yeah, pumping another dozen rounds of 30 mm into an unarmed, wounded guy crawling on the floor is turely minmal at its best.

When was allowing combatants to flee (even when wounded) a requirement of the Geneva conventions?

The only good thing is that now these killers might have some amount of justice exacted upon them.

These are quotes taken from the Huffington Post article on the video, which are directly taken from the video itself and you may verify:

"Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards," says one crewman after multiple rounds of 30mm cannon fire left nearly a dozen bodies littering the street.

A crewman begs for permission to open fire on the van and its occupants, even though it has done nothing but stop to help the wounded: "Come on, let us shoot!"

Two crewmen share a laugh when a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the corpses.

And after soldiers on the ground find two small children shot and bleeding in the van, one crewman can be heard saying: "Well, it's their fault bringing their kids to a battle." If you watch the part where Saaed was wounded and crawling, the Apache pilots told the ground troops arriving that they "will cease fire", "we won't shoot anymore". They circle around Saaed, saw that he had no weapons, and said to each other "come on buddy, all you have to do is pick up a weapon", referring to Saaed who looks like he is bleeding to death. When the van came to help, the pilots pressured the ground troop on radio to give permission to shoot ("come on, let us shoot!"). After the shooting, they laugh and congratulated each other: "right through the windshield, ha-ha!" (seriously, it's in the video.)

Whether we agree or not that they committed a war crime, I don't think anyone who listens to their conversation should have the impression that these pilots are acting professionally, or that they were under threat- Maybe the first half, but the van part, they clearly were not under any kind of threat what so ever, especially when ground troops are about a block away.

for you, I guess I am a combatant too. And so is your wife, and so is your kid. We are all combatants.

Your a little late...the contents of the video was gone through a long time ago.
It was judged that the rules of engagement were met, and the matter was dropped.

Are you standing in a combat zone? Are you making threats? Is this more peace and understanding from the left?

That may be a bit more specific. Could possibly we'll been. But you know, not everyone in Iraq is making out to make an I.E.D attack. It just so happens, thats what we most likely hear most of the time.

That would sort of discredit the journalist. Don't want to speculate that this was a possible I.E.D planting, and the journalist knew ahead of time, and didn't notify the US Military.

Not everyone in Iraq is AQ. Alot are in sectarian milita's. This could have been one of those groups. Just so happens that the Journalist were associating with the wrong type of people at the wrong time. If anything, just as worse as AQ, or someone planting I.E.D, they would be militiamen fighting other militiamen. Either way they were armed.

I know journalist do it very often, often go where undesirable people are and mingle with them. However, you had to be aware of the strict US military involvement within Iraq and the current situation which is cause of alot of deaths during that period. Surely enough, you understood the risk of being in an open field, with a group of 8 men, some of which are armed, and from prying eyes from above would look like a large number, about a dozen or so, hostile people gathering. Like you said for who knows what reason, to plant I.E.D, or possibly observe, or in another case, attack another milita.

No, it's my understanding of your rationale.

Your understanding is faulty and the inclusion of yourself and my family is unwelcome.

black humor and testosterone aren't confined to ambulance workers and cops....

That's a lot of trust...

why so paranoid? your definition of a combatant is anyone you want to shoot, or anyone the US troops shoots - so it can be me, it can be you, and it can anybody basically. I am not making any insinuations, I am just explaining to you that your definitions have problems, and appearantly you think there is something wrong with it too. Well okay.

Then perhaps the kids who got shot, lost their parents, or the Iraqis and the journalists who lost their relatives have no sense of humor- if they don't "get it" and laugh with you. I guess.

That is precisely the reason they requested permission. They didn't want hostiles to open up and inflict casualties on the incoming force. Hey, I don't like the video either. Meaning, I don't videos depicting people dying in any sense.

However, if your wounded after that devastating burst from an Apache cannon (which, is really a inhuman way to die, just like artillery, I.E.D's, etc etc, thats why war is awful), and crawling for a gun, don't you think your gonna get shot at with whatever you were getting shot at?

I mean, if your mind set on after getting sawed down by anything imaginable and your going to go for a weapon after that, wouldn't that threaten anything or anybody (even on ground troops) who are going to make contact? Either way, if he gets shot from above or from the ground does it make a difference?

As for the pilot saying the words that he said, he is just participated in an engagement with the assumption that they are insurgents. Now why didn't he just shoot him without waiting for a weapon, because he saw no reason too.

Guy is most likely edgy.

I'll tell you though, if I was being shot at, and for whatever reason pinned some guys out who shot at me, the same shit would be going through my mind if he was crawling... "oh, I just been shot at".... "took out a few, still amped up" "one guy wounded, still amped up, just pick up that weapon, so I'll stay firm and ready" instead of "i'll just shoot him in the head and call it a day"

No, you are in error.

I am not making any insinuations, I am just explaining to you that your definitions have problems, and appearantly you think there is something wrong with it too. Well okay. No, it's not okay you chose to include my family and yourself in a statement that placed us all in a combat zone. It's most unwelcome and offensive.

Not really. More like common sense.
This reminds me in one way of the Rodney King video.
Egregiously irresponsible mainstream media released a video of what appears as OBVIOUS and way over the top police brutality. How could it be anything else? The video shows a group of cops clearly beating the bejesus out of an unarmed man lying on the ground.
But hold on...several YEARS later a copy of an unedited video, also (and most important) showing several crucial minutes BEFORE the cops beating on the guy...and what do we see...why it shows a very large male fighting 3 police officers...and winning. He throws one cop in the air, he shoves another knocking two other cops down.
But alas, the MSM systematically did not show this...and a very bad riot that resulted in multiple fatalities is what happened because of it. They should be in jail with Rodney.

In this video we cannot see:

1) What happened before the attack.
2) What else is happening around the attack.
3) What intelligence, if any, led the Apache to observe them.
4) etc. etc.

And just like the R. King video...it is irresponsible to make judgement calls without knowing these things.

Well, I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable. Certainly was not my aim. However, now you can perhaps imagine the people who lost their loved ones or had their own life being threatened because some callus people 10,000 miles away thinks that they are "combatants" and deserves to be shot because they were born in the wrong country.

that doesn't address the point at all.

Ambulance workers, by and large, aren't the ones gunning people down.