عدد المساهمات : 53082
تاريخ التسجيل : 21/09/2009
العمل/الترفيه : الأنترنيت والرياضة والكتابة والمطالعة
|موضوع: Formal complaint to the BBC 2009-11-29, 4:00 am|| |
Fw: Formal complaint to the BBC
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Dr Imad Jalaly [Imad.Jalaly@iee.org]"
Sent: Wednesday, 21 October, 2009 22:14:13
Subject: Formal complaint to the BBC
This is the BBC complaints site....we need 10 people to complain, use your own words...etc, it takes 3 min max.
From: Dr Imad Jalaly [Imad.Jalaly@iee.org]
Sent: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:22
Subject: Thanks BBC but NO Thanks for biased reporting
Only Arabs and Kurds in Kirkuk? I am sure British government own records since the first occupation of Iraq back in 1917 show this is not the case.
What happened the Turkmens who have always been the original inhabitants of the city and still are the majority.
Arabs started settling to the west since the thirties and Kurds have always lived in the countryside to the east and north. But in the city and the immediate surrounding where the oil is has always been a Turkmen city. All Iraqi censors show this. No offence meant to anyone, Kirkuk is an Iraqi city and will always remain so, all Iraqis have the right to live and work in Kirkuk, but facts are facts and no amount of BBC reported crap would change history.
We are well aware of this kind of propaganda, it smacks of old colonial British tactics perfected by the zionists in ARAB ISLAMIC PALESTINE. Just as Palestine will always be ARAB ISLAMIC Kirkuk will, its history is Turkmen, the name of its original residential areas and streets are Turkmen, its cemeteries are full of Turkmens, its character is Turkmen, in fact every Iraqi young and old know these. Even the UN has stated that the number of Kurds who were displaced from Kirkuk at the time of Saddam were about 11,000.
Kirkuk is nobody's Jerusalem it is Iraqi.
Besides, in whose interest the Americans remain in Kirkuk? Is it not to tilt the balance in favour of the aggressors?