This proves that he took part in training. Posing with a weapon on a shooting range, does not define him as a combatant.

Combat medics, for example, that are by Geneva convention are non-combatants are still trained to use rifles and carry at least a pistol, in most militaries, for personal protection during active service.

This argument is threading thin on the edge of "plausible deniability" but the problem is that no one (as of yet) is claiming he was there as a "medic". The claim being raised is that he's been there as a "journalist". Surely journalists don't have to take part in the military training of the combatants they are covering as a part of their job?

The issue with this is, in the court of public opinion, once it's proven that your "alibi" doesn't hold water, you aren't allowed to come with an alternative "alibi", but rather perceived as a liar; otherwise you would tell the truth from the beginning.

Medics were just an example. No need to call me a liar. Journalists do train.

West. Basic training. https://www.todaysmilitary.com/careers-benefits/careers/publ...

East. The "Тактика" и "Военная подготовка" part. This is an example of russian uni that trains military journalists specifically, still during my time in my military dept (not military uni, just a dept) in uni "Военная подготовка" went above and beyond shooting on a range and ruck marches. https://voronezh.postupi.online/vuz/vgu/programma/10008/

European countries mostly pick fresh recruits after basic, and do additional training, then they assigned a role.

I most certainly wasn't calling you a liar, sorry if it came out this way. It wasn't my intention at all.