Houman, are you able to say anything at all about what you personally think or suspect may happen next regarding the domino effect of Soleimani's assassination?
Printable View
Houman, are you able to say anything at all about what you personally think or suspect may happen next regarding the domino effect of Soleimani's assassination?
I don't know what will happen next... all I know is that some prophecies in the Talmud/Midrash are being used as a script to ignite a war between Edom (USA/the West) and Persia (Iran), a war that is supposed to hasten the arrival of the Moshiah...Quote:
Posted by Bill Ryan
Soleimani seems to have been interfering with that script:
fighting ISIS/DAESH (proxies for the creation of the Greater Israel) and planning de-escalation with Saudis...
From that script we have an end-goal, some milestones but not the details of its implementation...
What is worrisome is that, the implementation of that script is a matter of subjective reality, it does not matter whether Iran actually retaliates against American interests or if that retaliation is a false flag carried by the US itself or a third party, the end result is the same if the masses accept that subjective reality as objective...
Ezekiel 38:4
Quote:
…and declare that this is what the Lord GOD says: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws, and bring you out with all your army— your horses, your horsemen in full armor, a huge company armed with shields and bucklers, all brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush, and Put will accompany them, all with shields and helmets,…
Hopefully, the following post will not be mis-characterized and creatively misinterpreted as the one I made a few days ago and have quoted above.Quote:
Posted by Sammy
So to avoid such as best I can, I will first quote the Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mohammed al-Halboosi said in an address to lawmakers before the vote -
Note: the emphasis is mine.Quote:
The Iraqi government has an obligation to end the presence of all foreign forces on Iraqi soil and prevent it from using Iraqi lands, waters, and airspace or any other reason
I will now offer an Observation: Interesting that the corporate media headlines parrot "expulsion of U.S. troops" without direct mention the goal is that all foreign presence leaves Iraq.
I will now provide my Commentary: Speaking as a US citizen (and all the "good and bad" that goes with being one), as someone currently residing in the US and as a human being - I hope that Trump seizes the moment to eliminate all US "presence" in Iraq to the extant he can so do. If he strives to do so and somehow succeeds, this may start a momentum of reduction of US forces in the region, again, if he is allowed so to do by both his string pullers from above (the controllers) and his string pullers to the side (the rest of the US political spectrum).
I am realistic that the odds that my wish and desire actually happens are extremely low. But I am reminded of one of the top five reasons many voted for Trump... that being to reduce the presence of US forces around the globe, especially in the middle east.
We shall see what happens.
Indeed, I assume that USA Eugenic PsychoTechnocrats at the Pentagon and those who control them (The Deep Sate?) may want to test tons of new weapon-technologies including from space! ... Partial A.I. & EMP Warfare?Quote:
Posted by ByTheNorthernSeaI wish I had your confidence in this scenario...Quote:
Posted by Iyakum
The US assassinated an envoy -- Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission.
http://thesaker.is/the-usa-is-now-at...iraq-and-iran/Quote:
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
Bill, our problem, as humans, is we name and label things as good or bad. Is a thunder storm or hurricane a good thing or a bad thing? Is a forest fire good? or bad? It just is , and depending on our position or point of view we assign it meaning. A tsunami is a bad thing if you live on the coast and are directly in its path. If not, it replenishes the earth as it has done since the beginning of time. We suffer from short term memory, as well as personal self interest, that guides our thoughts.Quote:
Houman, are you able to say anything at all about what you personally think or suspect may happen next regarding the domino effect of Soleimani's assassination?
Parent Post
short answer, have to wait and see
If true, this would be very serious.Quote:
Posted by silvanelf
Normally there is an author attributed in the Saker articles, there wasn't an author attributed that I could see.
It's sort of anonymous?
I was able to track the language used in the above quote to Elijah J. Magnier's Twitter account.
That tweet was written about 8 hours ago.
I haven't been able to find another source to confirm it?
Eight hours is a long time to not see a confirmation in the legacy news wires.
I've also looked at Al-Jazeera, Arab News, AINA and Tass.
Iraq lodges complaint to UN chief, UNSC over US assassination of Lt. Gen. Soleimani, Muhandis
Iraq says it has lodged a formal complaint to the UN chief and the UN Security Council (UNSC) over the US assassination of Iran's top military commander, Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
The Iraqi foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday that it had submitted two letters of complaint to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the UNSC, asking the world body to condemn the assassination of General Soleimani and Muhandis in a US drone strike near Baghdad International Airport in the early hours of Friday.
