# Killing of Qassem Suleimani



## cremeegg (4 Jan 2020)

In my opinion both the US and Iran are culpable in the conflict between them in the Middle East. For someone who grew up seeing the US as morally superior to its opponents, because it was a democracy, because of the Marshall plan this is a shift in view point.

The US doesn't need to be involved in the ME, Iran has no choice.

This particular act is clearly murder, whether it is murder of a malign influence or murder of a patriotic Iranian is a matter of opinion, perhaps both.

Two new things flow from this killing.

The idea of asymmetric war has been turned on its head. it used to mean that small state or non state actors could strike against major powers who were restrained in striking back. This successful drone strike against a man who presumably had serious security shows that the US does not need aircraft carriers or armoured divisions to strike its enemies. Kim Jong 3 will never sleep soundly again.

The other thing is that I believe that *this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq.* Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jan 2020)

cremeegg said:


> The other thing is that I believe that *this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq.* Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.



I was thinking along similar lines.

The mainstream media can bleat the line that the US has terminated another 'No.1 terrorist in the world' (i've lost count of how many no.1 terrorists there are).
But to me, and this is just my speculation, this attack smacks of a parting shot. 
I was under the impression that Baghdad was governed by a US friendly administration and effectively cordoned off by US military. So it struck me as to why, the most senior military general of Iran was in Baghdad at all?  It would seem like a curious place for such a senior official to be conducting military operations as alleged? 
The only reason I can fathom is that Iraq is not, or soon not to be, governed by US friendly but rather a government friendly to Iran and reflective of the majority Shia population. 
Despite US claims that they defeated ISIS, my own cursory understanding is that it was the combined military alliance of Syria, Iran and Russia that defeated ISIS. This is reflected in fact that Assad remains in power in Syria, and that the 'moderate rebels' (is there such a thing?) are seemingly no longer a thing. 
It would also go to explain somewhat, why the most senior military general of Iran felt confident (overly so, as it happens) enough to travel to Baghdad. 
Reading between the lines of Trumps statement, he spoke in a manner of a Marvel comic hero citing the US ability to come after, and strike down, whomever, wherever, the US considered necessary to do so. 
It didn't resonate to me as US military might, but of an acceptance that the US has lost Iraq but still has a sting in its tail.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Jan 2020)

You know my main source for political wisdom are the betting markets.  The Donald has just gone odds on for the first time to Keep America Great in November.
_Wolfie_, I presume that given your Worldview that you welcome US withdrawal from the ME.


----------



## joe sod (5 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So it struck me as to why, the most senior military general of Iran was in Baghdad at all? It would seem like a curious place for such a senior official to be conducting military operations as alleged?



Yes I also thought the same, what was he doing there? It does back up the american narrative that the iranians were stirring trouble in the region. I think they were very surprised that the americans carried out this hit as trump had been very reluctant to engage the iranians before this when they took down the american drone and attacked the saudi refinery earlier this year.
How will they respond now though?, Maybe they will target a senior US diplomat somewhere in the world possibly not in the middle east. Whatever they do though they will have to claim direct responsibility for, they cant really use proxies like hezbollah because that would show that they are afraid to retaliate against the americans directly, and because the americans have claimed responsibility for this hit


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> It does back up the american narrative that the iranians were stirring trouble in the region.



I agree. But also suggests that Iran has, under its various militia, taken control of large areas of Iraq up to, and including Baghdad itself. 
Im only speculating, but the most senior official of any military are rarely engaged in the frontline. They tend to operate out of harms reach (in this case, a miscalculation), but nevertheless, it only makes sense to me that Sulemani was in Baghdad because he was satisfied that Iranian militia could secure his safety in controlled areas. 
In other words, Iraq has, or is likely to, to fall under the control of Iran. 
If im correct, this would be a major propaganda coup for the Islamic regime, and a humiliation for the US. 
Not something any President seeking re-election would like to have on their books. 
Hence, the targeted strike against Sulemani and Trumps comments that the US can target anyone, anywhere. 



joe sod said:


> How will they respond now though?,



Your guess is as good as mine. Certainly targeting US diplomats is now an option. 
My (total) guess is the Iranian objective is to drive out all US military and diplomatic personnel from Iraq and that will remain the focus. 
Since this attack I have been trying to brush up on political affairs in Iraq and far from my impression that the Iraqi government was a US puppet government, it appears that it is firmly under the hold of Iranian supported Shia politicians.
17yrs after the invasion and the 'War on Terror', after one million dead Iraqis, thousands of US soldiers killed, the displacement of millions of people and the destabilization of the entire region, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars - what have they gained? 
Makes me sick to see how these war-mongers and their cheerleaders in the media have debased the United States of America.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jan 2020)

The Twitter feed is on overdrive now. 
And if the latest news is accurate, then we are truly looking at a despicable act. 
Apparently, allegedly, Trump called the Iraqi PM Madhi, to act as a mediator between US and Iran for peace talks in Baghdad. Then Trump gave the order to kill him! 
If this is true, and as much as I dont like Trump, I really hope it isnt true. 
If it is true, then the office of President of the United States has truly been dragged into the gutter. Impeachment wouldn't be near good enough.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Jan 2020)

Wow! As you say Wolfie, let's hope that is not true.


----------



## EmmDee (6 Jan 2020)

cremeegg said:


> The other thing is that I believe that *this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq.* Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.



They'll be kicked out. And I'm not convinced they want to be - they have significant military bases which I think they'd still like to maintain even if they want to reduce numbers in country



WolfeTone said:


> I was under the impression that Baghdad was governed by a US friendly administration and effectively cordoned off by US military. So it struck me as to why, the most senior military general of Iran was in Baghdad at all?  It would seem like a curious place for such a senior official to be conducting military operations as alleged?



He was returning from Saudi Arabia after a de-escalation meeting. Allegedly bringing back Saudi's proposals to reduce tension in the area. Some speculation that the meeting was US sponsored. Essentially a diplomatic meeting


----------



## Firefly (6 Jan 2020)

Whether right or wrong, whether justified or not, it's pretty impressive that the US knew where Soleimani was & was able to take him out less than 3 days after their embassy was attacked.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Apparently, allegedly, Trump called the Iraqi PM Madhi, to act as a mediator between US and Iran for peace talks in Baghdad. Then Trump gave the order to kill him!


Have you a source for that?


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Whether right or wrong, whether justified or not, it's pretty impressive that the US knew where Soleimani was & was able to take him out less than 3 days after their embassy was attacked.


Not if this is true;


EmmDee said:


> He was returning from Saudi Arabia after a de-escalation meeting. Allegedly bringing back Saudi's proposals to reduce tension in the area. Some speculation that the meeting was US sponsored. Essentially a diplomatic meeting


----------



## Leper (6 Jan 2020)

Some interesting points here and I thought the attack was caused somewhat by  the aircraft company Boeing being in big trouble and it needed a war to jump-start its provision of aircraft and missiles.


----------



## EmmDee (6 Jan 2020)

Leper said:


> Some interesting points here and I thought the attack was caused somewhat by  the aircraft company Boeing being in big trouble and it needed a war to jump-start its provision of aircraft and missiles.



