No. They're just trying to play the race/religion/ethnicity card because without it can't point to those of us defending the individual soldiers as being unreasonable (imo). And to MMI's point, THAT is what I find insulting. Further, in answer to MMI's comment
isn't it provocative to suggest individuals committing criminal acts are exonerated by virtue of their being at war?
that's the whole point of the conversation. They haven't been found guilty of criminal acts... and THAT's the question thir is trying to address. Are they being protected and are they criminals.

Even if they're being protected, we aren't privy to anything but what's reported in the press. I've personally seen how the press can decide an issue without fact, just opinion, later not hear or respond to facts, assuming they even cared in the first place, and get their reporting wrong. So I'm not even sure this particular case matters nor will we likely get to know the real facts unless there appears an impartial third party. Yeah, right. Where are you gonna get one of those.