Call of Jury: Modern Lawfare :P

Because there still are quite a lot of people out there using less-than-well protected E-Mail services/software?

Not necessarily. In fact, in many online games, I quite enjoy playing against "the pros" every once in a while. Sure, I may get blown to pieces, but by carefully watching how my enemy manages to outskill me, I learn, and that's easily one of the most important aspects of competitive gaming.

Are you, by any chance, European?

I'm not exactly someone with a positive conception of Islam, but to say all Muslims are guilty of the acts committed by a few is as much as a fallacy as calling all Christians responsible for the acts of the Branch Davidians, the Lord's Resistance Army or various Irish terrorist groups.

Perhaps it's because the US isn't bent on bent on eliminating every kind of internal resistance? You know, US operatives might be employing morally questionable methods every now and then, and there may be accounts of US soldiers breaking the law - but their intent is still to fight terrorism, not to smash peaceful, democratic dissent.

Remember though, this incident occurred 3 years ago - back then, intercepting the van might not have been possible without seriously endangering the lives of allied troops or civilian. I generally agree with you, but if trying to deal with it peacefully places more lives at risk than those of the presumed insurgents, finishing the job might be a better idea.

On the other hand, UAVs also have their benefits. You know you won't die if your drone gets shot down, so you can take a risk and identify your targets instead of engaging everything that looks hostile just to make sure they won't engage you first.

Then they were wrong - but then again, what can you expect from conscript training.

The types of .50 BMG fired by anti-materiel rifles tend to be outlawed by the St. Petersburg Declaration, which restricts the use of incendiary and explosive ammunition below a certain size against human targets. Your country might have signed it, but the US hasn't, so for them, it's perfectly legal to use their M82s against human targets.

Yes, there was. "Better safe than sorry" - once recovered, the guy would likely have been fighting US troops once again. This isn't a regular war where professional soldiers are fighting each other; this is a group of terrorists and insurgents targeting lawful combatants as well as civilians with everything they've got, at every opportunity.

Wrong.

The controversy over certain types of anti-materiel rounds occurs due to the fact that some of them contain explosive and incendiary components, which are outlawed under the St. Petersburg Declaration (which deals with explosive and incendiary ammunition - and which the US did not sign). It's perfectly legit to fire ammunition of any size at human targets.

[Citation please]?

30mm rounds are perfectly legit to use against human targets. So are .50 BMG and other types of anti-materiel ammunition. The Geneva Convention (which, by the way, only is in effect in conflicts in which both parties have signed it - and the insurgents certainly haven't) does not outlaw using disproportionate force, and neither does it limit the size of bullets.

Strangely though, I don't see anything wrong with the video (and yes, I've watched it).

The video shows a group of clearly armed men (don't just look at the people with the arrows pointing at them) apparently being accompanied by two guys carrying unidentified black objects (which later turned out to be cameras). One of them was setting up an RPG launcher. The soldiers did exactly what they were supposed to do - they engaged the insurgents. It may be a tragedy that the two journalists got killed, but remember, they weren't held hostage - they were voluntarily accompanying insurgents, and that they got shot was solely their fault. War's a dirty business, there's nothing you can do against that.

I agree though that the treatment of both Reuters and the Wikileaks editor wasn't right - they should have taken responsibility for the two dead journalists and approved the FIA request. It's not like national security's on the line, here.

Perhaps because Iraq was ruled by a genocidal dictator, because there are loads of terrorist groups operating from within both countries, and securing the future of Israel is not only politically, but also morally right?