The US embassy in Baghdad in Iraq was attacked by a mob today. They broke down the gates and set the embassy on fire. The marines guarding the embassy fired tear gas and stun grenades in an attempt to stop the mob. That's about all we know for certain; it's not even clear if the attack is over as I write this. Nor do we have word of casualties, if any.
This is big news. The amazing thing, however, is how varied the reports of events in Baghdad are. Here's an example:
1. The Daily Mail reports that the mob consisted of members of an Iranian backed (and controlled) militia. They were attacking in retaliation for the air strikes the other day by the US on camps controlled by the militia. The US airstrikes were in retaliation for eleven separate rocket attacks on camps where US forces are located which culminated in an attack about a week ago in which an American contractor was killed.
2. CBS News is reporting that the mob consisted of Iraqis who were angered by the American violation of Iraqi sovereignty demonstrated by the US air strikes.CBS didn't mention the rocket attacks on the American bases that led to the airstrikes. Nor did CBS mention that the militia is controlled by Iran or even that the mob attacking the embassy was comprised of members of the militia.
It surprises me that the British news outlet gives a rather complete account of the events, while CBS, a major American media news source, slants the story in an anti-American and pro-Iranian way. You may ask why I write that CBS is pro-Iranian, but the answer requires a bit of explanation. The militia in question is funded, led and controlled by Iran. It makes no moves without direction from the mullahs in Tehran. There can be little doubt that the attack by the militia was directed by the Iranians. There is also little doubt that today's attack was just an expression by Iraqis of anger at the
violation of their sovereignty. Remember, there has been fighting in Iraq since 2002. Much of that fighting was by US forces. There have been literally thousands of air strikes by American planes in Iraq. There is no reason why ordinary Iraqis would suddenly be upset by yet another air strike. Indeed, there really is no reason to believe that ordinary Iraqis would be so upset that they would risk their lives to attack the US embassy. This was no spontaneous mob that suddenly set upon the embassy. That sounds strangely like the bogus story that Obama and Clinton put out when the Benghazi consulate was attacked in 2012 -- they claimed the attack was in response to a youtube video that had been viewed only 200 times.
In the next few days, there will likely be some response by the USA to this attack on our embassy. It is very likely that the response will center on Iran rather than just on the militia it controls in Iraq. The Iranians need to understand that America will not sit by and let Iran use proxy forces to attack us. CBS seems to be gearing up to be able to proclaim that no matter what that response is, that it is an over-reaction by President Trump who is trying to change the discussion away from impeachment. That's sad. It's truly sad.
This is big news. The amazing thing, however, is how varied the reports of events in Baghdad are. Here's an example:
1. The Daily Mail reports that the mob consisted of members of an Iranian backed (and controlled) militia. They were attacking in retaliation for the air strikes the other day by the US on camps controlled by the militia. The US airstrikes were in retaliation for eleven separate rocket attacks on camps where US forces are located which culminated in an attack about a week ago in which an American contractor was killed.
2. CBS News is reporting that the mob consisted of Iraqis who were angered by the American violation of Iraqi sovereignty demonstrated by the US air strikes.CBS didn't mention the rocket attacks on the American bases that led to the airstrikes. Nor did CBS mention that the militia is controlled by Iran or even that the mob attacking the embassy was comprised of members of the militia.
It surprises me that the British news outlet gives a rather complete account of the events, while CBS, a major American media news source, slants the story in an anti-American and pro-Iranian way. You may ask why I write that CBS is pro-Iranian, but the answer requires a bit of explanation. The militia in question is funded, led and controlled by Iran. It makes no moves without direction from the mullahs in Tehran. There can be little doubt that the attack by the militia was directed by the Iranians. There is also little doubt that today's attack was just an expression by Iraqis of anger at the
violation of their sovereignty. Remember, there has been fighting in Iraq since 2002. Much of that fighting was by US forces. There have been literally thousands of air strikes by American planes in Iraq. There is no reason why ordinary Iraqis would suddenly be upset by yet another air strike. Indeed, there really is no reason to believe that ordinary Iraqis would be so upset that they would risk their lives to attack the US embassy. This was no spontaneous mob that suddenly set upon the embassy. That sounds strangely like the bogus story that Obama and Clinton put out when the Benghazi consulate was attacked in 2012 -- they claimed the attack was in response to a youtube video that had been viewed only 200 times.
In the next few days, there will likely be some response by the USA to this attack on our embassy. It is very likely that the response will center on Iran rather than just on the militia it controls in Iraq. The Iranians need to understand that America will not sit by and let Iran use proxy forces to attack us. CBS seems to be gearing up to be able to proclaim that no matter what that response is, that it is an over-reaction by President Trump who is trying to change the discussion away from impeachment. That's sad. It's truly sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment