Just saw the airstrike video on CNN, and I wonder -

[RaleighNCDUer]

If the forward observer was with the Marines, who were in a firefight with insurgents, how did he verify the crowd as a legitimate target? He'd have to be in line of sight of the crowd, and if in line of sight, they'd also be in line of fire. So why did they pour out onto the street, running down the middle of the street? In the middele of a firefight?

It seems clear to me that if they were not under fire, they were also not under observation, and the observer just assumed that they were fighters fleeing out the back of the building that he was in front of.

I wonder what the chances are of those images being blown up, to see if there were women & children there, or if the crowd was armed.

This is the 'free fire zone' thinking that led to Kerry's talk of war crimes 30 years ago.

[knowbody0]

1. exactly

[Arancaytar]

2. I saw it too. Sickening.

That's all I can say.

[ArkDem]

3. Clearest sentence I've ever read.

>It seems clear to me that if they were not under fire, they were also not under observation, and the observer just assumed that they were fighters fleeing out the back of the building that he was in front of.<

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Thanks. I've been studying Kerry's speeches.

[plcdude]

5. where do you find

this?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Just watching the video on CNN

It was the cockpit view from the plane that dropped the 500lb bomb on the crowd. Could hear the pilot asking to verify the target, and the ground observer verifying it. It also specified that the observer with with the marines that were in the firefight.

Therefore, why were the people running down the middle of the street? If I were under fire from a squad of marines that's the last thing I'd do.

So was there no firefight going on? Or could the observer really not verify the target, but gave his OK on an assumption?