Colonel Childers was utterly justified in his order

His men were under withering fire from snipers on the rooftops and shooters in the crowd. While his biggest immediate threat were the snipers, his greatest threat was the crowd that was about ready to overrun the embassy, dooming him and his men. The crowd was full of shooters, so he was completely justified in defending his men and the U.S. embassy.

I'd like to see anyone try to establish a logical argument for why his actions were wrong. You can argue that he should have dealt with the snipers first, but I doubt anyone in that situation would not be more concerned about the fire from the crowd, which was ready to overrun his position.

In the context of the threat to the embassy and Col. Childer's men, the innocents that were interspersed in the crowd do not matter. American territory was under attack along with U.S. Marines, so he was completely justified in returning fire into the crowd.

Furthermore, you can argue that he was justified philosophically by U.S. policy. America does not negotiate with terrorists (human shields), because this only encourages the practice of terrorism by rewarding terrorists by complying with their demands. The result of this policy is that innocent people die (crowd)

Another thing: there were no innocents in that crowd. They were all there to kill Americans, and by willingly serving as human shields they are fair *beep* game. There is a very good reason non-uniformed combatants are not protected by the Geneva convention.

Anyone calling this movie 'racist' should be sterilized for their degenerate stupidity.

"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised."