Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I think it's believable because it's not surprising me.
This kind of stuff is normal in war, especially in a war that has been raging for many years. War brutalizes people, it's been known for ages.

Fools believe in wartime propaganda, but students of war should see through this veil.
I'm quoting these two lines for a reason. There's a chance that the story as reported is true, BUT there's also a chance that the story did not happen as reported. As any student of war and history should know, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle (shaded toward one end or the other) and may never be found.

Obviously war brutalizes people. But it also enables sensationalist propagandists on BOTH sides of the spectrum. One source, no matter how appealing it may be to a person's innate views and biases, does not truth make. Any historian with an ounce of common sense and an education that stretches beyond one term paper should know this. All accounts are in some manner suspect, so a good historian (and a good reporter, although these seem to be few in number these days) gathers as many accounts as possible and then tries to distill a better view of what probably happened. Something students of war should keep in mind.