Depends, did you watch the full video or the cut one? AFAIK, there are no weapons in the cut one but there were people in the group walking around with weapons before.[1,2]

Wikileaks's goal is not neutral publishing of leaks- it's maximum political impact.[3]

As long as they continue to release the full video, I still think they do far more good than harm. The editorialization forces it into the public eye. Although I do think they were misleading, they're no worse than the MSM, and the full release allows it to be analyzed more objectively later.

"US covers up a video that should've been made public" is not as sexy as "Collateral Damage: US covers up the murder of two reporters." And when you're dealing with a public that seems more interested in Tiger's romantic escapades, perhaps that's what is necessary to seize their attention.

-----

[1] "there do appear to be two other—two people in that crowd having weapons" -Julian Assange[http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape...]

[2] "The [army's] report claims that at least two members of the group which were first fired on were armed"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike...]

[3] Assange's interview with Colbert. http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-f...

I think that this reveals the real villain of the previous video: the people who sent these men up to patrol a city in an Apache in the first place! Apaches are attack helicopters, "flying tanks," built to kill armored columns; they are not known for their stealthy approach (which is necessary to be confident that no one with an RPG will move around behind you and put a rocket up your tailpipe), nor for the high resolution and good zoom features of their gun cameras (since a small-screen, black-and-white camera is generally adequate to distinguish that which _is_ a column of tanks and ZSU-23-4s from that which _is not_. Well, maybe not buffalo herds, but there aren't many of those in central Germany).

Not to mention, should it be assumed that a man with an RPG in a dangerous part of Baghdad is hostile? What if he's Iraqi military and the Apache shoots him, thereby robbing his squad of their light-artillery support and giving away their position?

The right way to patrol is to _patrol_, and that means dismounted infantry operating out of forward bases (which the US is now using) -- not convoys of roadbound IFVs, and certainly not heavy helicopters. Counterinsurgency is not war against poorer enemies, it's police work with heavier weapons; and it's taken five or six years (and a _lot_ of incidents like the previous video), but I think that lesson is slowly sinking in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=3m40s see the guy at 3:45 swinging around? http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php makes it clearer.

Also the US mil report from the time (not a response to Wikileaks, from 17 July 2007, 5 days after the event) - They did have AKM/AK47 and loaded RPG + extra rounds and were hidden around the corner watching, one of their party took pics, http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 of an APC whilst their friends were apparently readying an RPG to blow them up with.

And though it's not proof of anything specific in this case the photog in question, who died, was known for getting "victory" shots of insurgents handiwork.