"there was no way of knowing who or what was in that van"

"It was absolutely impossible for you or anybody else at the time to claim with any degree of confidence that it did not contain "dissidents"

"The gun thing came from the transcripts, the crews of the helicopters were of the opinion that guns and bodies were going to be removed."


Thank you Teribus.


Lets look at what you said.

1. There was NO EVIDENCE of who or what was in the van.

2. The Hlicopter crews OPINION was that the occuants were a threat.

Opinion based on what?

On No Evidence thats what.

In other words, shoot first and ask questions later.

Evidence is the key Teribus and you're wilfully ignoring some very important evidence ... the pilots desperation to be allowed to obliterate the Van and his satisfaction once he had done so.

The fact that it didn't blow up was just providence. I've seeen what 30mm cannon rounds can do to a house, much less a van - and if you are to be believed, you certainly know what 30mm shells are capable of - so you are as disingenuous as you are preposterous.

That attack was not motivated by any recognizable threat.

It was motivated by a desire to destroy.

There is no evidence of the former, but there is of the latter.

What we saw was a man dying and a van pulling up to pick him up, before attempting to drive off again before he was in properly, and some asshole begging to be allowed to rip it to pieces rather than allow their "kill" to escape and survive.