Idle musing (based on the coalition forces’ amusing habit of murdering journalists, and the hawkish right’s pathetic attempts to smear the journalists as deserving it): is it better if soldiers die or journalists die?

Having met many journalists, who are nearly all intelligent, witty and decent people, and more than a few squaddies, who are nearly all thick, boring, thuggish arseholes (and that’s just the British ones; I’m informed, perhaps unreliably, that the Brits are *better* at not being thuggish arseholes than the Yanks), the provisional SBBS answer is "soldiers".

This real-life soldier-meeting experience has also shaped the SBBS view on the original "do soldiers target journalists?" question, not to mention the "do soldiers routinely commit war crimes?" question, and the "is war generally a fucking stupid idea?" question.

NB the SBBS worldview is almost certainly wrong, given that it differs from the perception that I’ve encountered from nearly all second-hard sources. Still, at grunt level, it’s formed largely through having worked and been out in the UK garrison town of Aldershot. At officer level, it’s formed largely though having studied alongside various buffoons and idiots who followed the Prince Harry career path. At both levels, it’s been confirmed by reading military bloggers (egregious example here).

I’d be delighted to meet someone who was a non-conscript Army person and yet not a wanker, should such a someone exist.