Being in the company of armed men who aren’t friendly forces while US forces are under fire in close proximity seems like a bad idea as well t wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume you are hostile forces.
And as for the ambulance - “The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle”
I'd be curious how close the proximity was. What I've read indicated that somewhere in that region, and somewhere earlier in the day, they had been under fire. If US forces were under fire in that area recently, it seems like it'd make sense for the journalists to bring security with them.
> “The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle”
Sure, but you can see that all they were doing was collecting the injured.
Not arguing your perspective isn’t valid, just sharing my own.
From the Wikipedia article it seems to state that the armed men were in an area where shooting had come from before and were in the path of oncoming soldiers.
And in terms of loading injured people, the enemy does pick up their own injured. My understanding is unless you’re clearly marked as medical personnel, you’ll be regarded as hostile.
Can clearly see where the concern comes from, but at least my own perspective is that it’s not that unusual in war.
Being in the company of armed men who aren’t friendly forces while US forces are under fire in close proximity seems like a bad idea as well t wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume you are hostile forces.
And as for the ambulance - “The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle”