Well, isn't this kind of the basis of human communication; that we continue along the same lines established at the onset of the dialogue? It would be a fairly confusing world if we began talking about NASCAR races and you suddenly launch into a discussion on making the perfect pesto sauce, wouldn't it? Since I'm not clever enough to figure out when you're changing the subject, perhaps you could clue me in before you plan on doing it? Rather than reference a discussion about one topic and then discuss something completely unrelated you could segue into it for me?
And the subject of what SwamP-ThinG wrote, and the subject of what I wrote, and the subject of all you quoted was about women and children. That's why I didn't quote the whole passage, just that selected text. When you choose to reference that, my selected text, I have to assume that that is what you wanted to discuss. Especially when you reference the topic in your own reply.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this? Perhaps I should read your further posts with a more jaundiced eye? Perhaps I should initially believe that what you write is not really what you mean?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I initially replied because I didn't find your following comment very constructive. And I stayed on the subject which is the bombing of the alleged wedding in Iraq. Though according to you the subject obviously is something else since you think I changed it.

Because you mentioned women in your sentence, should I have read between the lines that you believe there were, in addition to children, no women killed at all in the incident? According to your logic probably.

Perhaps you should just stop assuming things and read my posts as they are. If I want to say I believe the US military killed children I will write it down.

And finally here's some more of your constructive exaggerations:

Yeah, that was exactly what I was doing......

__________________

Okay, Phunkie. Whatever.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

What´s all this "children" argument? Does anyone (apart from the fat boy) disputes that THERE WERE children on the site, and that they were killed?
Every media, from both sides of the political spectrum have reported this! Whats with all this now?
You think the iraqis made up the whole story and the bodies are of Barbie dolls, is that it? Manequins, from the local Chanel store, maybe?
No matter how anyone looks at what happened, no matter wich side you take and wich story you support, the FACT is that those children are dead! There are pictures, there are testimonies of doctors, family members, neighbours. Are we going to distrust ALL of them now? Are they ALL liars?
If our first reaction to hearing a bad story is to disclaim and discard the testimonies of those present, what´s the point of having a media in the first place? Are WE, who weren´t there, supposed to know more than those who were?
We can question a few details of the story but not the core of the story. We can argue there were or not foreign fighters, we can argue wether there were or not shots fired into the air, and we can question that there was a wedding under way. But we cannot question the basis, that there was an incident, and that the incident took out innocent lives, period.
Allthough dsome media might "forget" to point out a detail or two in their story, if we the public analyse every single report made about the incident and gather pieces and freagments from each media source, we get a better picture than what we would if we would base ourselfs on one sole report, and one sole media source.
Each side chooses wich fragments to report and wich ones to witheld. We have to read ALL sides, all sources, and then build a picture, filling in the blanks as they appear. Making a puzzle, so to speak.
The few details that are common to all media sources often make the true core of the story, like this incident.
All the media reports the incident, report the 40 deads, and report women and children amongst them. This is the core of the news, from wich we start filling in the blanks. But if we dispute the core itself, then there is no point in watching the news, is there? Maybe we should all just travel to the sight and see for ourselfs, or consult a cristal ball...

@Muspell
I think i answer your post aswell, with what i wrote above.
To tell you the truth, i´m starting to have a diferent picture all together.
The wedding seems to be true, but it also seems that the festivities had ended before the attack. This would signify that the shots fired (if there were any) into the air were not a part of the festivities. The reason why this story doesn´t mention these shots is because the source for that report is only the US Army. I have not read a first hand report where those shots are mentioned. The place where every other media got it from was the US Army. Were there shots? I don´t know. Maybe yes, maybe no. If there were no shots, the US Army would be hard pressed to justify their attack, so maybe they just used it as an excuse. "We were attacked, so we responded".
If the party was over, and everybody had went to bed, who would be outside firing? And if there were shots, and the intention was to shoot the US forces, why didn´t they fire before, when the US forces were next door?
Why would anyone fire at the chopper, knowing that your family was right there under the line of fire and would gert hurt?
And if the US had marked that house as a foreign fighter safe spot, why didn´t they went in when they were in the area, right next door? Why would a single chopper venture alone to attack the place with no immediate ground support? The troops were right there! Only minutes away!
I think this chopper was on patrol and came across something, maybe a wedding guest with insomnia, carrying a gun or something, and the pilot thought it was an enemy site. But we all know EVERYBODY carries a gun in Iraq, more so than in the US. Carrying a gun does not automatically make you an enemy.