Nah - Occom's razor. You don't need a complex conspiracy to explain something when there are much more straightforward explanations. President under pressure looks for decisive action to impress base. And war (or threat of war) tends to immunise Presidents from domestic pressures - at least initially.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> Have you a source for that?


Well, RTE, BBC and SKY have failed to report this stunning revelation of _Wolfies_.  But what would we expect from these mouthpieces of the Anglo Saxon imperialist.  Disappointingly, we might have expected better from Al Jazeera,  but nought.  Hopefully _Wolfie _will respond to your question and point us towards the fountain of TRUTH.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Disappointingly, we might have expected better from Al Jazeera,  but nought.


If not them then Channel 4 news should be on top of it!


----------



## joe sod (6 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> He was returning from Saudi Arabia after a de-escalation meeting. Allegedly bringing back Saudi's proposals to reduce tension in the area. Some speculation that the meeting was US sponsored. Essentially a diplomatic meeting


That seems to be the case, this is really bad so. It looks like this is a massive mistake. How are negotiations supposed to happen when the negotiator gets killed


----------



## EmmDee (6 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well, RTE, BBC and SKY have failed to report this stunning revelation of _Wolfies_.  But what would we expect from these mouthpieces of the Anglo Saxon imperialist.  Disappointingly, we might have expected better from Al Jazeera,  but nought.  Hopefully _Wolfie _will respond to your question and point us towards the fountain of TRUTH.



BBC story including why he was in Baghdad including quotes from Iraqi PM who was due to meet him during the trip - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50998065


----------



## john luc (6 Jan 2020)

War is the failure of politics and despite WW2 ending 75 years ago we still have not found a way of doing it well. Reality is that since humans formed into tribes one tribe is for a time always on top. In our lifetime that's being the USA. ROMAN empire lasted 1200 years so living in it at say 900 years you could believe it was and always will be the same. Same to for the many long run empires like the British one and others. Given this to be the statis quo of the world then when the USA falls off that persh let's hope it is not replaced with a 4th Reich type. Imagine if a government like Iran has having the power of the USA. 
Confucius had his tongue in his cheek when he penned the phrase, "may you live in interesting times ".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> BBC story including why he was in Baghdad including quotes from Iraqi PM who was due to meet him during the trip - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50998065


_EmmDee_  I had seen that already.  Of course if you are a conspiracy theorist you can read anything you like into anything.  Make no mistake what _Wolfie _is gleaning from his twitter friends is the following narrative.  The Donald called his friend the Iraqi PM to set up exploratory peace talks with Suli.  But right from the beginning it was just a trap to lure Suli to Baghdad where The Donald could kill him.

It is an outrageous narrative and who am I to say it is untrue but one would have expected that even the suspicion of such treachery would be headline news in the World's news channels and certainly in the likes of Al Jazeera and Channel 4 News.  But the deafening silence on those fronts, not to mention that no such claims are being made by the Iranians,  incline me to believe that this is just a typical fantasy of Shortie syndrome.


----------



## EmmDee (6 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _EmmDee_  I had seen that already.  Of course if you are a conspiracy theorist you can read anything you like into anything.  Make no mistake what _Wolfie _is gleaning from his twitter friends is the follwing narrative.  The Donald called his friend the Iraqi PM to set up exploratory peace talks with Suli.  But right from the beginning it was just a trap to lure Suli to Baghdad where The Donald could kill him.
> 
> It is an outrageous narrative and who am I to say it is untrue but one would have expected that even the suspicion of such treachery would be headline news in the World's news channels and certainly in the likes of Al Jazeera and Channel 4 News.  But the deafening silence on those fronts, not to mention that no such claims are being made by the Iranian,  incline me to believe that this just a typical fantasy of Shortie syndrome.



Ah - I suspect you may be over interpreting what WolfeTone is saying (and I say this as someone who disagrees with him on US politics). I think the supposition doing the rounds was not that the US were working with the Iraqi PM to set up false peace talks - for a start the current Iraqi PM leans more towards Iran than Washington. Also, the talks have been ongoing for  a number of months (post the attacks on the Saudi oil refinery). I think the supposition is that the US were aware of the current round of meetings including the visit to Baghdad, didn't raise any concerns or warnings and then ordered the drone strike - behind the back of the Iraqis - and so could be seen to have effectively laid a trap.

But not one that was a long time in the making - it was only decided to take this option after the US embassy in Iraq was attacked.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Ah - I suspect you may be over interpreting what WolfeTone is saying (and I say this as someone who disagrees with him on US politics). I think the supposition doing the rounds was not that the US were working with the Iraqi PM to set up false peace talks - for a start the current Iraqi PM leans more towards Iran than Washington. Also, the talks have been ongoing for  a number of months (post the attacks on the Saudi oil refinery). I think the supposition is that the US were aware of the current round of meetings including the visit to Baghdad, didn't raise any concerns or warnings and then ordered the drone strike - behind the back of the Iraqis - and so could be seen to have effectively laid a trap.
> 
> But not one that was a long time in the making - it was only decided to take this option after the US embassy in Iraq was attacked.


_MD_ that's how I understood it.  Maybe "trap" is a bit strong, "surprise" might be better,  you do not take out the likes of Suli by giving him a warning.  I think _Wolfie _has a more sinister interpretation, otherwise why this expression of outraged incredulity? ("say it isn't so!")


			
				Theobold said:
			
		

> If this is true, and as much as I dont like Trump, I really hope it isnt true.


Maybe he might clarify.


----------



## michaelm (6 Jan 2020)

john luc said:


> Imagine if a government like Iran has having the power of the USA.


The thought is chilling.  Currently they are a regional nuisance.  If they manage to develop nuclear weapons it will be disastrous.  Whatever about Trump or the merits of recent US actions Iran will know now that it can no longer act with impunity.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Jan 2020)

john luc said:


> Imagine if a government like Iran has having the power of the USA.



In the context of the current situation in the Middle East, I see little difference between the behaviour of Iran and the US.

Both are interfering in the affairs of Iraq.

What difference there is favours Iran, they are next door, the US is half a world away. Iran says it is involved to protect the interests of its co-religionists. The US became involved because of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which did not in fact exist.

The US is white Christian and lots of Americans have Irish ancestors, Iran is brown, Sia-Muslim and few Iranians have Irish ancestors, so the US is less likely to be hostile to Ireland than Iran. That doesn't mean that there is any reason to prefer US power to Iranian power, both act in their own self interests and are happy to act outside any norms of international law.

The days when the US supported an international order for peace are gone.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Jan 2020)

cremeegg said:


> In the context of the current situation in the Middle East, I see little difference between the behaviour of Iran and the US.
> Both are interfering in the affairs of Iraq.
> What difference there is favours Iran, they are next door, the US is half a world away. Iran says it is involved to protect the interests of its co-religionists. The US became involved because of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which did not in fact exist.
> The US is white Christian and lots of Americans have Irish ancestors, Iran is brown, Sia-Muslim and few Iranians have Irish ancestors, so the US is less likely to be hostile to Ireland than Iran. That doesn't mean that there is any reason to prefer US power to Iranian power, both act in their own self interests and are happy to act outside any norms of international law.
> The days when the US supported an international order for peace are gone.



The US is a democracy with a free press, legislature and different branches of government which in theory and at times holds the executive to account.  Iranian regime is accountable to no one.