According to the statement, the complaint is about “American attacks and aggression on Iraqi military positions and the assassination of Iraqi and allied high-level military commanders on Iraqi soil.”
The assassination was “a dangerous breach of Iraqi sovereignty and of the terms of US presence in Iraq,” the ministry added.
Four other Iranians as well as four Iraqis accompanying them were also martyred in the US strike.
more:
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/...rliament-Daesh
https://www.mofa.gov.iq/2020/01/?p=7...jBPE3EKi_E6eP8
Trump Just 'Accidentally' Ended The Iraq War, Iraq Votes For Us Military To LEAVE
don't know why people jump up and down over iran attack right now or having media talking point...i was expecting people over Oil Attack months ago and blame on Iran. It's well known Trump backed by zionist and part of agenda.
just pissed off Trump Trump Trump but fail to see big picture..
Quote:
Posted by edinaIf true, this would be very serious.Quote:
Posted by silvanelf
Normally there is an author attributed in the Saker articles, there wasn't an author attributed that I could see.
It's sort of anonymous?
I was able to track the language used in the above quote to Elijah J. Magnier's Twitter account.
That tweet was written about 8 hours ago.
I haven't been able to find another source to confirm it?
Eight hours is a long time to not see a confirmation in the legacy news wires.
I've also looked at Al-Jazeera, Arab News, AINA and Tass.
The article "The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran" was written by the Saker itself.Quote:
Normally there is an author attributed in the Saker articles, there wasn't an author attributed that I could see.
It's sort of anonymous?
https://time.com/5759101/iraqi-parli...us-withdrawal/Quote:
During the Iraqi parliament’s emergency session, in which some members repeatedly chanted “no to America,” Mahdi revealed new information about the run up to the American drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, a prominent Iranian military leader who commanded the country’s elite Quds Force. Mahdi said President Donald Trump called him and asked him to mediate with Iran even as the American president was secretly ordering Soleimani’s killing. Mahdi also said he was set to meet Soleimani, who was carrying a response to an initiative from Saudi Arabia intended to deescalate tensions.
Reuters wrote an article that has similar but not exact language to Elijah's information in the Saker article.Quote:
Posted by edinaIf true, this would be very serious.Quote:
Posted by silvanelf
Normally there is an author attributed in the Saker articles, there wasn't an author attributed that I could see.
It's sort of anonymous?
I was able to track the language used in the above quote to Elijah J. Magnier's Twitter account.
That tweet was written about 8 hours ago.
I haven't been able to find another source to confirm it?
Eight hours is a long time to not see a confirmation in the legacy news wires.
I've also looked at Al-Jazeera, Arab News, AINA and Tass.
I think it was written a few hours ago (I've been away from the computer, and updated 33 minutes ago.)
Iraq wants foreign troops out after air strike; U.S. urges leaders to reconsider
It seems to me that if that were the case, that "breakthrough" could still continue if it didn't involve the US, but rather involved the Saudi's.Quote:
Abdul Mahdi said that despite the “internal and external difficulties” the country might face, canceling its request for help from U.S.-led coalition military forces “remains best for Iraq on principle and practically.”
He said he had been scheduled to meet Soleimani the day he was killed, and that the general had been due to deliver an Iranian response to a message from Saudi Arabia that Abdul Mahdi had earlier passed to Tehran. Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Iran had been about to “reach a breakthrough over the situation in Iraq and the region”, Abdul Mahdi said.
This is the reason why the special ops and intel people I mentioned earlier think that Trump had been pushed or tricked into this action. From their point of view, the strategy he had been using was very close to accomplishing the mission.
The death of Soleimani is almost like a sabatoge of what Trump was working toward.
They think that people like me who think that this was a planned decision, part of a larger strategy already in place, a tactic to use should it be needed, sort of thing, are naive. (It's hard to say without a better understanding of the intelligence, we're all speculating at this point.)
Their logic is that a good portion of intelligence is in interpretation. And that someone steered the interpretation a certain way, and that this is how Trump was 'pushed'.
The thing for me is that I don't rule out the possibility of the use of a "looking glass" sort of technology. Whereas for many, that idea is just "crazy talk." :)
Regardless, what is done, is done.
I continue to hold all involved in prayer...
