, why, oh why is the BBC unable find space on its well-funded website to report this? For a government monopoly, the Beeb ought to be able to cobble together something.
Thanks to Hugh Hewitt.
Update 20th May:
As our B-BBC commentariat observe, there are doubts about this story. Amir Taheri, the Iranian-born scholar whose detailed report of new laws pushing an Islamic dress code has not been disproven, though the story based on Taheri’s report has been removed from the National Post website.
It’s not unheard of in recent memory for non-Muslim minorities to be given yellow ribbons, but I see why the BBC would be careful not to repeat an unsubstantiated report.
Could they not at least report the actual concerns governments have about this issue and others. Could they not at least report the undisputed debate by the Iranian parliament to strongly encourage (if not impose) more strict Islamic dress requirements on the populace?
Like a good nanny, the Beeb seems unwilling to report menacing signs from Iran lest those in her charge become overwhelmed.
Update 25th May: The Knowns: The National Post story has been withdrawn with an apology due to its lack of sourcing. Amir Taheri, a highly respected journalist of Iranian extraction stands by his original column, the basis of the National Post story. A law requiring distinctive dress conforming to Islamic practices AND identification of people by their ethnicity has been drafted and is under consideration. The Iranian Jewish community and the Jewish community at large express thanks for the public outcry against the apparent anti-semitic thrust of this proposal. The reaction to the story, even if the story turns out to be unfounded, is chillingly believable, and newsworthy of its own accord. History gives plenty of warrant for paying attention to this. The BBC is unable or unwilling to report on any of these knowns.
B-BBC should not apologize. The whole story is unclear. See 22nd May on That Iranian Badge :
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Off-Topic: I’m not sure I can believe what I’ve just heard. The BBC’s Today programme just had an item about some nutter who founded his own country in Svalbard, and they some expert on international affairs on who claimed that “most of the world’s problems today are caused by the Untied States” which he claimed was “very large and very violent” (neither of these unsubstantiated assertions were challenged by Humphreys – in fact he hummed in agreement) and used this as a justification for his views that the world should be broken up into lots and lots of tiny states, saying that Scotland should be independent from Britain, which again went unchallenged.
It seems quite pathetic that the Beeb uses even ‘novelty’ pieces like that to indulge their anti-Americanism and push their views on the breakup of the Union.
“Will BiasedBBC be publishing an apology on their website for slating the BBC for not covering a story that turned out not to be true?
Nah, thought not!”
Why should they apologise when they had absolutely no way of knowing that the story was untrue? If you really are John Simpson then I must say that you appear to be a very childish person.
The BBC rarely apologies for putting out stories that have no factual basis – viz a plane crash in Kenya which was a training exercise
Nor does the BBC apologise for ignoring news items or even fabricating them such as the claims of detention centres run by the CIa so secret that noone can find them.
All in all speculation is best left out of news broadcasts – I do hope the BBC can manage this feat
Amir Taheri is standing by his story.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19508
I think that makes it even more disgraceful that this should not be examined properly by the BBC.
The New York Sun has run another backgrounder :
http://www.nysun.com/article/33126
It seems quite pathetic that the Beeb uses even ‘novelty’ pieces like that to indulge their anti-Americanism and push their views on the breakup of the Union.
BritishStatesman | 23.05.06 – 8:34 am | #
The irony is, the BBC is the most europhile media organisation this side of the atlantic. Isn’t that going rather in the opposite direction?
Then again, having read some of the proposals for breaking up the EU states in to regional entities, perhaps it’s not such a contradictory view…
To answer the questions posed by the origional post. Why didn’t the BBC run the story?
It wasn’t true.
Next example of bias please!
Amir Taheri stands by his story.
He knows more than any of us about Iran. If he withdraws – fine. But he has not.
Alan – can you refute the two Taheri stories ?
Alan
Could you give any reasons why you believe the story is not true. Have you been to Iran lately? Or do you know anyone in Iran that knows,and would tell you the truth even if they knew it?
I do think you would be well advised not to think that if the BBC does not report something it is not true. This would be a dangerous possition to take for your free thinking mind. Remember it does not matter really what we all think, because when Iran gets the bomb and starts directly intimmidateing us with it, we will all have brownstuff in our pants.
If you or anyone out there thinks life in the western world will ever be anything like as free,or prosperous, as it is still just, now, When Iran has the power to blow away half of Europe in an afternoon. Please Please think a little more. The bomb does not have to be used to have a incredible effect on European and American politics and its peoples everyday lifes.
Gary
Sure. According to AP who have seen a copy of this new bill there is no mention of any colour coded clothing for various religious minorities.
As I’m sure people here realise I do work for the BBC. I find this site enjoyable and thought provoking. I hope it’s ok if I can challenge and or contribute to the debate. There are 25,000 staff (although that number is dropping rapidly) within the BBC and we don’t all agree on everything.
But back to this story. The reason the BBC didn’t mention it at all is because AP and presumeably the BBC’s own sources in Iran said it wasn’t true.
I’ve tried doing a limited search myself (on my day off, I’m not wasting your cash!) and while I can source denials to people like AP (see link below) which is a trusted news organisation, I can only track the original story back to an organisation in New York that seems to offer experts in return for cash. Nothing wrong with experts being paid for their time, of course, but in the end I’d guess the BBC is giving more weight to the views of people actually in Iraq with direct access to people and paperwork.
It isn’t the job of journalists for the BBC to say “Iraq is scary”, Gary. We have Fox News for that (and the world would be a duller place without it).
What the BBC will give you is the facts and let you make up your own mind! Obviously this site wouldn’t exist if you felt it was doing that correctly all the time, but in this case (and I don’t always think this) the story on B-BBC is just wrong.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2006/05/20/1589977-ap.html
Alan,
“while I can source denials to people like AP (see link below) which is a trusted news organisation, ”
just how “trustful” realy is AP?. For a long list of misinformation/bias/distortion etc (with analysis/rebuttal), see the following (a BBC buddy):
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2
BTW, analysis of BBC bias is on the menue as well on CAMERA’s site
Alan
You are displaying your ignorance, I think, and the BBC mindset. If you mean you can only source this back to “an organisation in New York that offers speakers for a fee” you are indulging in smear tactics.
Why don’t you tell the truth – that the Iran dress code story originated with Amir Taheri, an eminent journalist, an ex-editor of the biggest newspaper in Teheran ?
He has written two articles about this matter – and stands by what he said in his original article. He is just as likely to be well-informed about what is happening in Iran as the BBC. Probably more likely.
And don’t give us that rubbish about the BBC just giving us facts and letting us make our own minds up. BBC output is replete with spin and opinion. What we really want is for the BBC to give us ALL the facts, and NO opinion. Not just the facts it chooses to give us, larded with leftie opinion most of the time. Dripping with anti-US bias.
Go read the Taheri articles and tell us what isn’t true in what he says. He did not say the discriminatory dress was in the bill – he said it was under discussion, was being considered.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4&k=28534
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/68914.htm
And Iran has plenty of form on this :
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5513
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5519
The fact of the matter is that the BBC is not trustworthy any more. It is more than happy to report any speculation that is harmful to Bush. But in dodging the issue on this case – not even reporting that there had been speculation, or even reporting the CLEAR FACT that there is a very restrictive dress code being legislated for ALL Iranians, the BBC is once again showing its bias. It is appeasing the Islamists now, just as it was appeasing in the late 1930s.
You say that we can always turn to Fox for alternative views. No we can’t, that is a US channel. And we don’t have free expression on talk radio in this country either – we just have the relentless leftie spin from Radio 4 and 5Live. What the hell is the BBC commissioning this Friday’s Play of the Week except to have a bash at Bush ?
Alan
You say that AP can be wholly trusted. How gullible of you.
How about AP’s careful excision of key words from the latest Osama Bin Laden statement ?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007046.php
AP which is a trusted news organisation
It is as biased against the Bush adminstration & policies as the BBC.
A few months ago an AP report had Ms Wark shouting “Bush lied”
Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans’ flood defences could be overcome has emerged.
The footage, obtained by the Associated Press
We saw the video. It didn’t support the spin put on it by trustworthy AP & idiot Justin Webb.
The BBC’s Justin Webb reporting from Washington said the footage did the president no favours.
It shows plainly worried officials telling Mr Bush very clearly before the storm hit that it could breach New Orleans’ flood barriers.
The above words are still in a BBC report despite the latter addition of these words, that totally discredit the rest of the report –
Earlier the Associated Press said Mr Bush had been warned of the levees being breached in the video.
But subsequently it issued a clarification which said that the president was warned about water overrunning the levees rather than breaking them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4765058.stm
Actually I think you are right about the AP Levee story which the BBC (IMHO) ran much higher up the bulletins that it deserved. Once I watched it I couldn’t see any evidence for the claims AP was making and we seemed to be repeating without the evidence.
But back to the origional point about this story. There’s clearly lots of concern in the Blogosphere about this, but that’s pretty much all that shows up on searches. But the origional story has now been taken down. Yes, various governments have reacted to the story, but once again that’s not proof it is happening.
Do you honestly think if AP or BBC staff in Iraq discovered plans afoot to make Jews wear yellow they wouldn’t file the story? It would be huge news.
Reporting rumour and reaction to it is a very interesting problem for any journalist. For example should a journalist have reported the rumours that a black girl was raped by asian men in Birmingham? In the end those rumours lead to the recent Handsworth riots.
I don’t think there is any agenda here. There is just one source for the story and more than one that say it’s not true. A single source is great for blog discussion, but for the BBC or indeed any other mainstream journalists it’s not really good enough.
Oh, and dumbcisco you can certainly watch Fox over here. It’s on Sky around 510ish as I remember. I love it. Bill O’ Reilly is great!
Ala,
“Reporting rumour and reaction to it is a very interesting problem for any journalist. For example should a journalist have reported the rumours that a black girl was raped by asian men in Birmingham? In the end those rumours lead to the recent Handsworth riots”.
In the context of telling the riots’ story, the BBC must tell what caused the riots. That is its ultimate job. Nobody is asking for spinning and bias, only fact./ The rumors were an important part of the story, and not telling it, leave the readers as uniformed, and the BBC not doing its job. There are countless subjects that are being treated similarly, and you end up reading completely incomprehensible articles, gaining no understanding whatsoever.
Certainly the rumours should be reported as part of the story of why the riots started but I read Alan as saying that the rumours should not have been reported while they were still rumours and before the riots had started, which seems right to me.
you may be correct. However there are so many BBC stories that lack substantial context that, such as omitting the ethnicity of perpetrators if they happen to be Muslims, or Blacks when they have clear relevance to the story (such as the above), that I doubt who is right.
Rachel | 24.05.06 – 5:57 pm
I agree with that.
We dont want the beeb or the msm in general helping to spread unsubstantiated rumours but they should tell us as much as possible.
Given the emphasis the beeb puts on race when it can show whites in a bad light skin colour is obviously important to them so they should be consistent.
Alan if you stumble across Owen Bennet Jones in the BBC corridors, ask him if he remembers interviewing one of Iran’s vice presidents (yes, I believe there are a few at any given time), a woman who was one of the student leaders who took over the US embassy and terrorised the occupants for all that time.
I’ve no doubt his face will light up. He got on famously with her. The airwaves were fairly crackling with the electricity between them. I guess for him she epitomised the romanticism of the revolutionary striding off into an imperialism-free sunset, having dealt the imperial power a daring blow.
And he’s not the only BBC journalist who appears to have a love affair with Iran.
When you think of it, it’s beyond belief that the BBC is on such friendly terms with a regime which:
*Hangs teenagers from cranes for having sex
*Has threatened the existence of Israel
*Arms and trains terrorists for the express purpose of killing Israeli men, women and children
*Is pushing for the violent domination of Shia Islam over all other faiths
*Is racing to develop the bomb.
And you seem to regard them as incapable of pinning yellow cloth to Jews?!
I’ve heard of rose-tinted spectacles, but you’ve got blinkers on as well.
Rachel,
In the end we certainly reported the rumours being the cause of the riots. But the journalistically difficult part was the days before when things were very intense on the streets.
Despite the fact there were meetings and even demonstrations outside the shops where this alledged rape took place we (and more importantly the police) could not pin down as truth any part of the story.To repeat such unsubstantiated and extremely inflammatory allegations would have been wrong.
Once the rioting started the situation became very different.
