The wounded man (previously identified as being unarmed and barely able to rise to his knees) and those passersby assisting him were deliberately targeted.
The footage shows the presence of children in the van.
The body count was 12 dead with 2 badly wounded; that is 14 casualties when only 2 were armed.
 
If the 2 armed men were insurgents, and not the journalist's bodyguards, then that is 86% civilian casualties, a little less than the average.
But if the 2 armed men were the journalist's bodyguards, which seems most likely to me, then that is 100% civilian casualties.
 
Going by the stats, and I have little else to go on, I conclude that this is/was normal operating procedures.
That the servicemen were fully exonerated by the Military investigation supports that conclusion.
 
My point is that if best guess by people in an aircraft a thousand metres distant and pumped up and pleading to fire is the rule of engagement then this can clearly be no isolated incident.
 
Those who dictate the rules of engagement must surely be aware of the logical consequences of the rules they prescribe.
So I reason that the high civilian casualty rate is a product of design not chance.
I further reason that the servicemen and women have been artfully manipulated into a position where the only possible result is 90% civilian casualties.
I do not suppose that they desired to be in that position; that was where they were ordered to be and they did what they were orderd to do, all in strict accordance with proper military discipline.
 
I reject the notion that, in warfare, the majority of casualties, 90%, should be civilians.
A campaign where 90% of the casualties are civilian is, in my book, not worthy to be described as warfare. It seems to me to be nearer to a reign of terror than to a war.
In short, I view this campaign as an abuse of authority; and the abuse has fallen also on the servicemen and women who have been the instruments by which the Iraqi population was to be shocked and awed into tearful and trembling submission.
 
Now here is the challenge, does 90% civilian casualty rate sit well in your mind when you conjure the idea of 'warfare'?
Do the 2 ideas slot comfortably together in anyone's mind?
I ask this seriously because to my mind the 2 ideas are exclusive one to the other.
I think of 'warfare' and first of all images of soldiers engaged on a battlefield come to mind, a contest of strength and will, tactics and strategies; lines from Shakespeare and Wilfred Owen compete and complement each other on my tongue.
That 9 of every 10 dead should be civilians, many of them women and children and compassionate passersby, doesn't enter my head until I think of Iraq.
 
Is Iraq the model upon which wars will now and forever more be fought?.
God save us and forgive us if that be so.