That's a whole other thread of discussion, and equally (if not more) contentious as this topic.  So lets just stick to one thing for now, k?

ROE was followed and the van guys were classified as lookouts by Apache pilots. It is a snafu all around but no one said war is pleasant: it is a bitch. The girl was cas-evacd to Ramidiya though.

The initial strafing seems to be justified. They were in a combat zone and cameras and tripods look a lot like weapons, and mistakes happen in war.

However, the firing on the van was wrong. These people clearly had no weapons and were merely picking up a wounded person so that he could seek treatment. At worst, they are civilians who are wrongfully murdered, and at best they are enemies who are attempting to treat a wounded combatant, which may be in violation of the Geneva convention (it for sure would be if they had markings).

Well, it was an on topic answer to that statement he made.

Well, the discussion is the validity of the soldier's actions, not the validity their presence.

Unless I missunderstand your point horribly (wouldn't be the first time I've missed something).  But as I follow what you're saying you're making a point about the war in a larger sense.  And while that is tangentially related it isn't actually on topic because it is presupposed in the effort of having a discussion about the validity of their actions, otherwise the video of their presence there would end the debate. 

The real issue is that there is a huge debate about the validity of this war that doesn't even need to touch on this incident to be had.  And that debate would overshadow the rest of the topic rapidly.  Thus while it is relevant tangentially, it's off-topic in that it would derail the thread.

In short, I get that you're trying to say this discussion is moot because the soldiers shouldn't even be there, but the only way to reply to that argument is to engage in a debate that is a whole other can of worms.  And opening that up here, kills any discussion about the validity of their actions in the context of their presence being accepted.  So the bottom line is they need to be treated as two seperate topics of discussion so that both topics can be discussed without one overshadowing the other.