doggtag said: "but how can they fully be sure that it is authentic to THAT wedding on THAT date in THAT area" easy, many people shown on the videotape were found dead at the scene, the popsinger they hired for example or maybe terrorists just staged that to huh?

"or maybe terrorists just staged that to huh" maybe. These are people who would use pregnant women as bombs, or airliners full of passengers as missiles. Killing a singer for a propaganda stunt is nothing to them.

I'm with you, SGT. I've done more reading about the area than the "common" citizen who only gets all their info off MSNBCNN TV. The media does not always have "all the facts" about an area, rather they just jump in their buggies and run out there after the latest breaking US "incident". Some of us actually REALIZE that smugglers pretty much are the law in that area, and just about any weapon from an AK to an SA-7 can be purchased for a price (but CSPANBCNN TV never reports on stuff like that, do they?) And yes, people who have no problem slitting the throats of contractors and journalists would have no problems killing a bunch of "wedding guests" to make the Americans look bad in an effort to cover up their own tracks. It's very easy for a biased media to report "the news" from their perspective when they themselves don't have all the facts.

They didn't know when the US army would strike. Where they staging that wedding party there 24/7, waiting for an attack so they could blame it on the Americans? And even if they did, does that change the fact that the army didn't knew about the wedding guests/hostages, or knew but didn't care? In both cases they were reckless with innocent people's lifes.

NOT saying that it was staged (haven't seen all the evidence yet), but this is how it can be done: Use the wedding as cover for terrorist activities that take place during the wedding. This would mean things like: - Transport weapons and explosives in the cars that are used to transport the wedding guests. - Set up a staging ground for an attack in the same building as where the wedding takes place. - Use the building that houses the wedding to fire upon US forces hoping that reacting US forces hit civilians. (a variant of the Palestinian firing from residential areas attack) - During the wedding set up a temporary HQ for organising terror. - Etc. etc. This blurring the differece between civilians and enemies creates for the terrorists a morbid "win win" situation: -They win if the US doesn't attack fearing civilian casualties, because they can carry out terrorist activities unopposed. -They win if the US attacks and kills civilians, because this gives them a propaganda victory to further their cause. PS These are all POSSIBILITIES. Still think that I haven't seen all the crucial evidence though so waiting with a final "verdict" is apropriate in my humble opinion.

Dear Lord, this is easy. The "Wedding" claims only came out *after* the attack. Not before. They didn't have to know before-hand, just round up some women and children, shoot them, and scatter some wedding cake around. Then release the video, and claim it was taken days ago. That's why they have no video DURING the attack! Jeez- credit the enemy for a LITTLE creativity, OK? We're not up against mindless automatons, but trained and dedicted terrorists.

Good point, but would have to watch the details though, too easy to leave traces. - Don't shoot the guests with non US weapons (a dead giveaway. - Don't shoot the guests with small arms or assault rifles, when the US only carried out an air attack and no ground assault (small bulletholes don't make sense when you only used large caliber weapons in your attack). - Dead guests featured in the video would suspiciously only be killed by assault rifles and small arms, while the enormous air assault seems to have somehow missed anyone that was featured in the video. - Bullet holes would ballistically not make sense. (shots seem to fired from the wrong distance all up close and none long distance would not make sense in an attack) - The wedding guests would have to be killed at the attack scene or else you could see corpses riddled with bullets lying in front of a totally undamaged wall. Removing the bodies could cover this up, but DNA from the victims would have to match realistic blood traces found on the attack site. Also blood traces smeared around on purpose would look different. - The guests would have to be killed on several places at the attack site. - The wedding would have to be filmed at an 100% exact matching decor as on the attack site intact. - Bullet patterns (scratch marks) could be compared to scratch marks of the weapons used in the attack. Any people killed with different weapons than those use in the attack would be noticed.

You're forgetting that the wedding video showed people, like that singer, who we're found dead at the scene. Did the insurgent animate their corpses to shoot the video afterwards? Plus the location of the video matched the one the press filmed after the attack. Did they rebuild the place to shoot the video and then blew it up again?

I think, SGTObvious wantes to believe that this a set-up; which will be more comfortable for Americans against the opposite argument. That US Army attacked without careful planning and enough recon.

I wouldn't jump too fast to conclusions before ALL the evidence is in. Our understanding of the incident could very likely change when new info surfaces. For instance: Remember how people were sure that the Serbs attacked the market place in Sarajevo? From: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/bosleslr/bosleslr.htm "Colonel Demurenko himself was involved in one of the most widely discussed and controversial events of the war. It involved the mortaring of a Sarajevo market square, reportedly by Serbs. Initial reports from CNN advanced this interpretation of the incident for the world. Colonel Demurenko conducted his own investigation of the incident and came to a very different conclusion: that the attack could not conceivably have occurred as CNN reported initially due to both scientific and practical evidence. Colonel Demurenko used UN crater analysis, the firing tables of the Serb armed forces, and street width/roof overhang measurements to determine angles of descent of the mortar shells. He calculated the probabilities of a shell hitting the street and not the roof. He went into the mountains surrounding Sarajevo and video taped the locations from which these shells would have had to have been launched according to the firing tables to produce the damage as CNN reported (one of the locations was in a mine field). His evidence that the attack could not have occurred as originally reported was so overwhelming that he soon had two American officers and one Canadian agreeing publicly with his analysis. Demurenko's conclusion was not that the Serbs didn't do it and the Muslims or Croats did. It was simply that the attack didn't occur as originally reported. Someone appeared to be manipulating the incident for their benefit."