BBC radio passes the microphone to Iranian propaganda

h/t SG

The January 3rd edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘World Update’ – titled ‘Iran vows revenge for US killing of military leader’– included an early item (from 04:35 here) which was introduced by presenter Dan Damon thus:

[emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Damon: “I spoke to one of the loyal Iranian voices that we can reach in Tehran. He’s Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi at the University of Tehran. He told me how important the General was to the people of Iran.”

Damon did not adequately clarify the meaning of that highlighted phrase and so audiences were unlikely to appreciate that they were about to hear largely unchallenged propaganda from a regime loyalist who has for years been rolled out to defend the Iranian regime in the English language mediaincluding the BBC

Marandi: “He’s very popular because he helped defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq. Many believe that if it wasn’t for him in Syria the capital would have fallen to the extremist forces that were backed by Saudi Arabia and other countries of the region as well as the United States. And the same is true with Iraq. Iraq was on the verge of collapse and he went there and personally commanded troops in both countries to prevent the fall of these capitals to these forces and people in Iran believe that if these two capitals had fallen we would be fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda and other such groups inside Iran today.”

Damon: “The United States says he also led operations that killed many American soldiers. Do you accept that?”

Marandi: “I think it’s somewhat ridiculous for the Americans to blame Iran for their illegal occupation of Iraq and to deny the Iraqi people agency. The Americans helped create Saddam Hussein – they created the monster that they later destroyed. They imposed sanctions on Iraq where roughly a million people were killed. Then they invaded the country illegally with…and lied about weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to Al Qaeda. They destroyed the country and then after they helped create the mess in Syria by supporting extremist forces, those forces came into Iraq and the Americans refused to help Iraq when ISIS was advancing on the capital. So the United States is in no position to complain about anything in this part of the world.”

Damon made no effort to question or challenge that account.

Damon: “Why was Major General Soleimani so vulnerable? We all knew, didn’t we, that he was being monitored by the Americans very closely. Why wasn’t he protected?”

Marandi: “He was on an official visit. He entered the country through the Iraqi airport. There was nothing secret about his visit and he was met by senior Iraqi military officials who were also murdered [sic] by the US army. The Iranians believe that this is an act of war and the Iraqis believe that this is an act of war because they also killed a senior Iraqi military hero. And the Americans should not be fooled by the former Saddam Hussein supporters or ISIS supporters or American NGO people who are celebrating in Baghdad. We’ll see soon where public opinion in Iraq stands and how that will impact the US occupation in Iraq.”

Even that highlighted propaganda failed to prompt any challenge from Damon.

Damon: “President Donald Trump says he doesn’t want war and he doesn’t think Iran wants war because, to quote him, it would be very short. Do you think that’s right?”

Marandi: “The Americans will not win in any war in this region. Iran is not alone. Iran’s allies in Yemen, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, across the board are on the ascendance and Iraqis themselves are outraged by this act of war against Iraqis. The murder of innocent Iraqi soldiers on the front line against ISIS by American troops. Iran is a very powerful country. Iran is not the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and the Americans are in a very vulnerable position and American allies in the region are very vulnerable. This is not a war that the Americans can win. But the Iranians will definitely respond to the United States and the Iraqis will definitely respond to the United States. There will be a heavy price to pay.”

Referring to one of Marandi’s ‘contributions’ to Iranian English language TV earlier in the day, Damon went on:

Damon: “I think you said on Iranian TV that all Westerners should leave the Middle East. What did you mean?”

Marandi: “The situation is very dangerous. Western citizens in the United Arab Emirates and in other countries should leave because the United States has bases in all these countries and Iraq and countries like the Emirates, Saudi Arabia are a part of the US war against the Iranian people [sic].”

Damon closed that interview there. Those four minutes of unchallenged Iranian regime propaganda (in which the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad and other relevant events were completely whitewashed) were promoted separately by the BBC World Service and embedded into the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ updates – without any indication to audiences of Marandi’s regime connections.

