:::::::::::The problem here is that  (RCLC) believes that the balance required is a balance between a) the POV of the marines and b) the POV of everyone else.  
 :::::::::::To promote this view, RCLC is trying to misrepresent the statements from bodies such as the Inter national Bar Association, Amnesty International, and the  United Nations mission in Afghanistan as being "anti-war, anti-United States, individuals" rather than the reality of their role as spokespeople for international organisations. 
 :::::::::::Sure, the article does not at present include the extensive quotations from the US Marines which RCLC wants to include. But nor does it include any quotations fro the Afghan personnel involved in the incident  nothing from Afghan combatants, nothing from Afghan civilians. It does include an acknowledgement of the views of the US Marines, but even that is not balanced by any similar acknowledgement of the views of Afghan civilians or combatants. 
 :::::::::::The fact that the US Marines views are handily available to English-speaking editors in a lengthy, online English-language puff should not obscure the systemic bias inherent in reliance on such sources. I ask again, where does the article set out the views of he Afghan civilians or combatants?  A whole set of voices is completely missing from this article, yet RCLC wants to slant it even further by adding even greater weight to the voices of the US combatants.   •