And Baghdad Bob said they only removed 61. So why exactly is Baghdad Taha more trustworthy than Baghdad Bob?
Because Baghdad Bob seems to be the only one saying 61, while EVERYONE else on earth is saying around 300, but I'll be YOU are right, Baghdad Bob is surely right, because that's what you believe!
Your source is shit, it's full of conflicting reports, and you know it.
[Citation needed]
The one consistent thing in that article is that the strike was allegedly performed by "U.S. led coalition forces". Let me clue you in on how coalitions work: they are not hierarchies. The generals talk and coordinate about a lot of things but not everything
Wow, you are one smart cookie, I would have thought "coalition" was enough to clue someone in on that, but you know, again, one sharp cookie.
It could have been any one of the countries who had a presence in the country, and you're jumping to the conclusion it was a US strike, because it makes you feel cool and edgy.
No one else seems to deny that it was a US-led force. Care to share anything that says it wasn't? You seem to have a lot of fee fees about this, but fee fees don't trump facts. See what I did there?