Four days later Marandi was back on the BBC airwaves. The January 7th edition of the BBC Radio 5 live programme ‘Up All Night’ – hosted by Rhod Sharp – gave him over fifteen minutes of airtime (from 3:06:25 here) after having introduced him using only his academic titles.

Marandi began by describing Soleimani as a “war hero” who, during the Iran-Iraq war, had survived chemical weapons attacks. He went on to promote a lie he has been peddling for over a decade, claiming that those chemical weapons “were provided to Saddam Hussein by European countries and the United States”.

Sharp failed to provide any challenge to that falsehood or to the subsequent claim that Soleimani “helped the Palestinians and their cause…ah…they’re…they live under apartheid and colonisation.”

He was similarly silent when Marandi claimed that it was a US objective to “create a Salafist state between Syria and Iraq”.

Marandi’s falsehoods and conspiracy theories continued unquestioned until Sharp closed the item by reminding listeners of his academic titles but with no mention of his regime connections.

Obviously the amplification of Iranian regime approved propaganda does not meet the BBC’s public purpose remit of providing “duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world” – especially when that propaganda goes unquestioned and unchallenged by underinformed BBC presenters clearly trying to fill airtime. Moreover, the damage done to audience understanding of the story is exacerbated when audiences are not informed (as required by BBC editorial guidelines) of the relevant context of the contributor’s “particular viewpoint” and affiliations  and he is presented as a supposedly neutral and reliable ‘academic’.



137 comments on “BBC radio passes the microphone to Iranian propaganda

  1. “I think it’s somewhat ridiculous for the Americans to blame Iran for their illegal occupation of Iraq and to deny the Iraqi people agency. The Americans helped create Saddam Hussein – they created the monster that they later destroyed. They imposed sanctions on Iraq where roughly a million people were killed. Then they invaded the country illegally with…and lied about weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to Al Qaeda. They destroyed the country and then after they helped create the mess in Syria by supporting extremist forces, those forces came into Iraq and the Americans refused to help Iraq when ISIS was advancing on the capital. So the United States is in no position to complain about anything in this part of the world.”

    Apart from the Yanks helping Hussein to power just what do you think should have been challenged or questioned.

    Only a complete imbecile would have endorsed an illegal assassination that ensures people who were protesting against a regime now support it.

      • well given he was islamic he could not be a saint. Only an imbecile could put hardliners in a position where even moderates would support them after this.

        Trump is the best asset Iranian hardliners have.

        • No that was Obama as we all know now that the list of diplomats who took Iranian bribes to approve the nuclear deal is being threatened to be released

          • really the agreement was a godsend to the moderates and the main issue at the last Presidential election.
            The hardliners always said you could not trust the US. That idiot broke the agreement even though he had no advice to that effect and now this.
            Trump might not be the most stupid person to occupy the office but it is hard to think of anyone who could beat him.

          • yes you want war and people killed.

            I do not.
            you obviously want Iran to have a nuclear capability and so support an imbecile who has increased the possibility of this occurring.
            By the way I notice no-one has supported the original writers glaring inaccuracy i pointed out mind you it occurs all to often

          • No the last thing I want Iran to have are nuclear weapons, and control of Syria, Lebanon and Gaza via their proxies which coincidentally is the same that the US, Israel, the Saudi’s and UAE want. You seem to be forgetting that Iran broke the agreement on numerous occasions and are running more enrichment centrifuges than they agreed to so why does that make Trump desire a nuclear conflict? It is obviously Iran that desires that otherwise they would not be running extra centrifuges to enrich to weapons grade material.

          • more lies again

            Iran did not break the agreement. The imbecile did and he had no advice to do so. Everyone told him not to do it.

            Nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon not an offensive one. The Imbecile has shown he cannot be trusted just as the hard liners said.

            Just as Iranian influence was waning he has just increased it. Brilliant strategy

        • Well now that video evidence of a surface to air missile being launched from Iranian soil, hitting the airliner and killing all passengers and crew who are the culprits this time? oh I know, just blame anyone except Iran who from the get go tried to cover all this up. The murdering of many Iranian citizens and many more dual nationality citizens is the typical modus operandi of a tyrant and dictator.

          • No the blame lies with the Iranians but also with the Imbecile who ensured people who man such batteries thought they were on a war footing.

            since you are part of this you are also to blame.

            No war footing no missile launched.

            This is what is called unintended consequences,

          • of course not but most agree it was an accident.
            The others who are responsible are President Imbecile and anyone who supported this act of war which put all persons on a war footing so such an accident could happen. congratulations.

          • So you’re saying that we should take account that someone is going to accidentally fire a missile while acting on actions being committed by a terrorist. Right.

          • what terrorist?

            The US President committed an act of war. This created war like conditions more so after the missiles left Iran.

            It would bot have happened if trump had not authorized that action.

            OH you are saying Trump is the terrorist. I missed that.

          • revenge is a very evil concept.
            What occurred was an act of war. He was an invited guest into Iraq and Iraqis were also murdered.

            Might is right is another evil; concept. The rule of law is what most western countries accede to.
            He also ensured that ISIS was defeated.

            Of course that was not the reason given incoherent even though it was. The laughable excuse now is that an attack on the US embassy was planed.

          • It was not about revenge. Watch the news. Solemani was committing attacks. What evidence do you have that the intelligence reports on the embassy are wrong?

          • Go to a dictionary and find out what revenge means.

            Attacking the US embassy and keeling people there would be an act of war.

            given we already have evidence Iran do not want war this explanation is as stupid as any provided.

            mind you the attack was on what day and at what time. Gosh they do not know.
            more utter incoherence

          • you are saying he killed people or was responsible for it and so he deserves to die.
            That is called revenge.

          • revenge on what the middle East thrives on.

            It is an evil concept. Read your hebrew bible. god made provisions to ensure this would not happen.

          • It is in every concept.

            It is murder but you simply rationalise it away.

            It also perpetuates violence as we see all too many time in the Middle East.

          • Preventing more murder is not revenge. I suggest that you study the concept further. And you must not understand how this works in the Middle East. Refraining from acting does not encourage the enemy to reciprocate.

          • If you are at war then what was done is perfectly feasible when you are not it is an act of war.
            We can see this by the incoherent excuses being made for the murder.

            you are simply inventing excuses for murder.
            Civilised nations simply do not do that

          • In that case, the act of war was committed by Iran which attacked American troops and killed Americans. The US responded to prevent more of that from happening. Are you saying that killing the Americans is not murder?

            The lack of logic shown here is ridiculous.

          • No, you’re wrong.


            “General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more,” the Pentagon said. “He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months — including the attack on December 27th — culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”

          • really these are the turkeys alleging he was going to destroy 4 US embassies.

            We have proof he ordered those militias to do that.

            good luck with that.

          • I do not have to. you claim that he organised whatever. Show your evidence.

            it is more than mere assertion.
            If the Yanks have not done that and they have not then you have nothing as per usual.

            On the other hand murdering a person on a state organised visit and killing countrymen as well as the target is an act of war.

            When that act reverses Iranian influence in the region you have to ask yourself what imbecile would approve such an act and what imbeciles would then support such an act.

          • I don’t know why don’t realize this, but intelligence services do not broadcast their information. It tends to undermine operations. It is a reasonable assumption that their evidence credible as the IRGC, under Soleimani, has committed acts of aggression against Americans which have resulted in casualties. Your last post still does not dispute that and therefore it is reasonable to assume that they will continue. So you have nothing to show, as usual.

            So, again. The acts of war had already been instigated by Iran. The US is entitled to defend its citizens as any civilized country can and does do.