Probably Iraq should prefer US power to Iranian power, for the above reasons and also because a distant US is unlikely to involve itself too closely \ in a totalitarian way in Iraq. Iran's interest in Iraq is deeper and for that reason should probably be of more concern to Iraqis (especially those who do not share their brand of Islam). Similarly, much better for South Korea or Japan to be occupied \ dominated by the US rather than China.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Ah - I suspect you may be over interpreting what WolfeTone is saying



And not for the first time, nor with me alone. 
Do a search on this site for the word 'Armageddon' by @Duke of Marmalade to get a sense of the tendency to exaggerate the comments by users. 
Of course, the Duke has been informed of increasing global tensions before, only to be dismissive of such notions. 
It would appear, little has changed, even now. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Make no mistake what _Wolfie _is gleaning from his twitter friends is the following narrative. The Donald called his friend the Iraqi PM to set up exploratory peace talks with Suli. But right from the beginning it was just a trap to lure Suli to Baghdad where The Donald could kill him.



The irony of reading my previous comment and reading into it, this supposed narrative! 

So just to summarize:
My comment commenced with "My Twitter feed"....in the era of fake news on social media, and the nature of 128 character tweets, such a comment should automatically invoke the hazard warning that all may not be true here. But just to emphasize the lack of verification, I continued with the words "Apparently" and "allegedly" - just to reinforce the unsubstantiated nature of my comment. 

So why would I post such an unsubstantiated, unverified comment? Well, reading my previous comments, I, and others for matter, were somewhat curious as to reasons why Sulemani was in Baghdad in the first place. I speculated that it signified that large areas of Iraq were under, or likely to fall under, Iranian control. I thought that a reasonable observation considering the majority Shia population in Iraq amongst other things. 

However, an alternative theory was propagated on my Twitter feed (the source of which I will endeavour to retrieve). 
A theory unsubstantiated, hence the expression of my comment very much in the conditional and suppositional sense. 

But as can be gauged from the BBC report, there certainly does appear, *allegedly*, to be have been some sort of diplomatic mission in motion, and not the *alleged *terrorist plot as propagated by the US.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> Have you a source for that?



It was actually a Tweet of tweet. 

Dr. Jill Stein, former US Presidential candidate, tweeted the following on 05 Jan
"_Now this is grounds for impeachment, treachery and unleashing the unthinkable for Americans people the world over: Trump asked Iraqi PM to mediate with Iran then assassinated Sulemani - on a mediation mission."_

The good doctor herself was tweeting a report by NPR international correspondent Jane Arraf which supports the narrative of the BBC report mentioned earlier. 

But like I said, its not verified.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> And not for the first time, nor with me alone.
> Do a search on this site for the word 'Armageddon' by @Duke of Marmalade to get a sense of the tendency to exaggerate the comments by users.
> Of course, the Duke has been informed of increasing global tensions before, only to be dismissive of such notions.
> It would appear, little has changed, even now.
> ...


_Wolfie_, I take it from that "protesteth" that you were indeed dangling in front of the good AAM folk a theory of very naughty behaviour indeed on the part of The Donald, albeit I agree that you did heavily caveat it as being Twitteralia.  I am not sure what percentage of credence you initially gave to this fake news but I take it that you now accept that it should have been given zero credence.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not sure what percentage of credence you initially gave to this fake news but I take it that you now accept that it should have been given zero credence.



Well I have a respect for Dr Jill Stein insofar that she has always come across as a reasoned quite intelligent person. Im not familiar with the journalist Jane Arraf, but who am I to question those who are prepared to report from warzones? 
As for the revered BBC, well we wouldn't doubt a word they report, would we? 
This is the excerpt from their report;

"
_The Iraqi prime minister revealed he had been due to meet Soleimani on Friday, the day he was killed along with six others when their vehicles were hit by missiles as they were leaving Baghdad airport.
The Iranian commander had reportedly flown in from Lebanon or Syria in the early hours of that morning._
"_I was scheduled to meet martyr Soleimani at 08:30 in the morning," the prime minister said on Sunday._
"_He was killed because he was set to deliver a response from Iranians to a Saudi message, which we delivered to the Iranians to reach an important breakthrough in the situation in Iraq and the region."_

Like you said, the conspiracy theorist can read anything into anything. 
What do you read from the above excerpt?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Well I have a respect for Dr Jill Stein insofar that she has always come across as a reasoned quite intelligent person. Im not familiar with the journalist Jane Arraf, but who am I to question those who are prepared to report from warzones?
> As for the revered BBC, well we wouldn't doubt a word they report, would we?
> This is the excerpt from their report;
> 
> ...


Okay, _Theo_, you can give whatever credence you want to the Iraqi PM as the Shia pal of Soli.  I will stick to the universal rejection by the media including Al Jazeera of this narrative.
As for Democrats commenting on The Donald's behaviour, it has become so partisan over there that they would accuse him of being Jack The Ripper if he didn't have an alibi for the late 19th century.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> you can give whatever credence you want to the Iraqi PM as the Shia pal of Soli.



Its not me given credence to this narrative, its the BBC. I just picked up on it before they did. 
They are the ones publishing the narrative. Are you suggesting they are conspiracy theorists? Publishing fake news? 
Or have I misinterpreted the excerpt? 
If so, what do you read into the excerpt?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2020)

Theo I trust the BBC report of the Iraqi PM’s view entirely.  But unlike you I do not accept that view.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jan 2020)

My goodness Duke, I have accepted no such view.
Jane Arraf, correspondent with NPR news based in Baghdad made the report about what the Iraqi PM said about Sulemani. Dr Jill Stein picked up on it and, presumably in her considered view, thought it worthy to tweet it. There upon it landed on my Twitter feed.
Upon which I clearly expressed my hope that it wasn't an accurate account of events. But not being in a position to determine the exact truth, I can only speculate as to what is, or isnt the truth, based on the information put in front of me ( in this case, by my Twitter friends, as you call them).
As it happens, my Twitter friends and your BBC friends have reported, more or less verbatim, the exact same thing. You have chosen to deny the Iraqi PM account of events (in which case, you really should question your reliance on the BBC reporting fake news, an obvious lie), I have chosen to keep an open mind on the possibility that the Iraqi PM is telling the truth - thus making his comments newsworthy, albeit depressing that the US could sink so low.

But I dont think this little joust is doing the thread any favours, so best leave it there.
Instead the OP made a bold claim two days ago of US troops withdrawing from Iraq.
Lo and behold, there is now media frenzy out there of claim and counter-claim of that exact proposition!

From the BBC

Whether it transpires to be true or not, kudos must surely be offered to @cremeegg for calling it out before anyone else.


----------



## john luc (7 Jan 2020)

cremeegg said:


> In the context of the current situation in the Middle East, I see little difference between the behaviour of Iran and the US.
> 
> Both are interfering in the affairs of Iraq.
> 
> ...


I think you slightly misunderstood my point. I was not saying that USA is "great" but merely pointing out that at this time in World history they are the  king of the hill and like my person living in the Roman Empire at 900 existence, a person may believe that this will always be so. The reality is someone will always be top dog in the world and so at least I'm glad its the USA and not some of the other wannabee's


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I have chosen to keep an open mind on the possibility that the Iraqi PM is telling the truth...


