A question of morals and professionalism.

Reading through the various threads in WOT relating to the atrocities allegedly commited by the US and sometimes also UK troops, i often see people questioning (if you can call the sometimes sarcastic comments that people use "questioning") those who slate our troops for doing this, but who don't say anything about the thousands of civilians that insurgents have killed. (I won't name names as i don't feel i'll have to, i'm sure the main members guilty of this will flock on this thread with tongues blazing ).

I'm having trouble understanding why people are even comparing the two.
If insurgents massacre lots of people, including young children, to be honest it's pretty much expected that they are sick enough to do this. They don't have rules or morals that thier warfare is governed by, or if they do they certainly have a funny way of showing it!. I'm not saying that we should just accept it because thats the way they are, what they do is still horrific but that is the way they work.

Our troops however, i like to think are the most professional in the world. The training and discipline that they go through throughout the entire course of thier military career instill morals of the highest calibre. These morals and professionalism are displayed throughout the world and have made the forces of our countries what they are today. Thats why the majority of the general public have always admired or respected our forces (although i feel this is becoming less nowadays).

We live in a civillisation where it is'nt acceptable to shoot women and children, yes i know that women and older children sometimes play thier part in war and they have to be dealt with accordingly, but it would still be against a soldiers normal morals to kill such enemy combatants, and especially civillians that have'nt done anything wrong.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can question whether or not it was collateral damage when kids as young as 4 are being killed. I can't remember any part of my training or career where it was difficult to distinguish between a person presenting a threat to your life and a harmless tiny kid, i'm talking about 4 yrs old, no matter how pissed you were because you'd just seen your friends slaughtered.

Anyway, i'm straying from the subject slightly. I appreciate that not everyone reacts the same in a traumatic event like this. Some act professionaly whilst others flip out with anger. I just find it difficult to understand why people judge those who judge our troops at times like this?

The effect the news items have on us kind of confirm what i'm talking about. How many of the alleged atrocities that our troops have carried out can people here remember? Pretty much all of them i'd guess as they are so high profile and "not the norm for such professional troops. How many people now can remember every massacre that the insurgents have carried out? I doubt it very much, mainly because it happens so often and is pretty much accepted as the norm no matter how disturbing it still is.

I just get the feeling sometimes that some people think it's ok to waste a few civillians to let off steam because others do it all the time. I thought most of us were above that?

CX.