Never said they were. Did they have to be aware? Is it a law of warfare that you must alert your enemy that he is about to be shot before pulling the trigger? As the 30mm rounds would have been pretty much supersonic, the first indication that they were being targeted would have been a sucking chest wound (well actually given the Ammo was probably 30mm HE -not much would be left).What makes you all think that the 'targets' were aware of the Apache?
The Iraqi insurgents would have known that there is a very good chance that a UAV, an observation chopper or even a foot patrol could be surveiling their position. Why then be stupid or arrogant enough to assume you can walk around carrying AK's and not attract fire? Maybe they had done it many times before and felt that they would be safe - the optics on many platforms offer the type of view in the video from kilometers away. This time they were seen and targeted. Engaging an armed enemy is legitimate in war. The aim is to inflict maximum casualties on your enemy whilst receiving minimum casualties yourself. I'm not a fan of some of the commentary on the audio feed but the objective of killing their enemy was achieved. I'm sure the insurgents don't go around issuing warnings before detonating bombs or shooting US/UK/Aussie soldiers - war is a nasty business. It's unfortunate that others who were not armed were also killed - but how do we know that those others (apart from the reporter and driver) weren't also insurgents? My earlier comment stands - the Iraqi people would know that if you associate with insurgents you may be hit by collateral fire.