He says "we have 5-6 individuals with ak-47s request permission to engage". Both times he lies to get permission to fire, both times he gets permission.
Based on what happened earlier in the video, I don't think he lied.
I think he mistook the equipment the men were carrying for weapons. He was probably too quick to do this, and maybe should have tried harder to confirm, but I think he was sincere.
... but even then, I'm not sure. Say the pilot's supposition was correct: they really were insurgents and they really did have AK-47s. An AK-47 is powerful enough to take down a helicopter. How long did they have before they were noticed and came under fire, or until the men just took cover, ran off, and didn't surface again until some other battle?
In their mind, it's a matter of life or death either way: if they treat them as insurgents and they're wrong, then innocent civilians die. If they treat them as innocent civilians and they're wrong, then their comrades will die.
Really they were trying to kill them? You would think that people who were fighting against Americans with weapons would not be ambling down the street talking to each other and paying no mind to the Apache copter hovering above their heads.
How close does an Apache have to be before you can hear it over the noise of a city?
These were not combatants and they were not engaged in any activities that put any allied troops or others in danger. Thus, the ROE does not support their actions.
The Apache was specifically hunting for the combatants that had been involved in a skirmish earlier in the day and had fled into that neighbourhood. In that context, their mission wasn't about determining whether a group of people was a direct threat to them; it was about determining whether a group of people had been a threat to other American troops earlier.
The Army knew this and officially released that they had killed insurgents "engaged in hostile action".
A blatant lie to cover up a blatant murder. A murder of people who were minding their business and then again a murder of two people who come to the assistance of the dying man.
Or... rather than a lie, it was a hasty conclusion based on the facts at hand. And rather than a murder, it was an unfortunate consequence of the nature of war.
There was no need to lie but the pilot was clearly looking for blood. There replies like "look at those dead ********", "nice", "come on buddy pick up the gun", and "come one let us shoot them" when the van stopped to help was disgusting. These men should be by all accounts thrown in jail.
So... you think that it's unreasonable to feel even a bit satisfied when you've killed someone who you think has murdered before and would have murdered again?