. He was, or nearly was, court martialed. In Israel, a captain gave his troops orders to gun down a group of fleeing miltia. He couldn't see whether or not they were armed, but he wasn't about to take any chances with the lives of his men. So he had them all gunned down. That soldier received an on the spot promotiong by the General in that area. To anyone with an open mind, read the Rogue Warrior by Marcinko, it exposes a lot of this politically correct garbage that exisists in the military and in the politics of war. Contradictions like "nicely" subduing enemy forces... If you're going to take Vienna, for Christ's sake, TAKE VIENNA! Worry about the scandals after the war's over! This kind of garbage is simply cementing the idea in my head that the meida are a bunch of money grubbing vultures, who deliberatly stir up controversy to sell a product regardless of the consequences.