Regarding the Guardian reporter, i think the link you posted answers your question. No newspaper writes such an article without having someone on the spot themselfs. And when they don´t, they always remember to point out from where and whom they got it from , as a means of covering their reputation if the story turns out false or inacurate. It is very rare to see a paper taking their info from another paper without mentioning where they got the report from. Reporters in Iraq have to be extremelly mobile, they have to travel to the news site in minutes to get their stories. So i wouldn´t be surprised if quite a few reporters from various newspapers and TVs were on the spot covering the incident within minutes of it happening. They monitor comunications, hoping from something juicy to come up on the radio. As soon as one reporter knows about it, everybody else will know about it too. There are no "exclusives" in Iraq, they share all the information.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Well, we are seeing conflicting stories, so we're all excused for just about everything, and all bets are off as usual. The US chief of operations claim they saw no wedding, no wedding guests or suitable presents and certainly no dead children. Besides, they had enough intel to justify an attack.

On the other hand, we're having articles that do not mention anything about a safe house, or at least a staging point, which there certainly are given enough evidence to suggest, but only the wedding and the following carnage. And the doctor of the small village counts the dead, and some reporter get the names of ten children who died in the incident(WP).

It occurs to me that both stories cannot be true at the same time. So it's apparently a question of how much you trust the sources, and after that(as an excercise), a question of whether bombing a wedding tent, it's guests and half the village is excusable if the intel suggests it was a gathering of foreign fighters there and they found genuine terrorist equipment(tm) nearby. For some reason, it seems, it's excusable for a staggering amount of americans on this board if there were - no children - found among the dead.
Sure. I trust that is done usually myself. But I don't buy the "core of the story" theory, specially not when there are very few sources that see different things. It's just too easy for someone to "pick up" on the story and bring some details with them before they write theirs. In addition I got a somewhat mild attack of paranoia yesterday when Washingtonpost wrote "but reporters say..." when serving an opposing claim to the dismissives of mr. Kimmit of US Operations. That just didn't scan at all. I really wonder why they did that. Why didn't someone mention what source the 40 people dead claim came from, for instance. It's just too many strange things about it all. But then I do still have mild paranoia since yesterday. And I would not normally claim every reporter in Iraq is conspiring against us.

In any case, a headline like "American forces successfully take out covert foreign fighter reqruitment centre, staging point and disperse local drug cartel at the same time - local PD says 'pleased to assist american friends'" seems a bit off, though.

Indeed. The public is constantly being pushed from side to side as a ping pong ball, as new conflicting versions emerge. All we can do is try to seap through the propaganda and the fabrication and try to get at the truth.

The problem is that the US Army has no independent source to corroborate their version of the events. All the media outlets that reported the story acording to the US version have done so by basing themselfs solely on the Army´s version. There aren´t any eyewitnesses, any depositions, or any independent reporter to corroborate their side. While the exact opposite happens for the other contender. The iraqis have a village doctor, eyewitnesses, the neighbours, the surviving victims, and an undetermined number of iraqi and western reporters. They have pictures, the bombed site that can be examined, and a whole lot of forensic evidence. While the US Army has only the officer in charge´s word. They presented no evidence at all. Just words.

Both sides can´t be completely true at the same time, but they can both have some truth to their reports. Maybe the place WAS a safe spot, and maybe they were ALSO having a wedding. One does not exclude the other.
All we can do is seap through the propaganda and the fabrication and hopefully we can get at the truth.
However, i don´t think it would make a bit of diference wether the place was a safe house, or wether there was a wedding. In the end, we have 40 dead, that cannot be excused by the need to conduct anti-terror operations. It´s a case of excessive use of force, no matter how you cut it.

Why not? When you have conflicting stories, the parts of the story where both sides agree is the "core". If neither side disputes the fact that there was an incident, then that´s part of the core. No one side disputes that there were 40 dead, so that´s the core aswell. No side disputes where it happened, so that is part of the core aswell. We take that basis and piece it together. The rest of it, well we will have to seap through the sewage to get at it. But the core stands. If by any chance there is nothing at all that both sides agree to, then chances are they are not talking of the same thing.
We can be sure of two things, that make the core of this incident:
We know WHERE it happened, and we know WHEN it happened. That´s a start.

Where was that? I don´t remember seing any title in those lines. But my bet is it was taken from FOX.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Those Syrian terrorists are surely a strange bunch... Bringing children to their hideout, playing a keyboard and dancing...

__________________

Where did you get the photos?

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

How do you know the photos are from the site of the attack?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

How do you know the photos are not from the site of the attack?

@ SwamP_ThinG

Its from the Associated Press. I actually found a video clip. Here:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Then click "Video shows wedding at site allegedly attacked later by U.S."

__________________