            You’re also mistaken about Iranian influence. From the same article I posted above:
            “Iran increased its influence and footing in Iraq following the Obama administration’s military withdrawal from the country and the subsequent invasion by the Islamic State, with Iran backing Shiite militias influenced and often directed by Soleimani to fill the power void, and Iran received a much-needed influx of billions in cash as a result of the Iran nuclear deal, which the U.S. has since left.”

            The current administration is now reversing that.

          • look if there is evidence produce it. you have nothing.
            No civilized country goes out killing people.
            more so when the proof is so incoherent.

            It was merely might is right and nothing more

            As for Iranian influence people were massed in demonstrations against them . this action changed all that.

            Sensational strategy.

          • Wrong. You are making an accusation that the motive behind the killing was “might is right,” whereas you don’t even dispute the American blood on Soleimani’s hands.

            You, therefore, need to prove that accusation.

            And there are mass demonstrations against Iran now, both inside and out.

          • You allege it is Soleimani. that masterminded any of these attacks except you have no evidence just assertion.

            Russia has been involved there. Have they no influence at all. Are you going after then as well?

            Anybody else while you are there.

            do you know He was supported by both the moderates and the hardliners and now everybody is falling into line.

            Under Obama Iran supported opening up its econmy and increasing its standard of living.

            Why would anyone believe anything from the USA now?

          • That’s a very slippery slope that you’re on now. If you want to dispute the intelligence services, which no other western government has, then any news report of killings is therefore suspect. Are you willing to state that? If so, then there is no point to anything.

            Fine, Iran’s economy improved. It’s behavior has not. Have you heard of the Houthis or Hizbollah?

          • Everybody in the Middle East has blood on their hands
            how about the Pakistani generals and their relationship with the taliban,how many Yanks have dies from that.

            I haven’t seen any of them taken out?
            yours is the slippery slope beside being totally evil but thats the Middle East I suppose.

            everyone is the same while they say they are different

          • Then who has appointed you adjudicator to decide who has the right to act and who does not have that right? They have not shared the intelligence with you because you are not entitled to it. No other western government has disputed the facts.

            No one needs your sanction for anything. And Americans have the right to life just as much as anyone else.

          • learn some international law. you cannot assassinate people if you are not at war.

            They could share their information if they wished to. They have none.
            The idea of the bloke organising one US embassy to be overcome with all people dead is absurd in the extreme. Only an idiot would believe not 1 but 4. If Iran wanted war they could have had by this assassination. They showed they did not.

          • First, cite the relevant section of the Code of International Law.

            Evidence like that is not broadcast. It’s beyond stupid to expect the CIA to share that information. It would be shared with other western governments none of whom dispute the American blood that has been shed.

            You also show a lack of understanding of current events. Iran has been using proxy, asymmetrical warfare.

          • Go and look it up yourself although most in Israel will argue with it.

            you can give out information without compromising sources. When the explanation is so incoherent only the idiots believe.

            By the way some people possibly yourself have this man responsible for all US deaths in Iraq.
            Very strange when most have been killed by IEDS built in Iraq.

            Revenge culture is evil. more than one tale to confirm this in the Hebrew bible.

            One of the by-products is violence never ends

          • Of course, you have nothing, so can’t cite it. I’m not surprised.

            Soleimani was the leader and organizer of the cells planting those bombs. That is also not in dispute.

            The whole idea of revenge is irrelevant, because that was not the motive, despite your incessant claims to the contrary.

          • when a country kills a man of another government and in this instance there are two Governments and he was officially invited that is an act of war.
            No-one except you disputes that.
            The reasons have fallen apart. If they were going to attack an embassy why not when there was a demonstration and the Iraqi police allowed them in.
            Iraqui shia militias were planting IEDs well before Iran was invited in and it is absurd in the extreme to say he organised those plantings.

            the revenge is out of your own mouth.
            He deserves to be murdered as he was allegedly involved in the killings of other people.