I rest my case.

It was indeed prescient of _cremeegg_ to note that the departure of the US from Iraq would become the key question, and I have honoured him with a "like".  The general's polite letter saying "we will give you what you asked for" might turn out to be a bluff.  The Iraqi PM might be all palsy walsy with his Shia brethren in Iran, others in Iraq will not have so easily forgotten the 800,000 Iraqis killed by their Iranian neighbours in the Iraq/Iran war, which is when Suli earned his spurs.

What I do think though is that this will be a defining factor in the upcoming US election.  If it backfires and by that I mean if the consequences lead to a major market correction then The Donald is toast.  If on the other hand he gets away with it he romps home.  The betting is trending towards the latter eventuality.  Another 4 years of The Donald folk, fasten your seat belts.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jan 2020)

I think there is a risk that we are giving the Trumpster too much credit here. US embassy is attacked in Iraq and there is little doubt that Iran was involved and that Iranian influence is growing in Iraq. US Military do their job and present to the President a list of options including bombing a few terrorist camps in the desert where a camels live quietly. They also present a couple of other options for good measure such as the assassination of Mr. Suleimani knowing that blowing up a few camels on tv will play just as nicely. Unfortunately for the Military, Trump shot a disasterous 86 on the golf course despite cheating and was in fowl humour when he got the security briefing. He decided to blow up the terrorist even though the military hadn't thought this through hence the confusion since...….

Having said that, think this will play well for Trump. His biggest risk is a terrorist attack in a US city which will allow opposition to blame him for but otherwise I think people will support him. Democratic reaction has been ridiculous and shows why I agree with Duke. Four more years...…….


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> Trump shot a disasterous 86 on the golf course despite cheating and was in *fowl *humour when he got the security briefing.


_Sunny _are you accusing The Donald of being chicken?


----------



## Sunny (7 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Sunny _are you accusing The Donald of being chicken?



Ha ha...Fraudian slip there I think... Think it is the yellow chicken hair


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jan 2020)

I submit that my only 'offence' was to pick up on a narrative one day earlier than the revered BBC. 
Had I waited for the revered BBC, the esteemed Duke could have politely informed that it is all just fake news.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> others in Iraq will not have so easily forgotten the 800,000 Iraqis killed by their Iranian neighbours in the Iraq/Iran war,



Was this the war where the US were playing both sides to Iraq and Iran in weapons supplies that resulted in all those deaths? 

You are so 1980's Duke. You need to keep up with times. The last 17yrs I think will feature most prominently in the minds of Iraqis.


----------



## john luc (7 Jan 2020)

As with most things, nothing is so simple that you can suppose it so. In the 80 to 88 war the Iraqi army captured territory from Iran and assumed the locals would be happy to be free from the ayatollah as they were persecuted by him but they did not and instead fought back.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jan 2020)

A pretty emphatic denial and dismissive response from Pompeo today to the notion that Solemani was engaged in anything but plots to attack US interests, let alone engaged in any sort of diplomatic mission.

Pompeo press conference

From about 9mins.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> A pretty emphatic denial and dismissive response from Pompeo today to the notion that Solemani was engaged in anything but plots to attack US interests, let alone engaged in any sort of diplomatic mission.
> 
> Pompeo press conference
> 
> From about 9mins.


I thought you were dropping this side show.


			
				Theo said:
			
		

> Apparently, allegedly, Trump called the Iraqi PM Madhi, to act as a mediator between US and Iran for peace talks in Baghdad. Then Trump gave the order to kill him!


This reads to me that Trump laid a trap, tricking Madhi to lure Soli to Baghdad so that The Donald could then kill him with his guard down.  As you said this would be truly "despicable" to the point were you pleaded "say it isn't so".  Well it obvioulsy isn't so and this is a far cry from Madhi asserting that Soli was on a peace mission, which in any case I hope you don't believe for one minute.
For avoidance of doubt I am not a Trumpist.  I'm afraid that almost anything Trump does this year is with a view to its electoral effect.  In that context the timing of the assassination of Soli is IMHO  "despicable".


----------



## cremeegg (7 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I thought you were dropping this side show.



Wolfe Tone may be, but you obviously are not. 

Excellent Chicken by the way !


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I thought you were dropping this side show.



The only sideshow is your persistence in claiming im peddling some conspiracy theory. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> This reads to me that Trump laid a trap, tricking Madhi to lure Soli to Baghdad so that The Donald could then kill him with his guard down.



You can read into that what you want to, that is after all what, in your words, what conspiracy theorists do. 

The reality is, my comment which has you so fixated, derived from a report by a ME war correspondent based in Baghdad quoting what the Iraqi PM said. 
You pined that I would answer _Purples _question of providing a source. I did.
The same report then got recycled by the BBC.
 In the US today, on CNN and Fox News amongst others, both channels at least reported the Pompeo denial of Solemani diplomatic mission. 
They only reported on it because I assume they considered his denial newsworthy? And they only had a chance to report on it because a journalist at the White House press conference considered it at least worthy to ask the US Secretary of State for a reaction to the comments on the Iranian foreign minister claiming diplomatic mission. 

So this is no twitterati conspiracy theory. This is high office of Iran, Iraq, and the US making claim and counter claim, as reported by global media outlets. 
That you happened on this story on the pages of AAM from yours truly, which sent you into a tizzy, is not really of interest anymore.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Jan 2020)

There are two official narratives. The Iran/Iraqi diplomatic mission narrative, and the US imminent terrorist attack narrative. 

Neither side has produced any verifiable evidence to support or debunk each others account of events. 
At this juncture I can only speculate as to what is the truth of the matter. I suspect we will never find out for certain. 
All that is left is speculation. 

I have little knowledge of the day to day political affairs of Iraq, or Iran. Here is the wiki page of outgoing Iraqi PM Adil Abdul-Mahdi. 

Iraqi PM Adil Abdul Mahdi

of US Secretary of State

US Secretary of State Mike Pompei 

of Iranian foreign minister

Mohammed Javad Zariff 

Obviously these pages are only brief summaries but reading through the education and career lives of these individuals, a picture does emerge of the type of people involved, their character, and their integrity.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> There are two official narratives.


It's the third "despicable" narrative that should have been left in Twitterland.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

Does it? Here is the Wiki page of Donald Trump. A picture does emerge of a draft dodging, sexist, cheating, lying, corrupt fraudster. And also the 45th President of the United States.



			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump


----------



## joe sod (8 Jan 2020)

I see Iran fired 22 missiles at us bases in Iraq, no casualties, apparently the us were warned. Also Ukrainian 737 crashes shortly after take off from Tehran, very suspicious. I think the crash of the Ukrainian jet will dampen any further action from Iran for now. They will need to prove that they did not down it. Will they allow us officials to examine the downed jet, I doubt it


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It's the third "despicable" narrative that should have been left in Twitterland.



You are like a dog with a bone. Enlighten me to third narrative.


----------



## Firefly (8 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> I see Iran fired 22 missiles at us bases in Iraq, no casualties, apparently the us were warned. *Also Ukrainian 737 crashes shortly after take off from Tehran, very suspicious.* I think the crash of the Ukrainian jet will dampen any further action from Iran for now. They will need to prove that they did not down it. Will they allow us officials to examine the downed jet, I doubt it



+1

Keeps Russia on side with Iran too.......


