Wikileaks has really misled the public

They are reacting as they have been trained to react; war is hell, the army build in defense mechanisms like this to ensure soldiers can fight (emotional detachment, jock attitude), they also ingrain absolute discipline to try and avoid scenario's exactly like this.

EDIT: supporting evidence - read some military training manuals. They basically detail the attitude training attempts to instill in a soldier. shrug this is common to pretty much every standing army in the history of ever :) (emotional detachment especially)

There's a difference in what some people are willing to say to a friend and what people are willing to say to a reporter. Honestly, it's surprising to me that more things like this incident and other like it haven't made it to the mainstream media. Ask any soldier that was on the ground (especially around 2007), and they'll tell you that, maybe, 10% of what is going on in Iraq is actually being reported. There's a bunch of stuff that goes on that you will never hear about.

From what I can tell, most people that were over there would rather leave most of it behind them. I haven't met anyone that's come back better for it, and very few of them are willing to go into any detail about the incidents unless it's with someone they're extremely comfortable with. When they do open up, it seems to come with an understanding that it won't be shared, and if it is, no names or specifics will be brought up.

Even after leaving Iraq, these guys can still face penalties if it's found that they were covering things up. I'm not sure what, if anything, they'd be charged with, but most of them are still within the Statutes of Limitations of the UCMJ for Court Marshal, and there are worse punishments beyond that that have no Statutes of Limitations.

I trust the stories that were told to me because they came from multiple people that weren't connected save for being in the military and having been stationed in Iraq at some point in time. If my word isn't enough for you (and I don't blame you if it isn't) then feel free to pass it off as another random person on the internet repeating a possible fabrication.

The reason why the rest of the world refuses to accept the situation in Iraq as a liberation and in stead perceives it as a cynical battle for control over resources is that:

  1) the invaders are not prepared to suffer losses on par
     with their 'enemies'

  2) more people have died under the 'liberators' than 
     would have died in many years of previous occupation

  3) the situation in Iraq is still viewed through the 
     terms of lives lost by the invaders instead of lives
     lost by those 'liberated'

  4) there would not be as much or more accent on 
     protecting Iraqs oil resources as there has been 
     on saving Iraqi lives

If you liberate someone you place yourself in a position of sacrifice, you're willing to go the distance in order to protect those you liberate. A hostage rescue team goes in knowing full well they're going to try to protect the lives of the hostages at all cost. A hostage team that would go in to protect their own lives at significant extra risk to the lives of the hostages would not get much recognition, even if they would save the occasional hostage.

How on Earth can anyone feel that it's OK to take people's lives based on so little evidence? "Looks like two of the guys are carrying guns. Let's kill them all." We all know that this is the kind of thing happens in war, but that doesn't make it excusable. I can't interpret the actions of the soldiers in any other way than murder.