Killing of Qassem Suleimani

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...…….
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top