The AlJazeera piece has one photo taken by the ground troops showing a chunk of what looks like an AK-47 and a completely unidentifiable something labeled as a G-7, presumably the RPG-7)

You can see one of the ground troops walking and taking pictures at around 19:40 in the unedited version. It would be interesting to see the rest of those pictures. I thought it was curious that the first thing you hear from the ground troops arriving on the scene is someone wanting to know who authorized the attack on "eight guys on the roof". It was like they knew instantly that something was very ****ed up. He then wants to secure the area to get on the roof and find the bad guys. When the chopper tells him there is nobody on the roof you can almost hear the "ahh ****" tone in the ground troops response.

They didn't fire when they saw him taking the picture. They circled around and you can clearly see that there is no one near the corner and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of anyone holding an RPG tube or about to fire one.

Still, I don't think the pilots were deliberately trying to kill what they thought were innocent people in that first attack. It's a ****ty thing for us to have people in that situation in the first place.

The attack on the van, however, is indefensible. It's quite clear that the people in the van were attempting to help a wounded man and that there was never a point where any of their actions could be considered hostile by any stretch of the imagination. Five mentions of "picking up the bodies/wounded" are made while only one mention of "possibly picking up weapons" (with no visual evidence of such) are made while requesting permission to engage.

The transmission to Bushmaster Seven that seems to actually prompt authorization to engage is:
"Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo Truck picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage"
No mention of weapons being gathered or any hostile actions or intents being displayed. And on that basis alone, Bushmaster Seven authorizes lethal force. Shame on him, the pilots and gunners, and the people responsible for the troops being there in the first place. That no one is held accountable is both an outrage and standard.

damn you bushmaster seven!

Just got around to watching the vid. I concur with everything posted by NewTeaBag and the "liberal veteran" Not_In_My_Name quoted. The initial engagement of the group seems reasonable given the context and the fact that one of them was carrying an RPG. While there's a case to be made that in an environment like Iraq civilians have a right to carry weapons for self-defence, an RPG is not a self-defence weapon. If you carry around an RPG in an urban war zone, you can expect to take bullets, period.

Engaging the van however seems clearly out of line. You can't just mow down everyone you suspect of being on the other side, regardless of whether they're armed, what they're doing at the time, etc.

judge: they got a rpg. jury: yep and executioner: engage (shoot)

They aren't in a courtroom. I feel like this needs to be said explicitly since half of the people here keep saying "guilty until proven innocent amirite" as if that means anything in this context.

It does in the case of the van as they're shooting the van because he may be picking up weapons while we clearly see him dragging boddies. So because he might do something in the future (but isn't doing in the present and there is no evidence to basis this on) we'll preemptively kill him.

Bull ****: unless the pentagon is going to release the reason for firing on that van I call war crime.

Well hopefully those deserving will be in a courtroom soon. People who do these kinds of things during wartime endeavors always gets what they deserve...AMIRITE?

Hillarious....

At what point can you kill someone with an RPG in Bagdhad?

When they point it at you...

When they pull the trigger...

Or perhaps, just to make 3ple sure, you should just wait till the afterlife.

Its like 1968 all over again...the rich kids stay home and snipe from the safety of suburban basements and dormrooms, while the poorkids are shuttled to an ill conceived conflict where NOWONE can be expectred to be very accurate in assessing who is what threat-wise.

It was disgusting then...and its disgusting now.

Im AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ PRECISELY BECAUSE IT POINTS PEOPLE IN THIS POSITION...WITHOUT NEUTRALIZING ANY REAL THREAT AGAINST US.

Still....im sad so many folks instantly are hanging OUR ARMED FORCES out to dry without knowing everything. Its sadder that even after all their preconceived assumptions are dashed they still call this a ROFLMFAO "massacre"

It might be a war crime. I don't know. This video itself isn't close to enough evidence. People itt coming up with some awfully elaborate stories behind the motivation of the actors. The action might be completely justified, might be a mistake, might be a heinous war crime, not enough information at all.

Bolded possibility is what scares me the most. Just how "free" is our media? Why are all mainstream media outlets reporting this story so similarly, without drawing a bigger focus to the missile shoot and van attack?

Exactly, Ill openly admit I ASSUME US armed forces act according to recognized rules of war when possible.

It looks like many on this board are pretty quick to ASSUME they are bloodthirsty demons looking to off as many Arabs as possible with no possible concern for what may be.

As an aside, it's ridiculous that statements from places like the Pentagon and the CIA are still treated as though they're likely to be true, given that they have constantly lied about things related to the war from the very beginning. If there are conflicting reports from, say, Al-Jazeera and the US military about Iraq, my default is to believe Al-Jazeera's account. That this would make me a crackpot in the eyes of the majority of the US public is sad but unsurprising given the completely uncritical way the media reports US military claims as fact and refuses to kick up a fuss when it subsequently emerges that they were fed fabrications and propaganda.

+1

Carrying an RPG satisfies the rules of engagement imo, unless you can come up with any reason for someone to be carrying an RPG that doesn't involve an intent to fire grenades at something.

I think anyone who looked at the first part of this video - the bit before the van shows up - and immediately saw a clearcut case of the ROE either being followed or not being followed needs to examine why they were so eager to leap to conclusions. That part of the footage was unclear until studied closely.

What is your understanding of the rules of engagement?

He is correct in that the RPG is a valid indicator of hostile intent.

Not necessarily.

It might be justified or not, that's true. But I suggest that it's for a jury to find out, right? Oh wait: American service members almost never need to appear in court for **** they do.

There have been lots of instances where they have done just that.

Yes, it is a highly lethal weapon being carried around where US ground troops are nearby (not to mention it appears as though there was ground fighting in the area beforehand). Pre-emptive engagement with that target is within the parameters of the ROE.

EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying that other actions portrayed within the video were excusable/right/etc, just that eliminating someone carrying an RPG in a designated hostile area is within the ROE.

In cases where the media has blown it up or where it was caught right on tape. The American military hardly ever tries service members unless they're forced to by public opinion. Imo it should be standard when someone blows up civilians.

Erm, the US military routinely investigates such situations.

Also, it isn't surprising that journalists uncover these sorts of things and leak them out to the public before the military investigates, that is their job. It is much faster to report allegations than to finish an investigation. This is why "public opinion" appears to force the issue.

Yeah, sure. But it shouldn't be investigated by the same organization that blows them up. Obviously most cases (those that aren't publicized in the media) will be ruled as justified by the military. It should be dealt with in a public court.

I wouldn't be surprised if this case will be investigated again and suddenly gets a different ruling.

And how exactly do you propose they realistically do that?

Also, make up your mind. Either you want the military to do something about it, or you want them to stay out of the investigation and so forth. Plus, there already are outside organizations that investigate.