I saw nothing in the article that stated the American tanker was a "culprit" -- or trigger-happy, or nervous. Stop reading between the lines. If you really want to know what it's like to defend occupied soil from terror, go to Iraq and find out. While you’re there, pick up a weapon and walk into a known war-zone -- but, please, wait to be fired upon before shooting.
It don’t work that way.
American soldiers are trained to survive combat. They are trained to initiate contact.
Yes, Raoul. We shoot first and ask questions later, and this is an international life or death policy that's carved in granite -- nonnegotiable -- and internationally irrefutable. We shoot first, and so do all other nations. The Army is not a police force. It's an Army.
Nervous and trigger-happy is not the way to describe the incident. Regrettable and sad fit the picture.
Dan
Current Events » in reply to re: Defending the culprit?
re: Defending the soldier -- as usual . . .
The whole thread (15 posts)
- Reuters cameraman
- One second to decide...
- No one made him carry around something that looked like and RPG on his shoulder
- Just another example of a reporter seeking out military action, finding it, and getting to close...