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

Iran aren't stupid. They know this is a war they can't win. They knew those missiles would be like using a pea shooter because of the US defences. (Missiles were picked up by early warning systems apparently). It was all about saving face and doing something that looked good on tv. The real damage is the support that Iran will probably give to terrorist groups to carry out attacks on Western targets where it can't easily be traced back.

I don't believe in co-incidences so I would be pretty sure that a plane crashing just after taking off from Tehran is more than just an accident. Poor people. Like Russia and MH17, nobody will probably ever be held to account.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> You are like a dog with a bone. Enlighten me to third narrative.


see post #42.  Theo hints darkly at the third narrative.  As to the first two narratives, yep they are doing the rounds and rather typical of such situations, low key coverage and certainly nothing to have you pleading "say it isn't so".


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Theo hints darkly at the third narrative. As to the first two narratives, yep they are doing the rounds and rather typical of such situations, low key coverage and certainly nothing to have you pleading "say it isn't so".



This is your reading into what my comment said.
Notably, you are unable to quote me directly on this dark theory. Instead you infer that I pleaded something that I never actually said. You have read into my comments what _you _wanted to read and infer that I said something I never said.
Quite the conspiracy theorist indeed!
But I was happy to clarify the matter for you as you had mentioned that I might do.

But despite other posters calling you out for over interpretating what I was saying, despite providing the source that prompted my initial comment, despite the official narrative from Iraq/Iran implying that Trump has in effect carried out a despicable act, despite your revered BBC recycling that narrative, despite White House journalists taking time to question the US Secretary of State on this "despicable" narrative, you still persist with some phantom conspiracy theory that only you have concocted.
Enjoy.


----------



## Firefly (8 Jan 2020)

All the hallmarks of yet another rabbit hole at this stage.......


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> All the hallmarks of yet another rabbit hole at this stage.......



Indeed..... Lost count of the number of threads at this stage....


----------



## Firefly (8 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> Indeed..... Lost count of the number of threads at this stage....



All the threads seem to have something in common though..


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is your reading into what my comment said.
> Notably, you are unable to quote me directly on this dark theory. Instead you infer that I pleaded something that I never actually said. You have read into my comments what _you _wanted to read and infer that I said something I never said.
> Quite the conspiracy theorist indeed!
> But I was happy to clarify the matter for you as you had mentioned that I might do.
> ...


Remember the words of what's-her-face in that Disney cartoon; Let It Go, Let It Go!


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

Will do...my bad for having to repeatedly state the obvious.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> Remember the words of what's-her-face in that Disney cartoon; Let It Go, Let It Go!



You know exactly who it is.... You are singing away while posting about the Black and Tans and the IRA and Iranian terrorism.....


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

The good news is that there are no reports thus far of people in the attacks. 
The Iranians have said they do not want war and that it has concluded its strikes (RTE) 
There is a sense of futility in Iran engaging the US in a war, in my opinion. 
Hopefully the Trump will reciprocate the sentiment and resist any further attacks.


----------



## john luc (8 Jan 2020)

Unless the impeachment goes badly


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

john luc said:


> Unless the impeachment goes badly



Or the Iranians call him names or slag his hair....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The good news is that there are no reports thus far of people in the attacks.


_Wolfie:_


			
				SKY News said:
			
		

> A presenter on Iranian state TV  has claimed that the strikes have killed at least 80 terrorist US soldiers


Do you have an open mind on this claim?


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Wolfie:_
> Do you have an open mind on this claim?



Nah, definitely a porkie. 
_Let it go! Let it go! _


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

john luc said:


> Unless the impeachment goes badly



Given Trumps nonchalant press conference today, I would say he is in pole position for a landslide. 
I don't buy into the line that he took out Solemani to delay or scupper impeachment. 
The Democrats are already doing a good job of that all by themselves.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jan 2020)

Article from UK Independent Defense and Security Editor Kim Sepgunta


The reason why Solemani was in Baghdad shows how complex the Iran affair is

The _Wolf _claims not to endorse the article. I merely link to it as it relates directly to the question I had in my first post.


----------



## Sunny (9 Jan 2020)

Well Reuters are reporting that he was in Baghdad to meet militia leaders to get them to step up attacks on US forces to provoke a military response from the US that would lead to public protests and disorder. Apparently, anti government demonstrations were causing concern because they were protesting about Iranian influence on the Iraqi affairs. And Solemani was trying to change the narrative which is why the US base was attacked that killed the contractor and the embassy was attacked. I have no idea but I believe that version more than Solemani was some sort of negotiating peace maker between the US and Iraqi militia forces. And that Trump played some clever spy game to get him into the Country. 

To be fair, given the outrage in Iraq and Iran following his assassination, it looks like he succeeded...….


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> Well Reuters are reporting that he was in Baghdad to meet militia leaders to get them to step up attacks on US forces to provoke a military response from the US that would lead to public protests and disorder. Apparently, anti government demonstrations were causing concern because they were protesting about Iranian influence on the Iraqi affairs. And Solemani was trying to change the narrative which is why the US base was attacked that killed the contractor and the embassy was attacked. I have no idea but I believe that version more than Solemani was some sort of negotiating peace maker between the US and Iraqi militia forces. And that Trump played some clever spy game to get him into the Country.



It does seem strange to me that if Iran wanted to de-escalate things in the region, then attacking the US embassy with their proxies does not speak to that. If Solemani was hit during a period of calm I would be more likely to believe the 'he was on a diplomatic mission' angle. Attacking the US embassy speaks more to the theory of Iran planning futher attacks, therefore it was legit for the US to hit him first.


----------



## Firefly (9 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> Well Reuters are reporting that he was in Baghdad to meet militia leaders to get them to step up attacks on US forces to provoke a military response from the US that would lead to public protests and disorder. Apparently, anti government demonstrations were causing concern because they were protesting about Iranian influence on the Iraqi affairs. And Solemani was trying to change the narrative which is why the US base was attacked that killed the contractor and the embassy was attacked. *I have no idea but I believe that version more than Solemani was some sort of negotiating peace maker between the US and Iraqi militia forces.* And that Trump played some clever spy game to get him into the Country.
> 
> To be fair, given the outrage in Iraq and Iran following his assassination, it looks like he succeeded...….



Very interesting piece below if anyone's interested. The man loved the fight...









						The Shadow Commander
					

Dexter Filkins’s 2013 Profile of Qassem Suleimani, whom a former C.I.A. officer called “the single most powerful operative in the Middle East.”




					www.newyorker.com


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Jan 2020)

joe sod said:


> I see Iran fired 22 missiles at us bases in Iraq, no casualties, apparently the us were warned. Also Ukrainian 737 crashes shortly after take off from Tehran, very suspicious. I think the crash of the Ukrainian jet will dampen any further action from Iran for now. They will need to prove that they did not down it. Will they allow us officials to examine the downed jet, I doubt it


Wow! Mr _sod_, you certainly called that one!


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Jan 2020)

After reading this I am inclining towards it being shot down by Iranians ... I assume accidentally or malfunction.