I would simply venture to suggest this story is similar. This is a very extreme story, totally shocking and abhorrant to all. But it comes from one source and no one, not the BBC or any Government has been able to find any truth to it. So it isn’t reported.
That was the point of my original post.
I just hoped B-BBC might make the reasons the BBC didn’t run the story a bit clearer on the original post, not everyone wants to wade through lots of debate and comment to find the truth.
Bryan. I don’t regard Iran as “incapable” of anything. The point I was making was the original story on B-BBC was wrong. The BBC wouldn’t run a story that only came from one source and that other reporters actually living in the country said was wrong.
As for Owen Bennet Jones, well I don’t know the guy. I’ve never seen the interview so can’t comment. Though I think you need slightly more eveidence for the BBC’s “friendliness” with Iran than you apparently observing “crackling sexual tension”.
Thanks for all your responses and thoughts. I hope you enjoyed my contribution. See you in another thread!
Alan
The ORIGINAL story on the Iran dress code was by Amir Taheri. He has said he stands by the story – so it was NOT taken down. You have not produced anytyhing to suggest that his story was false – although I had challenged you to do this.
So you are wrong on a matter of fact on this.
The BBC indulges in speculation all the time. It splashes reports by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch that are based purely on speculation, for example.
It has chosen not to publish on this – not to report that one of the most distinguished commentators on Middle East affairs has raised the issue. And that it had been causing a huge fuss, whatever the way things are going in Iran.
I can’t get Fox News without a full subscription to Sky – on top of what I am bled by the BBC. Your remark was typically BBC-Bourbon – “let them eat cake”.
But apropos Fox – at least hannity and Colmes allows both sides to be heard on Fox. And studies have shown that Fox gives a far more balanced mix of interviewees to state their case than the other US networks, wehich like the BBC are skewed to the left with their presenters and interviewees and most of their panel discusions.
I am screwed by the BBC to support a huge news organisationd n that publishes stories on just about everything under the sun, much of it without any news value whatsoever. That is why I object to the deliberate decisions at the BBC to avoid this story.
dumbisco
If you follow the original link you find the story has been taken down.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073
I’m sorry you object to the BBC avoiding this story, but as I’ve tried to make clear there is no agenda. The story (and by implication the furore around it) just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It isn’t a story. And that’s why you won’t find it on any other news website or channel. It seems most journalists would share the BBC’s decision on this.
As for your other points, well… you don’t like the BBC. Fair enough. But you are wrong on this point.
Cheers!
Cheers
Alan
Taheri’s story preceded the one you linked to.
He stands by that story.
And you still cannot say that Taheri’s story was wrong.
It is not the BBC I don’t like. Indeed like most pother peole I used to regard the BBC well. What I don’t like these days is the way the BBC constantly spins the news. Plus its gross inefficiency, employing far too many people and forever trying to extend its empire. All at our expense.
The BBC is living on borrowed time but still behaves with arrogance.
The BBC is the most trusted media outlet in the UK. The poll also suggests that they are one of the most trusted in the world. Of course you will think that is because the viewers/listeners are all mindless automatons. Note: The poll was part conducted by the BBC, for all you conspiracy theorists!
Simpson John,
So… what does “the most trusted media outlet” story have to do with the BBC refusing to cover developments in Iran which inform the license fee-paying public?
Alan,
Thanks for visiting. I wish I had a bit more time to interact with you, but I see that there has been a useful discussion among our B-BBC community.
As several of the commenters pointed out, the original piece by Amir Taheri (who has been an occasional BBC guest!) has neither been retracted nor refuted. The BBC seems strangely disinterested. Ok, it could be a volatile situation, but did that stop the Beeb from reporting Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?
It is a story. Let’s have it.
Alan
Do you or other people of your generation have any concept why people of my generation feel that the BBC is biased ?
I am not Jewish. I have no close friends who are Jewish. I make my own mind up.
I am now utterly convinced that the BBC spins the news against Israel. All its reporting from the Middle East is suffused with appeasement.
The BBC omits serious news about the Islamists – including the Iran leadership. The Iran leadership that has been suppoting or indulging in terrorism for 25 years.
There are a damn sight more people at the BBC than you would admit who spin the news, either by commission or in this case by omission.
