July 2007, the height of the "insurgency" in Baghdad and central Iraq. Having watched through the long version of the gun camera footage, we have coverage by two Apache Attack Helicopters acting in support of at least two US ground elements, one dismounted who have been under attack and the second one still in their vehicles moving through the area. The Apaches are "looking ahead".

At 03:39 into the recording - you see a group of four men two of whom are clearly armed (Man standing on the extreme left is carrying an AK-47 one of the men in the centre of the group is carrying an RPG-7)

At 04:06 into the recording - this group of four men move behind a building out of sight, the Reuters cameraman and Reporter had moved there earlier.

At 04:08 the man previously seen carrying the RPG-7 is seen crouched down looking round the corner, in this shot can be seen the exhaust cone at the rear of the RPG-7.

Number of points raised by the article linked to by Charlie Noble:

1. Reuters employees were allowed to view the video on an off-the-record basis two weeks after the killings, but they were not allowed to obtain a copy of it.

So since at least August 2007 Reuters have known all about the incident and had actually viewed the incident. So there has been no cover-up.

2. On the day of the attack, United States military officials said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been exposed to small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades in a raid. "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said then.

But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen's camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.

That the US ground elements had come under fire is not disputed, although they had not yet come under fire from the group that the Apaches were observing, a group positioned "up ahead" of the advancing US Patrols.

No-one contributing to this thread so far has addressed those circumstances or even acknowledged them as being contributing elements in what transpired.

While calls for courts-martial and demands for lengthy prison sentences have been loudly called for, no-one has asked about, or gone to any effort to determine exactly what "Rules Of Engagement" were in force at the time.

There will be no courts-martial, and neither should there be as judging by traffic between Callsign Hotel 26 (Controller?) and Crazy Horse 18 (Helo) the former would have live-feed and he would witness and sanction the action. From the opening coverage the situation as shown justifies the actions taken depending upon the ROE in force at the time.

3. A short time later a van arrives to pick up the wounded and the pilots open fire on it, wounding two children inside. "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle," one pilot says.

This is taken from the article Charlie linked to, and is an example of the bias in reporting this incident. Watch through the "long version" and you will find out that it is only some time after the ground troops arrive on the scene that the actual presence of the two children is even detected, by those ground troops themselves. The Helo is ordered to open fire on the van to prevent removal of personnel and weapons. At the time of opening fire the crew of the firing Apache had no idea whatsoever about who, or what was inside the van.

As to the pilot's remarks? OK folks or any of you that are parents had you been driving that van with your two kids beside you and you had seen what had happened, would you have driven up there to help? Options open to you would be to call an ambuance; get the kids out of the car and in a safe place, then gone and helped; Or would you all have done exactly as this blithering idiot did just barrel up there jump out discuss the situation, hang about chatting then decide to take the guy to hospital? Action zones are dangerous places, it pays you in spades to keep well clear of them as bad things can happen, and often do.

4. Reuters said at the time that the two men had been working on a report about weightlifting when they heard about a military raid in the neighborhood, and decided to drive there to check it out.

In other words "Curiosity killed the cat". Where were their blue "PRESS" Flak-Jackets and Helmets? Exactly how did they "hear about a military raid in the neighbourhood"? I take it that being locals these guys knew which end was up? If covering a story one would think that they had all their kit in their car or van. Being experienced, or supposedly experienced, I would count myself to be the biggest C**T in creation were I to amble into a situation such as that without wearing anything to clearly identify me as a Reporter and accredited member of the international press and an even bigger C**T to wander about carrying anything that looked even remotely like a weapon in a position in advance of US Troops who had already been under attack. I mean just what the hell were they thinking about?? And the answer to that rhetorical question of course is that they were just not thinking at all.

5. "There had been reports of clashes between U.S. forces and insurgents in the area but there was no fighting on the streets in which Namir was moving about with a group of men," Reuters wrote in 2008. "It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture at the time."

Reports of clashes yet these men are improperly dressed to meet a posible encounter situation? I take it that their transport was "Marked Up" so that it could be identified as a vehicle carrying "Press" representatives? No "believed" about it some of those who greeted these two reporters were carrying arms, as reported later weapons were recovered from the scene. Where does this crap about assuming a hostile posture come into the equation? It cannot be in ROE as it is a nonsense as it takes less than a second to shift a weapon from non-hostile to hostile position (People spend hours practicing exactly that skill with whatever weapon it is that they carry).

6. The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees "made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them."

Again from the article linked by Charlie - Just about covers it all. As an exercise in demonstrating poor judgement and monumental stupidity the actions of those Reuters employees beggars belief and to totally condemn those members of the US armed forces out of hand is monstrous. What these guys did acting in the manner that they did was tantamount to committing suicide, they should have know better.