Well OK, but the statement refers to "the group". This is still a point of contention.
I re-read the paragraph. The last phrase, "according to testimony" may make it unnecessary to use the word "allegedly" up-front. It might just be a question of 'jounalistic style'.
we expect the media to have a bias against the military.
the real issue in this case here is - what's going on inside the military, who is it who wants these guys taken down so badly?
the part of this case I have yet to hear explained is - when the original insurgent (alleged) they were looking for could not be found, why did they then choose this neighbor? randomly? and why go through this elaborate method of killing him - setting him up to appear as if he was planting an IED, planting a weapon and a shovel, etc. If I wanted to conduct a revenge killing over there, I would just pick up an AK47, and when I saw the guy appear in his window - I'd shoot him and toss the weapon away.