a question for combat vets:Do you think 24/7 coverage of civilian casualties...

contributes to PTSD?Do you cringe when you see news reports repeating multiple times,for example,that women and children were killed in an attack?I was wondering this the other day as I watched the news-how difficult it must be to hear that kind of thing while participating in combat(thanks to the internet,etc) and seeing how things really are on the ground.No mention made of near misses,snipers,ieds...just women and children killed-the ultimate mindfuck.I think back to a picture of my son with an Iraqi boy about 8-9 years old,both smiling like they were brothers.That boy was killed-by whom,I don't know-and it has haunted him since then.Do you think news coverage by imbedded reporters is a help or a hindrance?Just curious.

important question is whether it is the correct thing to do.

Of course it is. The US should not hide or cover up these all-too-common incidents, consequences be damned.

If the military personnel who are doing the killing cannot stand the publicity, then

STOP MURDERING INNOCENTS!

It's as simple as that.

If you are a grunt,on the ground,with an order to attack a target based on what you interpret as reliable intelligence,what,then what do you do?I agree-the need to cover the atrocities of war is real.As a matter of fact,I believe it should be more graphic-but balanced.For every child and woman killed,they should also feature a soldier or Marine who has been killed or wounded,their families,and treatment of OUR military as well.These have fallen off the radar screen.

Well knock me over with a feather. Gosh it is so obvious, next time I find myself in that kind of situation I'll pull out my trusty clip of limited edition Lee Harvey Oswald endorsed 5.56 ammunition and let those magic bullets do their work.

I do appreciate you clearing up this little matter for all of us EXPERIENCED COMBAT VETS.

Look obviously the killing of innocents is a bad thing; but someone like you who I would assume does not entirely grasp the situation on the ground as relates to a firefight can have absolutely constructive input as far as the topic at hand goes. I do appreciate your condescending remarks though, you keep fighting the good fight daisy.

who has never been in combat, if not, then you have absolutly no fucking clue of the enormous mental and physical toll it takes on a human body and mind. If you have been under fire then what you posted is offensive and you should apologize to every vet who ever served whether it be during wartime or peacetime. Hell, it doesn't matter if you served or not, your post is offensive to all servicemembers and you should apologize.

But, the American people deserve to know what atrocities are done in our name.

Not every death of a civilian is an "atrocity". Tragedy, yes.

Validity of this "war" aside (I have some sharp comments for both the pro's and con's, but that is for another discussion), what do you do when your enemy is shooting at you from behind the cover of civilians? This has been the case since WWII, and we still haven't figured out a good answer.

Anyone got any ideas?

that has become a valid target... don't matter if that was a school.

And that is what a lot of folks here don't get.

By the way as a medic I got shot at, in my well marked ambulance, once quite legally. Yes, I wanted to kill my students who VIOLATED neutrality... but that is nowhere here or there. Target Acquisition devices were used for that and I am lucky to tell the story.

Oh and those responsible for THAT one... got into a very one way conversation with me later on.

And yes, the Laws of Land Warfare are quite clear on that. We haven't figured out how to get around that little issue about human shields.

They learned, the war in your TV might energize the people against the war. That's the reason, pure and simple.

Oh and a smell will bring the nightmares back...

As well as fireworks. I hate fireworks... can't stand fireworks.