I say again – the BBC cannot be trusted any more.
Alan
Whatever the merits about the dress code story – you are telling PORKIES when you say that all the other media ignored it. How about these stories from important media about plans in Iran to impose restrictive dress codes :
AP reported by the Washington Post :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000467.html
More AP :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961377561&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000467.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961377561&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Apart from AP and the BBC, which international media feed has “ignored the story”. Reuters maybe – you said that EVERYONE had ignored the story.
Sorry, sunshine – here is a Reuters report –
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=82553&d=22&m=5&y=2006
Do you actually knpw anything about new
More from other major media :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196349,00.html
Sorry – my post was interrupted.
Alan
Do you actually know anything about news agencies ?
You said that everyone was ignoring the story.
I have cited several Associated Press stories, plus an example of a Reuters story.
What is the other international news agency – ANSWER = UPI :
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r
Your assertion that major media did not publish anything about the story is untrue – and I am sure you knew that when you posted, unless you don’t know about Google. Here is the Washington Post :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000467.html
Here is another reference to Reuters reporting on the story :
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=82553&d=22&m=5&y=2006
All that took me about 10 minutes on Google to find.
Alan – you are telling porkies if you maintain that the media ignored the Taheri story. It was reported by ALL the international media – EXCEPT the BBC.
Alan
Please – before you reply to my smackdown :
1 will you tell us if you have checked your porkies about all the media ignoring the press code story with BBC line management and/or BBC editors ?
2 if you have not – what the hell are you talking about if you cannot even do a check with Google ?
3 if you have checked your line up the line – please say so. So that we can know that the BBC house line follows the porkies you have been spinning here.
dumbcisco, I think you are really wilfully misunderstanding me to make your point. As far as I can see those links all refer to the AP story that says there are no plans to make christians, jews et al wear different coloured fabrics. And that backs up the point I made. Apart from the original article there are no other stories saying christians will have to wear red fabric etc. Your use of Google just reinforces my argument and weakens yours. As I said at in my first post, because this is a single source story that no one else can back up is the reason the BBC hasn’t done anything on this. (That was the original question after all).
As for all the cheap rhetoric, deliberate misunderstanding and insults in your post… well to answer them.
I’m a BBC journalist posting here in a private capacity. There is no “line”. I’ve not “checked your line up the line”. Obviously since I’m the (admittedly anonymous!) face of the BBC here I really can’t sling insults and such like around. I’m here to debate, I hope you are too.
Cheers!
Al
PS Enjoy your bank holiday weekend, there’s plenty on BBC TV, radio and online! 😉
Alan
The BBC kicked off the weekend on Radio 4 with an atrocious “play” called Abrogate. Unfunny, totally biased, just a long rant against Bush.
The BBC would NEVER have run such a play against Clinton.
It was UTTER BIAS.
Yes, AP and Reuters and UPI ran fairly long stories about the possibility of dress codes in Iran. Which disproved utterly your constant line that no other media had touched the story.
But by far the worst BBC bias this week has been in its treatment of Beslaqn. Absolutely sickening refusal to use the T-word. Can you deny that the people who killed all those children were terrorists ?
And you still avoid the point Taheri has stressed. There is no denying that dress code legislation has been debated in Iran – for some years, and now being accelerated. Dress code that is fairly oppressive to people who do not want to wear prescribed Muslim attire. That is “Point 1” None of the media stories denied that fact. Until Taheri’s story we had not known about this. Now we do – but no thanks to the BBC.
“Point 2” is the new news – that there has been discussion about adding clauses to the proposed legislation that would impose distinctive dress on religious minorities. Taheri maintains that there HAS been such discussions. The fact that the text of the legislation – dating from a couple of years ago – has not yet been altered does not mean that the matter has not been not under discussion. None of the other media reports appear to deny this possibility.
Sorry – I simply find the BBC far far less reliable that Taheri.
Your bloated organ is untrustworthy – because it shows bias across the board.
Alan
Maybe you don’t understand the legislative process. Look at the current Education Bill. Its text sets out the Government proposals. But that does not alter the fact that there have been many discussions about altering the text. The BBC has spent lots of time talking about pressures from the left of the Labour Party wanting to change the Bill. The fact that the text has not been altered does not stop the BBC reporting on these pressures, the alternative proposals.
