Well, THAT was certainly a broadside. ER definitely got a "whiff of grape" (that's referring to grapeshot, BTW, not the fruit of the vine).

I thought my post was rather neutral and noncommital, but apparently you took it a bit personally. I had hoped I communicated my lack of knowledge of the incident, and my suspicion of some the sources referred to in other posts, but apparently I didn't make myself clear. Or perhaps you just weren't paying attention.

As it turns out, I do recall hearing about this incident on the nightly news, I just didn't realize Camp Bravo was the same site that was hit a couple of weeks ago. The only sources I found that I trust and which have the resources to cover the aftermath properly are the BBC, Armed Forces Radio and ABC, and their reports are rather sketchy since neither did much more than comment on the racket that woke them up 11 Oct and the press releases from the brass.

However, there is still no film or reporting directly from the site, not even from the lefty liberal media which would supposedly love to splatter pictures of the devastation all over our screens, even if there had indeed been zero casualties. I imply no sinister conspiracy, no doubt the ground is unsafe for civilians, littered with unexploded ordnance and still in the sights of enemy gunners.

But the point is, other than the brass's report, we have no knowledge of what happened there. And, I would not be surprised if the brass was lying through its teeth. Again, nothing sinister, they know better than to let the other side know the extent of the damage, it's their job.
But there is an election coming up, and you know how critical the timing is in these matters. For both sides.

You may very well be right, there may not be much more to this story than what shows on the surface, but I see no reason to take your word for it. Especially after noting the tone (not the content) of your response.