Out of interest, what was nonsense about it? I saw the unedited version first, not even being aware that there was an edited version and it was objectively the case that the Apache pilots broke various norms of war.
Do you have some sort of source for that? Because I was working directly WITH Apache pilots and maintainers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and they all agree that the pilots did follow proper procedure for the discharge of weapons.
They claimed they needed to fire because the targets had RPGs that could be used against them but their gun cam clearly showed that not only were they out of RPG range, but they were even further out of objective RPG range.
They were providing close air support for troops on the ground that were under active engagement. It does not matter if the Apache itself is under direct threat from any potential RPG. The ground troops were under direct threat. The Apache pilots were tasks with prosecuting those threats and protecting the troops on the ground.
The van they shot with the kid in they completely and utterly failed to determine if it was even actually a threat and fired anyway.
Obviously you do not know what the rules of engagement were at that time in Iraq. The rules specifically dictated that bystanders were not to become involved. They were not to render aid, that the occupying troops would secure the area and provide any aid they could. Anyone who sought to aid the insurgents were treated as insurgents. This is the fault (and no doubt desire) of the insurgency. If they were wearing uniforms there would be no need to treat everyone as potential insurgents
These are not the actions of competent military personnel. The norm in such situations is do not fire until fired upon, but this took it to another level and fired before they could even be sure there was a real actual threat.
This isn't just my opinion, this is objective fact.
Did you have the audio muted on the video? You could hear the ground personnel in contact with the close air support. You could also see these groups actively engaging the troops on the ground. So where do you get this objective fact that there was no threat to the lives of the occupying soldiers? The video speaks for itself here