Comment: "In order to discern intent

(See in situ)

"In order to discern intent

"In order to discern intent all one can observe is the means you employ. Kind of like the Zimmerman trial. Was it murder or self defense? What Zimmerman or Martin were thinking is unobservable."

Who the heck are you, or anybody else, that you suppose yourself to be in a position of authority over those Apache pilots, to pass judgement on them?

Those who truly were in authority over them, from the lowest-level commander all the way up to the highest-level 4-star or the president, they didn't find any fault. What makes you right and them wrong? What special information do you have that they don't?

"The ground troops that took forever to arrive? Are those the ground troops in the immediate area you are referring too?"

The ground troops were already there, idiot. Another example of your arrogance. The apache's were called out by people already on the ground. You are referring to a different group of people that moved into that location. And this too demonstrates your ignorance, you assume that because things are in proximity people move around quickly, well, they don't. On the ground we move very slowly and methodically, often hours and hours just to move a mile down the road because that's how high the threat level is.

"I find it hilarious you would opine speech is not a crime but infer being armed is a crime in and of itself. The hypocrisy is well illustrated."

Again, you're an idiot. This is you passing judgement on something you know nothing about. Iraq was under martial law. Movements were controlled. These people had illegal weaponry and based on the context of the environment, were suspicious. If the men who fought the American revolution had engaged in this utterly stupid logic we'd all be British right now, or probably German.

"Great question because it is plain as day what they weren't doing which was engaging in any hostilities"

No, that wasn't clear. The apache's were in a very hot area, responding to a report of contact in the area. They find a group of heavily armed guys with unauthorized weapons, they requested permission, got it, engaged.

It is still not known whether those people were enemy combatants or not. It seems apparent that some of them were innocent, but it has never been explained what they were doing moving together and why they had RPGs.

But again, even if their actions were totally innocent. And even if the pilots did make an error.... IF.... that's NOT murder. That's a mistake, a tragic mistake, an accident, not a crime.

"I don't care how you want to describe it because anyone who watches the video can plainly see deadly force is used against civilian persons not actively engaged in any hostilities. "

No, that isn't plain. If it were, most people wouldn't disagree with you. And if it were, Assange wouldn't need to selectively edit the video.

"In addition, I don't want to hear any bullshit about the environment or helicopters getting shot down. That is part of the fucking job. The job is to identify and engage enemy combatants engaged in hostilities. Just because it is a stressful, tense environment doesn't give anyone a license to use deadly force without exercising good judgement."

They exercised excellent judgement. You are just plain silly to say the context of their environment doesn't matter. That context is what the ROEs are based on, and the pilots followed them to the letter. I'm sorry innocent people get killed in war - that's war! It happens. It would be nice if we could have a perfect standard, a perfectly just world, but people aren't perfect and that's not reality. Reality is working with what we've got. Pilots made a judgement call. Perhaps they made a bad one in this case, but that isn't a crime. But in truth, you can't even say it was a bad call, because you can't 100% without a doubt prove that those people were completely innocent.