          • The murders of the soldiers were acts of war against the United States. No one except you disputes that.

            The embassies themselves have not been disclosed. Iran operates proxy asymmetric warfare across the region.

            You are putting words in my mouth. Where have I used the word “deserve?” That is your own invention. I have very clearly stated that he was a legitimate target because he has committed attacks and the intelligence (that has been disclosed) indicates that he was planning to continue.

          • Sorry we only have information that is general in nature.
            Iran may have provided some training and some resources but the Shia militias are very independent.
            Where Iran were very hands on was fighting ISIS. They were very hands on on training them and providing resources in this endeavour.

            If the General was telling them where to plant the 1000s of IEDS he would have had no time for anything else.

            As for attacking an embassy then why did they not do that when they could have in demonstrating against he Us embassy in Iraq. The same reason why their response was clearly meant not to to kill anyone either.
            Only an idiot would believe such a story.

            Oh when he was killed he wasc invited to give Iran’s response to the Saudi peace proposals.

          • Has it occurred to you that the only information that has been released is general in nature because releasing more specific information might pose danger to personnel that is on the ground?

            Even if you’re correct that Iran only provides “some training and resources” it still makes them a party to this conflict.

            Furthermore, a general doesn’t do the mapping of where to place IEDs. A general provides overall direction and leadership and makes decisions. That’s not a difficult concept to understand. A child playing a war board game understands that.

            As for attacking an embassy, when there were mass demonstrations, there was also increased security. It would make more sense to infiltrate when security isn’t as intense and the targeted embassy isn’t necessarily in Iraq.

          • Iran could not and would not overcome an
            US Embassy WITHOUT assistance from the lo cal authorities for a start. That is how the demonstration not so long ago occurred. Now since the USA act of wait was also against IRAQ they and you are saying they were going to cooperate.
            however given the attack was supposedly imminent ( a word Trump cannot spell) They would be able to spell out all the details at least to the lawmakers in the USA. They could not.
            They could not.
            Why because like in all other things it was another Trump lie.

            They very idea is absurd in the extreme.

          • It’s really incredible that you don’t understand anything about the Middle East. Who said anything about overcoming embassies? News flash: Islamic militants engage in suicide attacks as a way to martyrdom.

          • They have to get past armed guards first.
            the are plenty of sunni suicide bombers very few shia. Suicide bombers would not get far into an embassy either. let alone kill most of the staff.

            Take another guess.

          • you still not have come to terms with the ‘reason’ put out by Trump.
            When you do come back and have a conversation.

            Can you outline how many hizbullah suicide bombers have actually occurred?

            By the way shias and Sunnis would not have a power sharing relationship in a so-called caliphate.

            By the way most people would have Hams starting when the wheelchair sheik co-founded the Organisation in the late 80s.

          • An example: Shiite suicide bombers who perpetrated the attacks in Beirut in 1983. There is no standard measure for likelihood. If it has happened, it can happen. Not a difficult concept.

            Military alliances can and have fallen apart after one or both sides no longer find it convenient.

            And by the way, there are no modern prophets and no such thing as a crystal ball. Israel could not have known that had been intended as a charitable organization would turn into something else. Of course, the higher and impossible standard is applied to Israel.

          • 1983???
            When they got the USA to scarper .

            you are stretching things.
            Sunnis do it all the time. Shias well do it every what 40 years if your absurd theories were correct.

            Yeah who would have known the wheelchair Sheik was capable of organising such things.

          • Yes, 1983. If you are aware of any Shiite fatwas against suicide bombing, then show it. Of course, Hizbollah calling for it now negates that. You are ignoring things.

            Also how did Yassin’s handicap affect his leadership?

          • We shall see. how that equates to a caliphate which was one of Neil many harebrained theories is yet to be explained.

            What has his handicap got to due with his leadership.Like Germany in 1917 with Lenin the Israelis let him in and wella.

