Dragonlich

I'd say that even terrorist groups/supporters have finite financial and logistical resources. Without cash and the resulting weapons and such, there is less potential for a successful terror attack. If a terrorist leader then has to choose between an attack in the US (far away, dangerous area), or an attack in Iraq (familiar territory, more popular support), he or she is much more likely to attack in Iraq. But of course, that depends on the question if terrorists *have* to choose - I'd say they have to; even they can't attack everywhere at once.

Besides, Iraq is a Muslim country, invaded by infidels. It is much more important to defend Iraq (direct action) than to attack the home base of the invaders (indirect action). It takes a very good strategist to choose an indirect route to victory, because direct action has direct, tangible results, which will make it seem a more attractive approach.

==============

Back to the topic: could it be that both sides are partly right? I can believe that this might have been a wedding party, but that still leaves questions about a lot of strange stuff found there. according to some news reports, the US found equipment for forging documents, as well as a lot of weapons.

Perhaps there were insurgents there *and* there was a wedding - one does not rule out the other. Hell, suppose this "base" was in fact a home to an Iraqi family, who used it to support the insurgents (hiding them and their equipment). Then one day, one of the people there got married, and the US happened to attack at that moment. Given the nature of the conflict, and the sheer number of attacks on either side, such an event was bound to happen sooner or later.

The result: the US will claim they were attacking a rebel base; the "innocent civilians" (actually supporters of these rebels) will claim they were simply having a wedding party; the press ignores the possibility that both sides could be right, and jumps to conclusions.