> the fact that it was US military is more coincidence than real problem
No, that's the entire point of my example. The military's primary job is to defend us. It's a major failure when their weapons are used against US citizens.
No, that's the entire point of my example. The military's primary job is to defend us. It's a major failure when their weapons are used against US citizens.
If you accept the premise of the article, that these were "broken arrow" military weapons, sure, I see how you can get yourself into a tizzy over it. But you should not accept the article's premise, because that premise seems self-evidently broken.
Then political goals of their superiors.
Sometimes those two are reversed.
Then comes us.