          • Jumping from one subject to another. You were addressing suicide bombings and now we switch to a hypothetical Caliphate?

            The second part makes no sense whatsoever.

          • you are the dumpkopf who brought up suicide bombings as one of the reasons for the destruction of embassies without having a clue in what it entails. nothing came out of the trump administration even alluding to such a thing. Why they did not try this the other day is also inconsistent with this wild theory.

            your mate brought a caliphate without telling us how Iran would rule i over Sunnis. you are telling us they would share power. Yemen anybody

          • Nothing hair brained at all, it is not my fault you are uneducated. Whilst not exactly one of the pillars of Islam the importance of the caliph cannot be overlooked. In the Sunni branch they believe the caliph has to be elected whereas followers of Shia Islam believe that the caliph should be appointed by the imam chosen by God from the family of the house. Two such opposing beliefs create the big mess we currently have in the M.E. but like the rest of the world does it is easier to blame all the troubles in the M.E. on Israel. In the early 21st century, following the failure of the Arab Spring and defeat of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State”, there has been seen “a broad mainstream embrace of a collective Muslim identity” by young Muslims, and the appeal of a caliphate as an “idealized future Muslim state” has grown stronger.

        • That ignores what has been happening in the region. Have you considered why there have been numerous reports of the Gulf states covertly coordinating with Israel?

          • that has nothing to do with this incident boosting both Iranian influence and upping their activities.

  2. This report simply emphasises that the BBC World Service is under the control of the Iran propaganda machine – and that they are now breaking cover to announce that fact. So far as the assassination is concerned, Soleimani was in the process of providing weapons and funding Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi, Al-Shabaab and others puppet militant groups to murder more civilians in countries surrounding Israel and was party to the threats to “remove Israel off the map”. The world will be a safer place now.

  3. The BBC pro Iranian bias shines forth in their Islamic propaganda broadcast, what happened to impartiality requirements? ah yes impartiality does not pay for staff wages like Iran do.

  4. Pingback: 01/09 Links Pt1: Noah Rothman: Has Iran Blinked?; Yes, Obama Helped Fund the Iranian Regime; Mourning Soleimani, from Hollywood to the Campus; NYT Reporter: In Iran, Soleimani’s Death Is Like MLK’s Death in America – 24/6 Magazine

  5. What evidence do you have that this incident has boosted Iranian influence outside of Iran? Or there being any change in their activities? Just because it’s not splashed across headlines doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

      • Your naivety is astounding, everyone knows that Iran has built or is in the process of building attack underground complexes, missile sites, troop facilities and supply and attack tunnels on two fronts. Lebanon and Syria bordering Israel.
        They wish to push out the Americans from Iraq so that they can finish their new road and missile supply chain from Teheran to Lebanon
        This will allow them to maintain a sustained attack against Israel, who BTW is America’s ally in the M.E. Grab a pencil and join up the dots and guess what, only the corrupt UN could vote against that posing a threat to US troops and interests in the region.

        • ah yes the old everyone knows except that wasn’t the excuse used to kill him.
          That lie has been exposed.

          The one big thing he did in Lebanon was the training of hizbullah troops who showed they were more than a match for the IDF the last time they fought.

          • your alleged offences was not part of the Trump lies.
            not that you would know that . Probably affected by the egg taken off your face concerning your assassinations who were nor international political actors.

          • Just keep taking the pills until you become coherent. At least Trump is open and honest (perhaps too much so) unlike Iran and all their coerced proxies and militias. How anyone (although you try) can justify creating terrorist bases, launch sites and armies in neighbouring countries is beyond reason. It just proves to the outside world that Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion, that is hell bent on world domination through the creation of a caliphate. Unfortunately for you Israel is in the way, yet you have not got the cojones to have yet another go (sixth time lucky) at solving what you consider to be your problem.

          • yet again you ignores the lies Trump perpetrated for the assassination.