						Video appears to show missile strike as Canada and UK say they have intel Iran shot down Ukrainian plane
					

CNN has obtained video on Thursday that appears to show a missile being fired into the Tehran sky and striking an object, around the same time that a Ukrainian plane crashed just after taking off from the city's airport.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Delboy (9 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Wow! Mr _sod_, you certainly called that one!


Indeed, well called. It certainly does line up as to indicate the plane was shot down


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Jan 2020)

Some interesting and valid points above. While I have stated that I am open to the possibility that the Iraqi/Iranian 'diplomatic mission' is true, im also open to it being bogus, or even over-egged as a 'peace mission'
And the good _Firefly _has kindly linked an article that help us to understand who Solemani was. As leading General and a career militarist there is no doubt in my mind that he had the blood of innocents on his hands, and sacrifices of US soldiers on his hands.

Having said that, im open to the possibility that the US narrative of preventing an 'imminent attack' is also bogus.

What im not open to is that both narratives are true.

I have little to no knowledge or experiences of the current political goings-on of the Iraqi/Iran administrations, so specifically in regard to the killing of Solemani I can only accept their word on events until the contrary is shown. Of course, the US have provided an alternative version, but given their participation in events they can hardly be considered as impartial actors.

Unlike other posters above, my tendency is to think that Iraqi/Iran 'diplomatic mission' holds more credence based on some observable factors.

- The US narrative since the attack has changed. It has moved from 'preventing imminent attack' to 'he had blood of Americans on his hands', 'He should have been taken out a long time ago'. If 'imminent attack' was the reason three days ago,  it should be no different today.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of American military affairs will know that since WWII at least, the US has always held aloft a bad guy, a guy they want to topple or take-out. Castro, Gaddaffi, Hussein, Assad, Chavez, Bin Laden, Bagdadhi.
These bad guys have typically been pumped up by corporate US media as No.1 terrorist or 'monster' 'butcher' etc.
In Solemanis case, despite his lengthy and prominent involvement in Iranian military affairs that were accountable for the deaths of hundreds of Americans he was not a prominent figure in the public eye. Very few knew anything about him, demonstrated by the plethora of "Who was Solemani?" articles and YT videos doing the rounds, and the very interesting article posted by _Firefly _to better inform us all.
Solemani it would seem, was a No.1 terrorist that was to be treated differently.
Of course none of that proves anything, its just a simple observation.

Vastly more  substantive is the reaction of Congresswoman Gabbard after her attendance of a Congressional National Security committee to examine classified information demonstrating the intelligence that prompted the attack on Solemani to prevent an imminent attack.
When asked of the classified information she responded that she wasnt going to divulge it because there simply was no information.
Gabbard is a candidate for Democratic Presidential nominee. Anyone familiar with her campaign will know her credentials on campaigning against the US perpetual regime change and military interventions in foreign affairs. They will also know that she is no shrinking violet and when US citizens are under attack she has stood up to be counted by serving in American war against Iraq.

- While the political divisions between Republicans and Democrats are very wide, the one thing that has generally unified them is the knowledge that when US citizens and interests are under attack they stand behind their military in taking decisive action.
My understanding is that on foot of this attack on Solemani and the lack of evidence that was pronounced as the 'imminent attack', that there are moves afoot in Congress to curb Trumps ability to take any further military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. This does not sound like a House that is convinced by the 'imminent attack' narrative.

- Finally, considering the Iraqi/Iranian narrative of diplomatic mission to de-escalate affairs, it should be noted that such discussions will often occur between adversaries while the conflict rages on.
Our own period of recent conflict can testify to that. While the Adams/McGuinness leadership was engaged with British and Irish officials to bring about an IRA ceasefire, such negotiations didn't stop the IRA blowing up fish shops on the Shankhill road.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Jan 2020)

According to CNN the Iranians are now destroying and contaminating the crash site so any real investigation is impossible.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ...
> In Solemanis case, despite his lengthy and prominent involvement in Iranian military affairs that were accountable for the deaths of hundreds of Americans he was not a prominent figure in the public eye. Very few knew anything about him, demonstrated by the plethora of "Who was Solemani?" articles and YT videos doing the rounds, and the very interesting article posted by _Firefly _to better inform us all.
> Solemani it would seem, was a No.1 terrorist that was to be treated differently.
> ...



For those interested (and who have access)... The BBC had quite a good documentary on Solemani last year with really good access from the US, UK, Iran and Iraq (both political and military) along with Kurd military. They re-broadcast it in the last week (on BBC4 I think). Either keep an eye on it being repeated on BBC4 or if you can access iPlayer it should be there.

As with all these things - it's complicated and it changes a lot. So for example, he went from running the anti-coalition insurgents in Iraq to essentially being the main driver of the anti-ISIS movement (so on the same side as the US and UK). So both an enemy and an ally at different times - there's a lot of that in the middle eastern history


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> As with all these things - it's complicated and it changes a lot. So for example, he went from running the anti-coalition insurgents in Iraq to essentially being the main driver of the anti-ISIS movement (so on the same side as the US and UK). So both an enemy and an ally at different times - there's a lot of that in the middle eastern history



This is my understanding also, which goes someway as to explaining why he wasnt being portrayed as Public Enemy No.1. 
It also supports your view that I agree with, that the decision to kill him was only decided upon after the US embassy attack in Iraq. 
Whether the US was aware of the current round of meetings is another factor.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Very interesting piece below if anyone's interested. The man loved the fight...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jayz! _fly _you could have warned uz!  It took me nearly half an hour, though admittedly I am a slow reader.  This Islam thing sure is complicated.  I thought I might inform myself a bit more.  I started at the beginning and Googled difference between Sunni and Shia.  The Sunnis believe the Prophet's successor was Abu Bakr, the father of his favourite wife.  The Shia believe His successor was Ali, the husband of His daughter, Fatima.  I think that's enough for the present.


----------



## Sunny (10 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> For those interested (and who have access)... The BBC had quite a good documentary on Solemani last year with really good access from the US, UK, Iran and Iraq (both political and military) along with Kurd military. They re-broadcast it in the last week (on BBC4 I think). Either keep an eye on it being repeated on BBC4 or if you can access iPlayer it should be there.
> 
> As with all these things - it's complicated and it changes a lot. So for example, he went from running the anti-coalition insurgents in Iraq to essentially being the main driver of the anti-ISIS movement (so on the same side as the US and UK). So both an enemy and an ally at different times - there's a lot of that in the middle eastern history



I don't think it was the case that he was an enemy and an ally at different times. He was an enemy and an ally at the SAME time.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Jan 2020)

The plot thickens....


----------



## EmmDee (10 Jan 2020)

Sunny said:


> I don't think it was the case that he was an enemy and an ally at different times. He was an enemy and an ally at the SAME time.



Baby steps... was getting there


----------



## Firefly (10 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Jayz! _fly _you could have warned uz!  It took me nearly half an hour, though admittedly I am a slow reader.



Every day is a school day Duke!


----------



## EmmDee (10 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Jayz! _fly _you could have warned uz!  It took me nearly half an hour, though admittedly I am a slow reader.  This Islam thing sure is complicated.  I thought I might inform myself a bit more.  I started at the beginning and Googled difference between Sunni and Shia.  The Sunnis believe the Prophet's successor was Abu Bakr, the father of his favourite wife.  The Shia believe His successor was Ali, the husband of His daughter, Fatima.  I think that's enough for the present.



