There are some problems specifically in you analysis.
> Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man.
Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them.
> it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement.
Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be.
Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut...
> Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them.
It didn't take “several minutes”. They hadn't even moved the injured man to the car before they were dead. And it's unlikely that they understood they were in a combat zone. Those helicopters fly high above the scene.
> Have you watched the full 39 minute video?
I've watched the full video once and then after that the shortened one.
> I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video.
You can't tell if it's the same van on IR. They don't have a color, and I didn't see enough detail on the vehicles we swept over initially to resolve it without color information.
But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual? That wasn't a combat zone, it was an inhabited residential area. People live there.
> It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be.
Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons.
> Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut...
I'm only speaking from the perspective of the pilot's actions. They massacred a family and innocent journalists. And I have to tell you, if they think a tulip hood on a 200mm lens looks like an RPG, then someone is in dire need of a refresher course. That shape couldn't be a more distinct signal of photographic equipment.
The entire engagement and the series of decisions that lead up to it stink.
> But even if that were the case, would it be so unusual?
According to all of the material (the video and released statements) a van was identified as ferrying combatants around. In the 39 minute video this is actually touched on and in the statements it is explained this was known by the pilots
(don't forget we have one gun cam video from one of the apaches during the latter stages of the operation - previously more action with other gunships had occurred. Without all of that material I dont think we can make a fully accurate assessment)
> Even if you allow for that, the people in the video never take any clear action constituting engagement. They were addressing a wounded man, and showed 0 evidence of retrieving weapons.
Absolutely; I'd not dispute that, and I agree. This was not what I was disagreeing with :)
Im not going to comment on the rest of what your saying because though I disagree in part it's not what I was disputing.
> Suddenly you're dead, because a helicopter flying high overhead killed you instantly because you were moving an injured man.
Im not sure if it was just your wording but it was several minutes before they fired on them.
> it's very clear that these people had no connection to any activity on the scene. The Van is nowhere in sight until the very end of the engagement.
Have you watched the full 39 minute video? I've only had time to watch it once (so am withholding my full analysis of the engagement) but the same van is visible near the start of the video. It may not have been the same van but it seems a natural and fair assumption that it might be.
Saying things like "it is clear" based on the single perspective of the Apache gunship seems a little clear cut...
(not that I disagree entirely with your point)