I saw the helicopter taking the video firing two short bursts one on top of another to insure that all of the men were hit.
And attempted to aid members from a group of unlawful combatants escape capture and live to fight another day. This was a "reporter" traveling with a group of men carrying 2 RPG's, and an AK47 the very same weapons which U.S. troops were taking fire from in that sector at the same time.Then the van showed up and the two guys opened the door and picked up the downed reporter (it turned out),
Um he did see a gun, I saw a gun, and the video saw a gun:when the gunner says he say a gun and is given permission to fire again.
In fact it saw a gun and an RPG.
I saw two short bursts fired one on top of another to take out the targets, then later the 2nd helicopter fires, however, the camera's view is obstructed by the wall and it is unknown if members other than the guy running away, were down, dead, were trying to escape, reaching for their weapons, or all of the above. Furthermore; if it was a willful slaughter as you assert then they would have fired on the unarmed man who ran away.That's totally misconstrued my issues with this situation... when I say 'excessive shooting' I mean, because he continued firing while everyone was downed he had violated, what I'm led to believe was the rules of engagement these soldiers were operating under at the time this video was taken.
Oh really it was considered barbaric to stop the escape of the enemy and those who would attempt to aid in that escape?The armies that would attack people offering assistance to the wounded were at one point considered 'barbaric'.
A Humvee is a civilian vehicle as well, but hay if you want to play that game then I guess a U.S. soldier could just use a van to play out the exact same scenario and would be considered off limits.Now, I don't know much about millitary equipment, but a HUMVEE is NOT a VAN, not sure why you try to say it's a millitary issue vehicle.
Ground troops found an AK47 and 2 RPGs on site after the firefight, try again.Are you sure you were watching the same video, because I mean, talking about weapons that weren't there, and the wrong type of vehicle... I'm just saying, maybe you should rewatch the video of the OP so we're not making verifiably false assertions to misconstrue what's being said.
When are you talking about in the video? Before or after we see the man running and then crawling away? Because before that it was two volleys of fire taking down the men and then a cease in the firing, and after that the view is obstructed by the wall.Actually, strictly speaking, once they were downed, they become 'non-combatants', which are allowed to receive aid... they were effectively executed non-combatants. If you're going to try and play it from that angle...
Um wtf are you talking about he never claimed that the men from the van had weapons, he said they were picking up the wounded and possibly weapons and then repeated his request several times to get permission to engage and never asserted that the men from the van were armed, which is irrelevant anyways as per my scenario with the U.S. soldier stripping off his uniform and aiding in the escape of U.S. troops under fire.Though, even the specific rules of engagement clearly showed that they were only to fire on ARMED combatants... or else he wouldn't have lied about seeing weapons on those from the van in order to get permission to fire.
I'm not sure what the ROE is for assault helicopters as it's a completely different type of situation from ground troops who would have been able to take prisoners insuring that the enemy didn't escape which is why I think this scenario would be in accordance with the ROE.Someone in the millitary would be better to answer the question as to what consequences might be had about not following those rules of engagement, understandably there's a certain 'margin of error'... but if a person outright violates the rules... what typically happens?