The Taheri stuff is like that. The “Bill” is as proposed originally. But there have been discussions about adding to the “Bill” – or have you any grounds to deny Taheri on this ? Without any proper grounds, the BBC has chosen to ignore the story altogether. Including ignoring the purpose of the Bill as its stands – to impose restrictive dress codes on all Iranians.
Alan
I have been saying the same as the latter part now added to the original BBBC post – headed “Update 25 May : The Knowns ……….
and ending “The BBC is unable or unwilling to report on any of these knowns.”
Comments on that ? Surely someone at the BBC has taken a negative editorial decision on this, a decision to report NOTHING – in spite of all the reports on the international newswire services and elsewhere.
dumbcisco
Look. Lets try this a different way. You’re a journalist… you come into work saying you have this amazing story that jews in Iraq are being forced by law to wear strips of yellow fabric. I ask you for proof. You tell me you have ONE source. I’m not convinced and ask for a second source.
This is an argument that could have occured in the newsrooms of Fox, The Telegraph, The BBC. But no editor worth his salt would run this story. Especially after the paper that ran the story originally has apologised and pulled it.
B-BBC makes a really good case on so many occasions for the problems and failures of the BBC. Why on EARTH you chose to try and defend this well written but frankly unsubstantiated story is beyond me.
Challenge me on almost any other issue raise on B-BBC and I would admit defeat! But again and again on this story I say the BBC was right not to report it!
Hey ho. Did you enjoy Dr Who? x
Alan
We must disagree.
Even the basic true story that there is legislation moving forward applying a restrictive dress code to everyone in Iran is worth reporting.
Sky has about a dozen stories on their website each day. The BBC has hundreds. I cannot believe that the basics of this story are unworthy of a mention on the Middle East page that carries dozens of stories at a time.
(Dr Who – childish pap but sells well.)
Alan
Your mention of the BBC always wanting second sources is a joke. If they get a story in on Reuters or AP they print it. Oh – and remember Hutton ?
Actually, after a re-think I agree. It would be completley ridiculous for the BBC to cover this story without proper evidence. Sorry Alan, you are, of course, entirely correct.
dumbisco: Gosh. Well thanks for the debate. Now when I get a second I must “listen again”to this Radio 4 drama that’s annoying everyone.
The post at 5.28pm on 30 May in my name was a false post. Someone else was using my name.
I think the BBC was wrong not to cover any part of this story – even the KNOWN FACT that dress code legislation is under way.
Sorry everyone, someone is pretending to be me and making false comments in my name. Hopefully this will end soon when they get bored. I do however stand by my earlier comment. It is quite justifiable for the BBC not to cover this story. Apologies for the confusion.
The statement at 3.31pm was not by me, nor the earlier statement of 5.28pm on 30 May.
I raised the whole issue of the BBC’s failure to cover the Iran dress code issue and I have no reason to change my mind.
Any fool who thinks others would be persuaded that I would retract a serious complaint against the BBC without any proper reason is wasting everyone’s time and abusing the site.
A journalist with more guts than we usually see from the ensconced-in-Baghdad BBC gives a personal close-up view of the US Marine Corps in operation in Haditha :
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/30/damon.iraq.btsc/
Semper Fi (fidelis) or Always faithful is the Marine motto.
Semper sourceless/smarmy/seditious is the BBC’s motto these days.
Sorry again, looks like that imposter is still posting in my name. Whoever you are, this is getting out of hand. The BBC should never publish such a story. Whoever you are, you are mocking the fair minded balance that symbolises this site.
As for Haditha, the military and the President (God save him) have both condemned these actions. They are systematic of a moron minority, not the majority. Even I am starting to get embarrassed about this whole affair. Unthinkable, I know, but maybe the anti-war left were right. I can’t believe I even said that.
The post at 2.38pm is a FRAUD, like several others on other threads today. Thankfully most people would recognise that posts like that are hoaxes.
What sort of small mind has to resort to hoax posts ?
What sort of small mind has to resort to hoax posts?
A mind that can’t come up with an original thought of its own.
Never mind. Most of the regulars on this site know the real dumbcisco.