[Barlowmaker]

Could you help me with a summary of Wretchard's conclusion here? I couldn't figure it out.

[longjack]

What I interpret after reading Belmont Club's accounts of this incident is that the wedding party account could be true, as well as the official US account. There are no glaring discounjuncts in any of the reports thus far that would deem any of them logically false.

Logically dissembling accounts aside, how about this theory: Shooting starts. One side has men standing behind women, or c. 10 YO's firing their own AK-47's. Troops on the other side, perhaps with night vision equipment which may not be able to discern sex or age of the enemy, return fire.

I noticed in the article above (Wedding Party 3) that Wretchard mentions that the women were probably not the targets of the 500-lb bombs, rather an infantry attack, that is, no woman would have survived a 500-lb bomb hit, so they were probably killed in the infantry assault which occured later.

Wedding Party 1 or Wedding Party 2 on Belmont Club has an account of US soldiers taking fire from kids, and of insurgent fighters taking up position behind women holding infants in an earlier (other) urban engagement. With this information, my conjecture in the 2nd paragraph may not be that much of a stretch.

longjack

[Dog]

Remember bad guys do have parties..