fka ftc said:

---

Hogties said:

---

This video shows American journalists (back when there was such a thing as real journalism) discussing hypothetical culpability of being embedded in a North Vietnamese army unit ambushing fellow American citizens. pic.twitter.com/DW898roNLt

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) November 10, 2023

I remember this show from a long time ago. A great series and this particular exchange dealt specifically with the hypothesis of American journalists embedded in an enemy force. A very good clip with a kicker at the end.

---

Fantastic find and thank you for sharing. Captures much of the debate in this thread. It caused me to rethink about my earlier comments.

I think first one has to separate out a journalist vs an enemy combatant / soldier. From the OP, the guy in the pictures certainly appears to have crossed the line and should be treated as an enemy.

Then if you determine they are a pure journalist, then you get into the debate captured in that video. And I find myself surprised a bit that hearing that debate I side not with protecting the journalist but with Peter Jennings original take and wholeheartedly with the position taken by Col Connelly (sp?) at the end.

Folks should spend the 7 minutes and watch that clip. Heck, probably deserves it own thread.

---

The last like is the crux of it: "journalists" want it both ways. They champion neutrality when others lives are on the line but play the 'countrymen' card when their lives are at risk.

Jabin said:

---

The current rules of war & ROE may be BS (I don't know because I have not read them), but there have to be some rules, don't there?

I mean, killing an entire village because of one Partisan has to be wrong under any circumstances, right?

Killing several hundred enemy soldiers who just surrendered to you is not excusable, right?

And to go full Godwin on you, killing 13 million people in concentration camps can never be justified, right?

---

Oh - it absolutely was justified. By the fascists who lost. And thus those who survived were tried criminally for it.

The ROE comes after the mission statement. "What do I want to be done?" followed by "what constraints do I want on this action?"

We justified nuclear bombs and the more deadly fire bombing campaigns as mechanisms to break the Japanese via economic and social destruction. The civilians were partaking in the war machine and thus the factories et al were justifiable targets.

Well… local hatred is the Hamas / PLA lifeblood. If Israel sets a mission to remove the terroristic threat… by the premise they need to kill a whole lot of "civilians."