That said, in the style of warfare that exists in these areas, it's probable that innocent people will be killed. In a war, intent determines if innocent people are being killed or murdered. Can this video prove intent?
I'm convinced you're _less_ secure because of them.
[1] - http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5dwlens.jpg.html [2] - http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.h...
With that said, I haven't watched the video, and I don't know if that was an active combat zone, or if it was considered "safe."
I expect that the source video for this is much cleaner than a youtube conversion, and seeing it in real life, by an experienced pilot and gunner, would make it clearer that these were not simply locals gathering to talk to a reporter.
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg22-2.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg26-1.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rshg2-1.jpg
I wouldn't want to be wrong on the fly about whether it was an RPG or a black telephoto barrel that's sticking around the corner aiming at my crew. Presumably I'd use other cues to help decide.
The site leaves out stills showing the key decision-triggering factor - surreptitious behavioral cues. Here is one they left out:
The site talks about the cameraman shooting a picture of "whatever is occurring further down the street" but the video, even in slow replay (that the airmen didn't have in the moment), suggests the man is taking cover then popping out to aim at the helicopter. The man appears to "engage" the helicopter. Thinking in context of 2007, that was incredibly dumb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m14s
Want a picture of an American chopper while you're walking in a hostile zone with militia carrying what even "collateralmurder.com" admits "might be a weapon" and "appears to be a weapon" -- ok, stand in the middle of the street with your camera, wave your obvious press card while wearing your obvious press jacket, and take your picture. Don't duck around corners then share the intel with your gun carrying group.
Troops made a call about the RPG vs camera (though certainly doesn't look like a white Canon lens as shown in the website, looks black, and that tube and the way he aims it sure looks like bazooka or anti-tank RPG considering troops can't see around the corner). After that judgment call was based on behavior more than identifying the weapon, what happened after that could have been interpreted as combatants feigning nonchalance until their next chance to ambush from behind cover.
Even assuming it's an unmarked photographer, presence of a war correspondent in a hostile zone does not mean the armed men with him are not combatants, that they should be immune from attack, or that they should be free to wander around armed studying long distance photo intel of their enemy to better plan an ambush.
The whole reason this stuff happens is because at 'stand-off' range the person in the chopper might be safe but those on the ground are no longer to be identified. It's the doctrine of force protection that is the cause here, not some hyped up kid with a trigger happy finger. He shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Helicopters are not good at police work, they're good for killing people long distance without too much discrimination. Better zoom lenses would be a mixed bag, it would give you even less field-of-view with a more jittery aim.
Choppers are great at evacuation and for killing people and destroying stuff.
Boots on the ground are better at identifying friend-or-foe (and even then there are plenty of mistakes) but are more vulnerable.
The argument could be made that in some respects you are in more danger. Not only do incidents such as these promote hate of the US by other countries and terrorism, but many of these soldiers end up badly mentally damaged because of the post traumatic stress disorder from the things they took part in over there. There have been multiple incidents where former soldiers snap and go on killing rampages.
War just trades one kind of danger for another. At best it just keeps the majority of the danger in another country.
regardless, the question that follows is whether or not that rate is higher than the rate of postal workers doing similar things.
This is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I remember several other incidents through the years in which a former soldier shot up a public place or killed innocent civilians here in the US.
I can't offer any statistics about the relative percentage when compared with postal workers, but it would be interesting to see, I think.
Does that mean that you are convinced that you are equally secure ?
I would wager you are less secure because of them. For every civilian killed you get a whole family that hates you in return.
Note the recent Russian bombings and the fact that at least one of them was carried out by a woman that lost a loved one.
Multiply by a few thousand and you get why there is no shortage of people willing to take up arms against what they rightly see as an occupation.
You are less secure simply because of the pointless decision to go to war in the first place. It was based on utter lies (WMDs, the "link" between 9/11 and Saddam, and "freeing" the Iraqi people nonsense). Anyone can see that. GWB referring to the invasion of Iraq as a "crusade" doesn't help matters either.