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!")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.
Maybe he might clarify.Theobold said:If this is true, and as much as I dont like Trump, I really hope it isnt true.
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.Imagine if a government like Iran has having the power of the USA.
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.
Ah - I suspect you may be over interpreting what WolfeTone is saying
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.
Have you a source for that?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
you can give whatever credence you want to the Iraqi PM as the Shia pal of Soli.
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'sIn 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.
I rest my case.I have chosen to keep an open mind on the possibility that the Iraqi PM is telling the truth...
Sunny are you accusing The Donald of being chicken?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?
others in Iraq will not have so easily forgotten the 800,000 Iraqis killed by their Iranian neighbours in the Iraq/Iran war,