I wasn't saying they were drugged, I was showing you how it COULD have happened. You are using the knowledge you already know of the situation and years of speculation and hind sight on your side to make a call. Those guys had seconds to react with NONE of the knowledge that we have. The only thing they had to go off of was previous experiences and training. You can try to apply logic to an illogical situation all you want, the fact is, all your moral superiority application to this process means nothing on the ground when the sh!t hits the fan. You keep saying key words like "no threat" and "innocent" and "cold blood"...when you have the benefit of years of study. Those guys on the ground had none of this...all they had was training, they took a KIA, and they went too far. You're acting like it was premeditated murder, as if they had sat around and talked about how they were going to grease as many civilians as they could. I'm trying to point out how this could have happened and be OBJECTIVE about it.
BTW, they were already in the cab when the incident happened and were approaching the scene. They were stopped at a distance and they attempted to flee. So, they got lit up. It happens. When a vehicle is hit by an IED it's very confusing and the entire convoy is at its most vulnerable state. Ever heard of a VBIED? They're these cars that are filled with...explosives...and then they drive them towards coalition forces...often after an attack...you know... because it's all confused and stuff... and the men have to get out of their vehicles to help the wounded...wait a minute...you mean to tell me that dismounts and bombs don't go together...holy crap batman! These are the types of things you have to look out for all the time and especially after an attack. We are constantly being tested for weaknesses by the bad guys and we are especially vulnerable after an attack...We know it and they know it... So these guys get hit, and then they are hyper vigilant about a vehicle approaching their convoy, the car stops but the men flee...
Don't presume to know the first thing about these matters. You simply don't. Maybe you have rose colored glasses of how war is supposed to be, but I can tell you that this mentality will just get you and your men killed. You can THINK whatever you want, but instead of trying to use this as your pedestal of moral superiority over the rest of us, why don't you come down from the heavens and look at the world the way it is for a second so we can talk about this objectively.
As I mentioned in the first series of posts I don't entirely agree with you but it has taken until now to figure out what it is I don't agree with.
I can accept the the need for split second decisions, I can accept that things were confused, I can accept a whole lot of things that led to this happening what I have trouble with is people believe mistakes that led to deaths of 24 people none of which were actual combatants can be left unpunished and what I find unfathomable is how people find excuses for this.
We can all see how these things can happen we don't have to have been there to understand that and better yet we have your experiences to fall back on as proof that it can happen but like it or not mistakes (and I am being generous in calling it a mistake because I don't entirely believe it was) still end up in front of courts and they still receive sentences relative to the size of the mistake made and in this case that has not happened.
People can drone on about stress, pressure, lack of wind down time anything you like and that explains why it happened but it does not make it acceptable and the general perception I get from the responses here is "it happened, its a rough job so they should be absolved of responsibility for mistakes made" and I find that rather appalling.
In closing I would suggest that it is not the fact that this happened that is causing the problem it is the lack of ensuing justice that is causing the problem.