We are all familiar with a similar (though different) split - there are parallels with the history of Christianity in Europe. A religious division, initially based on philosophical differences, becomes a cultural identity which is used for political control... the various reformation, counter-reformation and other issues throughout Europe. Or even more recently the political issues in Northern Ireland. Another analogy could be the post independence politics in Ireland - a division into "sects" that became about power and control.

So think of Iran as the home of Shia Islam with a majority in Iraq and Lebanon. Sunni Islam is essentially the rest of the Islamic world with Saudi Arabia being the spiritual home. But layered on top of that is the political tug of war for influence between Iran and Saudi in the region. So Saudi's have long used / funded proxies to spread Sunni Islam (and therefore Saudi influence) e.g. ISIS / Al-Queda. Iraq has used counter-measures (such as Quds force in Iraq) to try to counter it - for the same reason and also to try to link a corridor between Iran / Iraq and Lebanon to create a "safe space" from a Shia point of view (the "Shia Crescent"). For years Iraq was governed by a Sunni tribe in a non-religious state but was always majority Shia. And so was always a convenient buffer. Getting rid of Hussein took the lid off this conflict.

That's what Soleimani was about - the US was probably incidental for him. If they were in the way, he'd hit them (especially in Iraq), if they weren't (more recently) he was more focussed on wiping out ISIS


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2020)

EmmDee said:


> We are all familiar with a similar (though different) split - there are parallels with the history of Christianity in Europe. A religious division, initially based on philosophical differences, becomes a cultural identity which is used for political control... the various reformation, counter-reformation and other issues throughout Europe. Or even more recently the political issues in Northern Ireland. Another analogy could be the post independence politics in Ireland - a division into "sects" that became about power and control.
> 
> So think of Iran as the home of Shia Islam with a majority in Iraq and Lebanon. Sunni Islam is essentially the rest of the Islamic world with Saudi Arabia being the spiritual home. But layered on top of that is the political tug of war for influence between Iran and Saudi in the region. So Saudi's have long used / funded proxies to spread Sunni Islam (and therefore Saudi influence) e.g. ISIS / Al-Queda. Iraq has used counter-measures (such as Quds force in Iraq) to try to counter it - for the same reason and also to try to link a corridor between Iran / Iraq and Lebanon to create a "safe space" from a Shia point of view (the "Shia Crescent"). For years Iraq was governed by a Sunni tribe in a non-religious state but was always majority Shia. And so was always a convenient buffer. Getting rid of Hussein took the lid off this conflict.
> 
> That's what Soleimani was about - the US was probably incidental for him. If they were in the way, he'd hit them (especially in Iraq), if they weren't (more recently) he was more focussed on wiping out ISIS


I take your point that we used to go to war over the precise nature of relationships within the Blessed Trinity.  But we kinda left that behind a few centuries ago (except for Norn Iron of course).  Seems the only half civilised folk in the whole neighbourhood are the Jews.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Iran has admitted responsibility for the shooting down of Ukrainian passenger jet. Thankfully, when faced with apparently overwhelmingly evidence, they have not sought to obfuscate or prolong their initial denials. 
They claim it was unintentional. I cant see it being anything other than unintentional.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Iran has admitted responsibility for the shooting down of Ukrainian passenger jet. Thankfully, when faced with apparently overwhelmingly evidence, they have not sought to obfuscate or prolong their initial denials.
> They claim it was unintentional. I cant see it being anything other than unintentional.


As you say, and as_ joe sod_ immediately identified, "overwhelming evidence".  The odds of a single passenger flight resulting in a fatal accident are 1 in 19.6 million.  The odds of this arising from an accidental fireball incident (as per videos) would be even remoter still.
It was intentional of course, but it was hopefully also a case of mistaken identity*,  as per the American downing of an Iranian airliner in 1988.  Point is they downed it intentionally and they knew from word go what they had done.  If they couldn't fool _joe sod _how did they hope to fool the World's aviation experts.

*  All the same it seems a bit coincidental that the nationals most affected are Canadians.  Unlikely that there would have been a similar plane load of US citizens.  Maybe some nutters in the operation went for the next best thing.  They are talking about prosecutions after all.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Iran has admitted responsibility for the shooting down of Ukrainian passenger jet. Thankfully, when faced with apparently overwhelmingly evidence, they have not sought to obfuscate or prolong their initial denials.
> They claim it was unintentional. I cant see it being anything other than unintentional.



Its pretty obvious they would have kept up the denial strategy if they thought they could get away with it.
It was only the sheer weight of evidence that forced them to own up.
At least they are still amenable to that.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

The mistaken identity is plausible. Possibly identified as a US spy plane or stealth bomber aiming to target missile launch sites?
A lot will depend on the type of missile used to down the jet. The initial reports were that Iran launched 'surface to surface' missiles, which I figure, in my limited knowledge of weaponry, would not be suitable for airborne and mobile targets.
Trudeau has however mentioned 'surface to air' which would support the intentional targeting.
I would subscribe to the mistaken identity theory in that case. The reporting around the whole missile attack indicates that the Iranians were intent on doing something to satisfy an enraged population, but intent on minimising damage so as not to escalate the situation.
Intentionally taking out a passenger jet comprising of UK, Canadian and Ukrainian civilians would not help in that regard.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Its pretty obvious they would have kept up the denial strategy if they thought they could get away with it.



I don't think it would be obvious at all. An investigation like this presumably could take months? In which the affair can be somewhat diluted. If they wanted to keep denying they could.
There were however Iranian civilians on board too. To lie to the international community is one thing, to lie to their own people is another.
 The people of Iran must be hurting now. First they suffered the shock of having their revered General Solemani assassinated by the US. Then in response, they take out the lives of innocent civilians of their own country and of others with whom they have no quarrel.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I would subscribe to the mistaken identity theory in that case. The reporting around the whole missile attack indicates that the Iranians were intent on doing something to satisfy an enraged population, but intent on minimising damage so as not to escalate the situation.
> Intentionally taking out a passenger jet comprising of UK, Canadian and Ukrainian civilians would not help in that regard.


I definitely don't suggest that this had sanction from on high- they are not that stupid.  But feelings were running extremely high (50 killed in stampede). 

If there had been a plane carrying a lot of US citizens the temptation for some rogue nutter in a senior position in the Surface to Air defences to get revenge would have been high, and I think the suspicion would be huge if the victims were Americans rather than Canadians.  But maybe Canadians were the next best thing available - coincidental to me.  As I say, why is there talk of prosecutions if they simply made a mistake at a time of great tension.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> To lie to the international community is one thing, to lie to their own people is another.


_Wolfie _you are surely not that nigh eve.    What the Iranian authorities tell to their own people would probably have embarrassed even Comical Ali.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If there had been a plane carrying a lot of US citizens the temptation for some nutter in command of the Surface to Air defences to get revenge would have been high.



