The bottom line (I’m a bottom line kind of person :”> ) is that when you wrote this post it was information coming from the field on a milblog. You did not intentionally make a mistake and I can tell you I’ve written posts that I later read were inaccurate but I haven’t looked up the original post to correct it.

You didn’t commit a deliberate act of misleading. Your heart was in the right place and that’s what matters to me. You’ve apologized, bileduct and I have apologized and let’s move on.

It takes a big man to apologize. Your apology is accepted and we hope you continue to read us. If you find anything wrong with what we have written feel free to point it out.

G’day, Mate!

Thank you.

I will not speak for J but for myself as I said earlier, I will never hesitate to correct an error I have made if it is shown to me.

Have a pleasant morning and wonderful day tomorrow.

I apologise for the tone of my remarks.

Furthermore I congratulate you both for continuing to discuss this topic professionally.

While I have apologized, many news outlets were referring to the attack taking place at the Iraq Parliament Building. While I will not get into a war of links with you, the following is from a reputable news outlet. article)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041200265.html
or this one:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265487,00.html

When I am incorrect, I have no difficulty admiting it and correcting the mistake but I do take exception with anyone who seems to deem themselves above error.

On this site we aim to be professional in the way we speak to others. We don’t question their intelligence or ability to read.

I looked at the map and I looked for a date, but I could not find it.

After you pointed out it was on there I went to the map again and saw it above the map and not where I had been looking before.

I apologize for my error.

Sue has apologized for her error.

I await your apology for the way you spoke to both of us on this site.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had frankly forgotten about this post until I saw your comment this evening.

I appreciate J defending the article as on the fact of it the underlined portion I believe to be true.

However, my interpretation of it was not as you have correctly pointed out. The bombing did occur in the Green Zone and had I given afterthought to this post I would have corrected that fact.

Thanks for the reminder that we need to think with our heads and not our hearts on all matters and I do apologize for the error.

The Convention Center building housing the Iraqi Parliament is WELL WITHIN the Green Zone, as you will notice when you decide to have a look at the map.

In the event that you want to dispute whether or not the Convention Center was the building that was bombed I have provided a further link identifying the Convention Center building as the location of the attack:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9533592

Why don’t you sit back and have another hard look at this, taking into account the following FACTS:

1) WORLDWIDE mainstream media outlets, including Fox News, reported that the blast had occurred within the Green Zone;
2) The source providing information to the contrary is ANONYMOUS.

You have been misled.

I see no contradiction in the article. The reason is this quote pulled from it:

Actually, depite the reporting I’ve heard from CNN, BBC and NPR, which keeps up the ominous drone of doom about the terrorists breaching the Parliament buliding in “the heart of the heavily fortified Green Zone,” the FACT is the Parliament buliding is NOT IN the Green Zone. We turned it over to the Iraqis in 2006. And when it was, it was at the outer NW edge of the Green or International Zone.

How recent is your map?