That is a hideous comparison. I don't remember anyone ever painting educators with a broad brush like some people do the military. But it's the same thing. If the story was completely false, then sure be angry that someone used something false to disparage a group of people. On the other hand, if the incidents in Redacted are true, (and I'll be honest and say I have no idea as I haven't seen it, nor do I want to)then what's the uproar. It exposed the rougue activities of a few men. I'd hope that most in our society will distinguish between the two, just as when you read almost daily of a teacher who acted inappropriately, that you realize that is not indicative of the whole. But when the military rallies around those exposing wrong doings rather than condemning them as well, I have my questions as to whether they are just pissed that someone is attacking one of their own, whether that person deserved it or not. We often see the same kind of behavior in other realms of law enforcement ie "the blue wall of silence" when it come to police officers. My feeling is if the movie is saying this is indicative of all soldiers, then there is reason to be angry. On the other hand if it is just bringing to light injustices, then why is it so reprehensible?