OK… everyone, including myself, needs to take a deep breath and relax over this post.
Let's get some thing out of the way. The post was meant as a macabre joke. Picture #7 in the slideshow, for those who don't care to see such gruesome imagery, is someone with the top half of his head literally blown off. You can see the inside of the skull because his think box had been forcefully ejected. So, brain eating zombies would be sad. Hah hah, lol, etc.
At the end, I made a snarky comment about how our lax controls of our border won't stop this kind of violence from spilling over.
That's it. I didn't comment that that particular slideshow was gospel. In fact, I only linked to the slide show because it was easier to point to a particular picture. I had seen these images before elsewhere so I did not put a lot of stock into the After Action Report (AAR) because I didn't really study it too much (the shoes thing was interesting though).
I can't even remember where I saw the first link, but it was to the same pages that pdb linked to in his post here at the bottom. The only information I could locate in an exhaustive, 5 minute Google search were links to Spanish articles that Google translate mangled to the point of being useless. I didn't have any concrete data on the details of what happened. All I know is there was a shoot out in Nuevo Laredo. Initially I read cartel on cartel violence, but some other stuff made it sound like the Mexican Army was involved. I don't know for 100% sure and I never claimed it either way.
To my knowledge, there was a shootout involving a drug cartel's soldiers. That shootout happened in Nueva Laredo which borders the US town of Nueva Laredo, TX. Period. Full Stop. I saw two or three stories on it translated by Google, and then dozens of pictures. Later in #Gunblogger_Conspiracy, someone posted the slide show which I looked at and went "Yeah, I saw this before. Ooh, #7 has a zombie joke! Let's post".
I then got people claiming this was nothing short of a hoax because one of the pictures included was clearly a fake / not related to this incident. Because I had read about this independently of the AAR, I defended the event, not that particular report. Some people seem to be fixated on a single image in the report. I did not attach much weight to it because it didn't appear to be a slideshow intended for public consumption and I was confident the battle did take place nonetheless.
So I was trying to argue the point logically, and failed miserably because there's 36 comments now with everyone's feathers all a ruffled, including mine.
Sorry for the confusion folks. Yes, maybe someone was trying to make the battle more than it was (even though it appeared to be pretty intense on its own) via the inclusion of a picture of a truck that was shot up via an F16 and they were selling that to their superiors in an attempt to receive more funding or some nefarious scheme, I can't say. And I don't care, because however they embellished their report doesn't change the fact that I've seen other reports of this battle elsewhere.
Please let me know if I've cleared it up, muddied the waters worse, or have logical fallacies in my thinking. I love discussion and am more interested in the truth than simply being right.
Thanks.
I then got people claiming this was nothing short of a hoax because one of the pictures included was clearly a fake / not related to this incident.