            Yeah those shies and Sunnis just love to get together and form a caliphate. One organisation tried and Iran was to the fore in destroying it.

            Iran is incapable of dominating the region as Shia is in a minority.

            Their downing of an airliner shows just how incompetent they are yet you perceive them to be a threat.

            Just to show you how stupid people are in the region.

            Hamas was created by Israeli intelligence and that was a roaring success.

            Just who will succeed the general here in all the areas he dipped his toes in should be an experience that is not worth waiting for.


          • Sure, it’s all lies because you disagree and you have all the evidence to state so. Right.

            Hizbollah is Shi’a and yet they work together with the Sunni in Syria and Gaza.

            You’re also saying because they mistook a civilian airliner for a military craft, that they cannot possibly target other craft. Where did you get that one?

            Israel created Hamas? More junk conspiracy theories.

          • really so hizbullah soldiers fight with Sunni soldiers? They hold joint forces each day.
            Is Saudi Arabia and Iran on speaking terms how about other Sunni nations? didst think so.

            Now you are on your own again in saying the plane was deliberately targeted.

            Any other theories?

          • They can make alliances as it suits their goals. That is also not a difficult concept. I did not say that they deliberately targeted a civilian airliner. It’s very clear that if they did target a civilian airliner, even if mistakenly, then they can also target a military craft. duh!

          • Who said they could not. Competent people can tell the difference.
            Of course competency is not high when people are on a war footing after an act of war is taken

          • you are the person who said you kill him to prevent further killings. That is revenge.

            He is killed but there are further killings. It is a very evil concept.

            I have no prob,em with capital punishment but that is part of a judicial matter not an act of war.

            Where do you stop. EVERYONE has blood on their hands in the Middle East.EVERYONE.

          • OMG, you must not understand English or you’re making this up as you go along, digging an ever-deepening hole. How is preventing someone from murdering others revenge?

            There is no court here because it is asymmetrical warfare.

          • Haha, Hamas was created by Israel, oh boy you are such a gullible conspiracy theorist, where do you find these lunatic websites? You will be telling me next that man did not land on the moon……………………….Take note though that the orthodox Jews prayed so much recently that the heavy rains flooded Tel Aviv killing two people trapped in a lift and of course Gaza was also flooded, I am sure your ‘special’ conspiracy website has released a rumour that rather than the heavy rains causing the floods, Israel purposely flooded Gaza by opening some secret flood gates. Perhaps if Hamas had not built so many cross border attack tunnels, they would not have acted as ‘storm drains’ and flooded out Gaza in an effort to drain away into the Mediterranean.

      • Why is it that no other western government disputes Soleimani’s role in the murder of American troops? Again, not such a difficult concept.

  6. No dumpkopf, I brought up suicide bombings because of you idiotic statement that they could not overcome embassy security, but you’ve shown a lack of simple comprehension that that is not necessarily the objective.

    I did not bring up the caliphate between us. YOU did. However, since it was introduced I commented that they have dealt with each other i.e, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas when it has served their mutual interests.

    • yeah right

      They get through both the Iraqi and the US military staff guarding the embassy and then go right into the embassy and then blow them up.

      Why did they not do it recently then?

      It also flies in the face of their retaliation which showed they clearly di not want war.

      what a dumkopf.

          • how can he do anything dead. attempting to destroy an embassy and kill people by suicide bombing in the most heavily protected anywhere.

            The Iraqi guards won’t be letting anyone through again. so how a suicide bomber or bombers get into the embassy to blow themselves up with the aim of destroying it and killing all staff is a moot point.
            Oh dear.
            do you ever think

          • Yet another of your stupid comments. Do you really think that suicide bombers never cause casualties? Those casualties would be the American and Iraqi guards who have every right to defend themselves. Just recently, three American midshipmen were murdered by a Saudi jihadist who was in the US for training.

            Do you ever think?

