Odd isn't it, that the most vocal of the Mudcat veterans here, choose not to tell us what their actual military/combat experience is that use to bludgeon people over the head with in these sorts of heated debates?

Why should anyone give their opinions any more credence than anyone else's? I mean, for all we know they could be a bunch of military wannabe types.

As to the difference between Marine murdering the wounded combatant, and the Hassan beheading, I would posit there is a difference of a few degrees only: one of the victims was a civilian and the other (presumably) chose to be a soldier in this war. But both of them, I'm sure, felt they were contributing to the welfare of the Iraqi people the best way they could.

Both killings are despicable. That is a no brainer. But from the looks of it, the Marine summarily executed a wounded prisoner of war, which is against all morality and reason, regardless of boobytrapped bodies. Hysteria of battle or not isn't a defense. That Marine knew from his training that booby trapped bodies are a reality of war, just like he knew from his training that executing wounded prisoners of war is against the Geneva conventions, and you can't rationalize that reality out of existence just because the other guy's army isn't a signatory. So that line of reasoning is irrelevant too.