Politics Syrian Civil War


Written by wild Far-left 9/11 Truther. But your low hygiene of sources is nothing new.
And btw, there is no reply to my question - does the "whistleblower" have any concrete evidence of forgery/tampering/faking made by the OPCW? Probably because the answer is NO.




Ivan le Fou: the terrorist apologist...

Fixed.
 
Could be true, but WikiLeaks only leaks material damaging to US and it's allies and exculpatory to Russia and it's allies. Not exactly an unbiased source if not just a front for the SVR or another Russian intelligence agency to leak information from their own "sources" without exposing themselves.
 
Yup, could that be because Assange has been smeared and persecuted by the US and allies? Just sayin. In any case, there leaked stuff is usually legit and should we ignore it just because it sheds a less negative light on "our enemies"? An illegal attack on another sovereign country on trumped up charges is still an illegal attack and warcrime, no matter the motivation and intention of the one who revealed it. And here I thought upholding objective reporting, respecting international law and being sincere and truthful were positive values. What's separating us from Russian press at this point then? Just the fact that Russia is a lot more clumsy in its twisting of the narrative? That's not putting the bar very high.
 
That's not exactly correct. For example the Wikileaks hosted Panama Papers included a lot of financial information about weathly Russian's who were Putin allies and backers.
 
This is huge: Qassem Soleimani killed by US air strike (as yet unconfirmed) in Baghdad:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
This could have huge repercussions across the region...
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Thing is, Adam, Trump does not have to ask for Congress' permission.


And considering the joyful outbursts coming from the Iraqis, the elimination of Soleimani appears to have been a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Iraqis seem pretty happy with Soleimani's death:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Or maybe are they all bigoted supporters of el presidente Trump?


Gotta say I chocked on my tea while reading that.


CNN anchor Anderson Cooper compared Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps killed in an American airstrike on Thursday, to French president Charles de Gaulle, a leader of the French resistance against Nazi occupation during World War II.


"Soleimani is—it's difficult to convey how revered he is in Iran. Imagine the French Foreign Legion, at the height of the French empire. This guy is regarded in Iran as a completely heroic figure, personally very brave," CNN host Fareed Zakaria said.


"I was trying to think of somebody, and I was thinking of de Gaulle, although he became the leader of the country," Cooper said.
 
Last edited:
3l45gc.jpg



To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Thing is, Adam, Trump does not have to ask for Congress' permission.


And considering the joyful outbursts coming from the Iraqis, the elimination of Soleimani appears to have been a good thing.


Did Obama seek Congress approval for every single terrorist that he droned? I don't think so.
 
Well, good riddance from the leader of what is more a militia rather than an army, and congrats on an operation that seems well planned from intelligence gathering all the way to execution.. That being said I would be cautious before going around saying the Iraqis are celebrating, we have seen before that the concept of an Iraqi national is weaker than the one of a Sunni or a Chiite...

As for Iran, not sure this will help America´s image, but who knows.

One thing I can´t figure out, is in what way does this action favors ending expensive wars abroad as was part of the campaign promise.
 
Last edited:
For non-Arabic speakers, reporting in the main news outlets NYT and Wash Post is so misinformed (either on purpose or because of incompetence) that you might think that the Iraqi State has officially voted for ejecting US forces from Iraq (because of Trump's miscalculated move to kill Soleimani). What happened is different.

1- Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi sent a letter to Parliament in which he argued US troops exist in Iraq, not based on a treaty ratified by Parliament, but on 2 letters from past cabinets to the UN. Hence, Parliament has no role in ejection.
2- Iraqi PM's trying to trade disarming Shia militias for limiting scope of US troops. He wrote: "Whoever wants to become a political power, has to surrender arms, join armed forces, and forgo any political allegiance (i.e. to Iran) other than to military and commander-in-chief."
3- Iraq parliament barely had a quorum for session on ejecting US troops. Sunni and Kurdish blocs boycotted the session (thus taking America's side over Iran), and thus quorum was 170 of 328 (half + 4, just like Hezbollah designated a PM in Lebanese parliament with half + 4)
4- The text Iraqi Parliament voted on was not a legislation, but a non-binding resolution.
5- To deflect Iranian anger, Abdul-Mahdi said US troops will leave, according to timetable. Troops of Assad dynasty occupied Lebanon for 29 years, with Assad and Lebanese saying withdrawal on its way, but tied to timetable. In Mid Eastern countries, timetables mean indefinitely
6- In his letter to Parliament, Abdul-Mahdi clearly states that Iraqi interest is to maintain neutrality between America and Iran, and that if Iraq antagonizes America, it risks losing its international status (and implicitly oil revenue, just like Iran).
7- NYT is, by far, much more pro-Iran than Wash Post. The post reported that "tens of thousands" mourned Soleimani in Ahwaz. NYT made the number of mourners "hundreds of thousands."
Bottom line is, Iraqi parliament vote was an Iranian face-saving measure. Iran is in a bind: If it retaliates without claiming its attack, it does not count as revenge for Soleimani. If Iran claims the attack, regime risks further wrath, in a country whose economy is in free fall
The most probable outcome of Soleimani's killing is more of the same: Low-intensity Iranian warfare against America, Iran never engaging in direct war, but maintaining her proxy war, fighting America to the last Arab. But with Soleimani out, Iranian proxy war will be much weaker
 
For non-Arabic speakers, reporting in the main news outlets NYT and Wash Post is so misinformed (either on purpose or because of incompetence) that you might think that the Iraqi State has officially voted for ejecting US forces from Iraq (because of Trump's miscalculated move to kill Soleimani). What happened is different.

1- Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi sent a letter to Parliament in which he argued US troops exist in Iraq, not based on a treaty ratified by Parliament, but on 2 letters from past cabinets to the UN. Hence, Parliament has no role in ejection.
2- Iraqi PM's trying to trade disarming Shia militias for limiting scope of US troops. He wrote: "Whoever wants to become a political power, has to surrender arms, join armed forces, and forgo any political allegiance (i.e. to Iran) other than to military and commander-in-chief."
3- Iraq parliament barely had a quorum for session on ejecting US troops. Sunni and Kurdish blocs boycotted the session (thus taking America's side over Iran), and thus quorum was 170 of 328 (half + 4, just like Hezbollah designated a PM in Lebanese parliament with half + 4)
4- The text Iraqi Parliament voted on was not a legislation, but a non-binding resolution.
5- To deflect Iranian anger, Abdul-Mahdi said US troops will leave, according to timetable. Troops of Assad dynasty occupied Lebanon for 29 years, with Assad and Lebanese saying withdrawal on its way, but tied to timetable. In Mid Eastern countries, timetables mean indefinitely
6- In his letter to Parliament, Abdul-Mahdi clearly states that Iraqi interest is to maintain neutrality between America and Iran, and that if Iraq antagonizes America, it risks losing its international status (and implicitly oil revenue, just like Iran).
7- NYT is, by far, much more pro-Iran than Wash Post. The post reported that "tens of thousands" mourned Soleimani in Ahwaz. NYT made the number of mourners "hundreds of thousands."
Bottom line is, Iraqi parliament vote was an Iranian face-saving measure. Iran is in a bind: If it retaliates without claiming its attack, it does not count as revenge for Soleimani. If Iran claims the attack, regime risks further wrath, in a country whose economy is in free fall
The most probable outcome of Soleimani's killing is more of the same: Low-intensity Iranian warfare against America, Iran never engaging in direct war, but maintaining her proxy war, fighting America to the last Arab. But with Soleimani out, Iranian proxy war will be much weaker

Excellent analysis!
 
I think Iran should be careful, as I suspect the trigger level for USA is much lower than previous ‘norms’.

miscalculation could be expensive.

but they have also publicly committed to revenge.....

bit of a bind, I’d say.

a few rockets from Lebanon into USA “puppet”Israel, is unlikely to cut it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top