          • you dope. They would not get within cooee of the embassy.

            you cannot be that stupid. No-one is not even Trump

          • This is the attempt to storm the embassy you dope.

            “Protesters attempted to storm the US embassy in Baghdad, scaling the walls and forcing the gates of the compound, as hundreds demonstrated against American airstrikes on an Iran-backed militia group in Iraq. Video and pictures on social media show protesters smashing the windows of the embassy and burning items outside the embassy walls.”

            Idiocy abounds.

          • oh dear,
            It clearly occurred with the Iraqi Government approval in giving the US government a warning.
            no weapons to be seen at all.

            This clearly would not be allowed again unless the Iraqi Government wanted the embassy destroyed and all staff killed in concert with the

            As it is even in this instance neither would have occurred.

            As I said no-one but no-one is that stupid

          • Oh dear. Trying to make sense of that is like living in a bizarro world. Are you saying that the Iraqi government orchestrated this?

            In all that melee, it was impossible for a jihadi to kill anyone. This is stupidity that exceeds all bounds.

          • I wil say this very very slowly.

            People can only get into this area of Baghdad id the Iraqi Government allows it. You are saying without having any idea of what you are talking about that the Iraqi government would have been part of this mysterious plot.

            Yes I agree your theory is stupidity without any bounds at all.

          • Oh, then I suppose that all of those people who stormed the embassy are just a mirage. And I have not stated that the Iraqi government has orchestrated anything.

            This is either stupidity or you’re just trolling. I hope for humanity that it’s the latter.

          • You are more than stupid. They could not storm the embassy unless the Iraqi Government allowed them in there. It was unusual. look up the word

            It is heavily fortified.
            The Iraqi government was sending the US a message.

            After the US act of war this obviously will not be allowed.

          • I’m “more than stupid?” So, it’s your “expert” opinion that the US Embassy in Baghdad had sufficient fortifications? I’d like to see your credentials in that area or prove that it was sufficient without the Iraqi government’s aid. Funny, how the US has not mentioned anything about that.

            Calling me stupid is simply more of your hypocrisy. Has it occurred to you (I don’t know because this requires thought) that a mob can overwhelm armed guards? And then in so doing, are able to scale walls?

            Nah, it requires too much thought.

          • how many demonstration have been allowed before this one einstein.

            This was one of the main points made when countless people wrote about the incident.

            you are ignorance personified.

          • So what (I don’t think that a sardonic “Einstein” is sufficient for you)? Just because they didn’t try to storm before or because they weren’t successful before, doesn’t mean that they don’t try again.

            Just carping idiocy.

            P.S.: I still want to verify your credentials as an “expert” in security.

          • it won’t occur again as the Iraqi military will not allow it to occur.

            you do not have to be an expert merely know history.

          • You made a comment on the fortifications of the embassy, not on the storming of the Bastille.

            Back up what you say with evidence or admit that you have nothing.

          • Irrelevant. There have been demonstrations at public buildings throughout history. That doesn’t mean that the demonstrators have always had the intention of storming the building.

          • The point, which unbelievably escapes you, is that past occurrences do not necessarily apply here. All the flag waving and megaphone blasting demonstrations don’t necessarily lead to storming an embassy.

            Hopes dashed.

          • No the major point which obviously escapes you is why did they not get within cooee of the embassy.
            The last demonstration was a very large outlier

          • I don’t know what a cooee is, but if that means that they did not enter the embassy grounds, then you must believe that the photos taken were doctored, which is beyond silly.

          • On the other hand, maybe we should be thankful that you come here to post your drivel. This blog primarily focuses on the BBC’s lack of consistency in reporting as it concerns Israel and debunks those distortions. Posting here increases the site’s search rating and drives more people to read Hadar’s articles.

            So it’s good for Zionism.

          • What no email messages? no telephone? no Whatsapp? no Twitter? Perhaps it is not just it’s own citizens they place internet restrictions on, like most dictatorial regimes.

Comments are closed.