Killing of Qassem Suleimani
- Thread starter cremeegg
- Start date
Or the Iranians call him names or slag his hair....
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,424
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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...….
To be fair, given the outrage in Iraq and Iran following his assassination, it looks like he succeeded...….
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.
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.”
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,424
Wow! Mr sod, you certainly called that one!
After reading this I am inclining towards it being shot down by Iranians ... I assume accidentally or malfunction.
www.cnn.com
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
Indeed, well called. It certainly does line up as to indicate the plane was shot down
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,424
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.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
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.