Nah, don't buy the "lone nutter" theory. These are military personnel, they follow orders. They still have the death penalty in Iran? Taking out a passenger jet of US civilians would definitely escalate the situation. The reports of the missile attack on the bases all suggest that this was intended more as face-saving exercise than it was to exact revenge.
I don't know about you, but I suspect the use of this type of weaponry is subject to a chain of command. As such 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As I say, why is there talk of prosecutions if they simply made a mistake at a time of great tension.



? Because innocent civilians were killed as a result of wreckless actions. 
Basically somebody made a call that the plane was hostile - they would have needed evidence of this, they simply cannot rely on a hunch. So whatever information they had, mostly probably inclusive, they interpreted one way and made a decision that the plane was hostile and as such ordered the attack. 
Given the nature of the events, quick decisive actions are mostly par the course. 
In this case, a wrong decision with tragic consequences, but still liable to prosecution.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Wolfie _you are surely not that nigh eve.    What the Iranian authorities tell to their own people would probably have embarrassed even Comical Ali.



But that is to assume the Iranian person are somewhat naive themselves.
I don't think so, quite a clever bunch as it stands.
So Iranians passenger jet, carrying Iranian passengers is shot down at a time when Iranian government announces missile attack on the US.
And you think the Iranian people would swallow a bogus narrative in this circumstance? I dont.
And the last thing any government wants at a time of war (or anytime for that matter) is for its population to turn against it.
The Iranian people are sophisticated and intelligent people, they are hurting at the moment.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't think it would be obvious at all. An investigation like this presumably could take months? In which the affair can be somewhat diluted. If they wanted to keep denying they could.
> There were however Iranian civilians on board too. To lie to the international community is one thing, to lie to their own people is another.
> The people of Iran must be hurting now. First they suffered the shock of having their revered General Solemani assassinated by the US. Then in response, they take out the lives of innocent civilians of their own country and of others with whom they have no quarrel.



If the international community - not just the US - hadnt produced the evidence which gets to the ears of their people they would have stonewalled.
Lying to their own people is second nature to regimes like this.
How many civilians died in the recent anti government protests?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The Iranian people are sophisticated and intelligent people, they are hurting at the moment.


Apologies for Godwin's Law.  But the Germans in the 1930s were s&i people, some would argue the master race.  Didn't stop Goebbels feeding them whatever lies he wished.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> How many civilians died in the recent anti government protests?



Ok, we are in danger of conflating and comparing all previous actions, relating to any amount of different situations, with one another, to conclude what the most likely action would be if something else had happened one way or another way.

I totally accept the Iranian administration can and does and has lied to its people. I accept ALL State authorities, over time, have at some point lied, and will lie again, to its people.

_Specifically with regard to_, the shooting down of the jet, I do  think in the face of the overwhelming evidence coupled with the fact that Iranian civilians on board, that the option to perpetuate the denials was greatly diminished on account of not wanting to stir up more anti-government protests at a time when there appears to be a groundswell of unity in the country.

Thats simply an opinion.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Apologies for Godwin's Law. But the Germans in the 1930s were s&i people, some would argue the master race. Didn't stop Goebbels feeding them whatever lies he wished.



I'll revert to post #95


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2020)

Can you imagine the uproar if the US "accidentally" shot down a plane full of innocent people?

I haven't seen any photos yet of Khomeini weeping & crying for the victims of the plane they shot down.

It points to an incredible useless military if this was an accident.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> Can you imagine the uproar if the US "accidentally" shot down a plane full of innocent people?
> I haven't seen any photos yet of Khomeini weeping & crying for the victims of the plane they shot down.
> It points to an incredible useless military if this was an accident.



It has happened before, ironically enough I think the US shot down an Iranian airliner in the 80s?
And there was uproar, deservedly so.
Some combination of a glitch in their missile system and over zealous commander at the helm - on the mitigating front the airliner had left an airfield jointly used by Iranian military.

On another forum someone posted a commment to the effect that Russian anti aircraft technology has shot down more civilian airliners than any other country's.
Iranians not closing their airspace after launching a ballistic missile attack was disgraceful, you put yourself - or rather the people on plane - into the hands of the gods of war.

Full details on the 1980s incident:








						Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Firefly (11 Jan 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> It has happened before, ironically enough I think the US shot down an Iranian airliner in the 80s?
> And there was uproar, deservedly so.
> Some combination of a glitch in their missile system and over zealous commander at the helm - on the mitigating front the airliner had left an airfield jointly used by Iranian military.



_In mid-July 1988, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati asked the United Nations Security Council to condemn the United States saying the attack "could not have been a mistake" and was a "criminal act", a "massacre", and an "atrocity" _

Will the response be the same from Iran for this event I wonder?



_In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident..."[12] As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.[13] _

I presume Iran will honour the victims in the same way the US did also. You know, those aviation rules n'all... 









						Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jan 2020)

Firefly said:


> I presume Iran will honour the victims in the same way the US did also.



I would suggest that the admission of responsibility within 4 days indicates a willingness to honor the victims in a more dignified manner.
Far more dignified that waiting six years for a settlement in International Court of Justice*  where the perpetrators still refuse to publicly admit liability.

_*Is this a global thing? How can this be? How can it be possible to implement such a complex thing on an international scale?_


----------



## The_Banker (12 Jan 2020)

Anti government protests now in Iran on the back of the government admitting that they brought down the plane.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jan 2020)

Iraqi's protesting US military presence

There appears to be a serious momentum now to get the US war-mongers out of Iraq. 
They have no, or little support, from the people. Both the government of Iraq and its people are making the call. 
US War-Mongers Out!


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jul 2020)

UN expert deems drone strike on Soleimani 'unlawful killing' 

There is insufficient evidence that an 'imminent attack' was to occur. 

"_The attack violated the U.N. Charter, Callamard wrote in a report calling for accountability for targeted killings by armed drones and for greater regulation of the weapons." _


----------



## Purple (12 Jul 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Iraqi's protesting US military presence
> 
> There appears to be a serious momentum now to get the US war-mongers out of Iraq.
> They have no, or little support, from the people. Both the government of Iraq and its people are making the call.
> US War-Mongers Out!


And what side of the debate are you in, in relation to the war mongering American dogs?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> And what side of the debate are you in, in relation to the war mongering American dogs?



Eh, _against _the War-mongers. I thought that was obvious?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jul 2020)

To keep thread on-topic, I revert to the OP. I think the views expressed below have held up well. 



cremeegg said:


> This particular act is clearly murder





cremeegg said:


> I believe that *this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq.* Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.


----------



## Purple (13 Jul 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Eh, _against _the War-mongers. I thought that was obvious?


Are the US the only war mongers in the region?
Don't get me wrong, the history of intervention by the UK and then the USA in the region from the late 19th century onwards stilted their natural evolution into modern forms of government and left the space for extremism to thrive. In some cases extremists were nurtured and armed in their attacks on more moderate and democratic protagonists; the UK and American support of Ibn Saud and his brand of fanaticism is at the root of so many problems in the region. All that being said there are no "Good guys and Bad guys" in most of the conflicts, just the bad guys and the other bad guys.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Jul 2020)

Purple said:


> Are the US the only war mongers in the region?



No of course not, but the thread is specific to the killing of Soleimani and subsequent fall-out.
My post yesterday was directly related to the independent investigation into that killing and US claims of 'imminent attack'.


----------

