[Mo1]

Sources close to the regiment claimed the rifle, hats and truck seen in the pictures did not match those issued to men in Iraq, and queried why there was no sign of sweat, dirt or injuries on the body of the victim of the alleged assault.

What's your take??

This story gets odder and odder

[JLO]

"To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Sources close to the regiment claimed the rifle, hats and truck seen in the pictures did not match those issued to men in Iraq, and queried why there was no sign of sweat, dirt or injuries on the body of the victim of the alleged assault.
What's your take??

This story gets odder and odder"


Mol, my take on this being odder and odder, IS BECAUSE there apparently MUCH confusion. Which is odd to me, because I've been following the stories quite closely.

When you say "Sources close to the regiment claimed the rifle, hats and truck seen in the pictures did not match those issued to men in Iraq, and queried why there was no sign of sweat, dirt or injuries on the body of the victim of the alleged assault."

IS BECAUSE it's not about the US, this is from reports from the UK!

The photos are different from what's been so widespread recently. The photos the report you mention are in B&W - different story, altogether. Freqently intermingled/interchanged all over the place.