Assuming that Teribus is correct in his interpretation of the video (and he may be incorrect in describing specific weapons evident), then it's logical that the military superiors would find the conduct of the copter crew acceptable, with maybe a reprimand for what was said during the shooting.

OK what backs up that assumption:

1. Weapons and grenade launchers/grenades were found and photographed at the scene when the ground troops arrived.

2. On the video PAUSE at 03:39 the Reuters Cameraman is nearest the helo crossing the street in the background there is a group of four men. At this point in the video the man second from the left is carrying in his right hand an RPG-7 Launcher and the man on the left of this group is carrying an AK-47 (Anybody who cannot see that needs their eyes tested)

3. PAUSE video at 03:43 AK-47 is in plain sight carried by the man on the far side of the street closest to the trailer the gun is held by the pistol grip in his right hand.

4. PAUSE video at 03:45/46 The man nearest to the man holding the AK-47 swings round to his left and the RPG-7 (loaded) is clearly seen.

5. Run Video to 03:56 Man with the RPG can be seen turning back round to his right he rests the exhaust cone of the RPG on his right foot then at 03:56 picks it up and move over to cross the street to look round the corner of the building down the road the US ground patrol are going to approach from.

If Terribus is incorrect (that is possible and might even be acknowledged by him if he were feeling less defensive), the copter crew should be court-martialed.

OK what backs up the argument that I am mistaken??

1. Anyone here denying that weapons were found at the scene?

2. Anyone here denying that there were US patrols in the area that had already come under fire?

3. Anyone here denying that the patrol was approaching the location where these men were observed?

However, in either case, they did make a serious mistake by killing two journalists and two children;

From the helicopter camera footage can you tell me exactly how either pilot or weapons operator could tell those two men were journalists??

From the helicopter camera footage can you tell me exactly how either pilot or weapons operator could tell that there were two children inside that van??

If they could not identify the journalists or the children at the time they opened fire, then how could they have possibly have knowingly and deliberately made a mistake??

several other people who may have been insurgents were also killed and maybe they should get a medal for that.

They were armed (weapons found at the scene) no MNF forces at that specific location so there is no may have been insurgents about it. What evidence apart from the weapons lying about backs that up?

1. The fact that none of these people could be identified

2. If they were innocent civilians just out for a stroll you would think that they would be carrying things like wallets, letters, ID cards, driving licences, but yet NONE of them had any form of identification on them at all and to this date they remain unidentified. Same goes for the children, now I would have thought if Dad had been out innocently driving with the kids as Lox wants us to believe, he would be carrying at least a wallet and a Driving Licence (mandatory throughout the Middle-East) at least. The van would be registered and as such easily traced. But yet the only people positively identified are the Reuters employees, everyone else remains unidentified to this day.

At another level, their actions created an international incident which because the video has become public is at the very least an embarrassing one.

What international incident? Apart from the one that Wikileaks is trying to fan the flames under now? Reuters demanded to see all the coverage, tapes, photographs and transcripts of the incident in which their employees were killed. They demanded an investigation. All of which was done within 14 days of the 12th July, after which the story was not reported until now. Reading newspaper reports of this Wikileaks story shows clear anti-US bias and a marked lack of objectivity in its reporting.