So nine people, not just One, were killed, in this thing. NINE people.Quote:
Posted by uzn
"Accidentally"Quote:
Posted by ExomatrixTV
;)I don't believe it was an accident but outcome is going to be a surprise.
https://aawsat.com/english/home/arti...-hezbollah-war
Quote:
Soleimani Reveals Details of Role He Played in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War
Thursday, 3 October, 2019 - 07:00
The Iranian State TV broadcast on Tuesday an exclusive interview with Commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani, who has given an insight on his role in Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.
This is the first interview of Soleimani, who is in charge of foreign operations especially in Syria and Iraq.
During the 90-minute interview, Soleimani gave details of his role in Lebanon in advising ‘Hezbollah’ during the 34-day war. He came to Lebanon accompanied by Hezbollah military leader Imad Mughniyeh who was later assassinated in 2008.
Mughniyeh was considered the engineer of the 2006 war, which killed 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis.
...
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...601160,00.html
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Th...in-Iraq-612962Quote:
Photo: AP
Qassem Soleimani
Photo: AP
send to friend
comment
Iran general: Israel came close to killing me, Hezbollah chief in Second Lebanon War
The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, claims the pair under constant surveillance of 'Israeli regime' and miraculously escaped the building that was bombed...
i24NEWS|Published: 10.02.19 , 12:35
The commander of the elite Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Tuesday that Israel came very close to killing him and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah during the Second Lebanon War.
In a rare interview, Qassem Soleimani - who was in Beirut at the time of the 34-day conflict - recalled that one night he and Hezbollah's second-in-command Imad Mughniyeh went outside and were spotted by Israeli surveillance drones...
Israeli spy planes were "constantly" flying over the Hezbollah stronghold of Dahiyeh, a neighborhood of Beirut, with Jerusalem “watching every movement” on the ground, said Soleimani.
That's when the Iranian made the decision to evacuate their position and escort Nasrallah to a second building. Moments later, Soleimani recounts, Israeli forces unleashed two bombardments nearby.
“We were feeling that these two bombings were about to be followed by a third one … so we decided to get out of that building. We didn’t have a car, and there was complete silence, just the Israeli regime aircraft flying over Dahiyeh,” he recounted.
Quote:
Soleimani's luck couldn't last; this time he met his end (obit-analysis)
For years I followed a FB page called "My Stealthy Freedom".
I've mentioned this in the Q thread back in 2018; that I would share posts from their page from time to time to help raise awareness of what these women were experiencing. They were taking brave actions of NOT wearing a hijab.
These are courageous warrior women in my opinion, and all too often they pay a huge price for their small acts of protest.
Sometimes Iranian women would share photos of the bruises on their bodies from the lashings and beatings they received if caught not wearing a hijab. I'm often astounded at how many women here in the US who are very defensive about women's rights yet seem to have no idea what it's like for women in Iran.
I've been reading many different articles and tweets and interesting twitter threads over the past few days related to this situation in Iran.
This tweet reminded me of the women of "My Stealthy Freedom."
"Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem."Craig Murray - January 4th, 2020"So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something."
________________________________________
Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani
In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists.
Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court. [My emphasis - TQ]
(Extract):
(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent.
It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”
[Written in 2017]
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”.In the UK recently, the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media.
In fact, the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting.
The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute.
Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story.
Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community.
The public knows none of this.
They just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information
To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Attachment 42230
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces.
The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
Attachment 42231
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bull****. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.
——————————————
Resource: - Bethlehem Doctrine
Silvanelf, what do you think is "embarrassing" about my way of thinking?Quote:
Posted by silvanelfDo you think that Trump and "the mullahs" worked together to assassinate Soleimani? You are using an awkward kind of reasoning.Quote:
Posted by Iyakum
If you are such a professional in politics and world affairs, shouldn't you know better?
How about an example or two? US Embassy hostage in Tehran. 1979 to mid-January 1980. President Carter could not free her, now that was intentional so he was not elected. But Reagan made a promise that the hostage-taking would end the hostage-taking if he won the election and took over the presidency.
The Iranian government announced the release of the hostages 20 minutes after Reagan's speech ended when he took office on January 20, 1981. This and other evidence suggest that the Reagan camp had been holding secret negotiations with representatives of Tehran for some time before the election on November 4, 1980, in order to delay the release of the hostages so that they would not benefit from the October Surprise in the election Carter's impact.
What about the United States' illegal arms delivery to Iran? 1986 Iran-Contra Scandals Extensive, Illegal Reagan Government Arms Deliveries to Iran? Contact processing is said to have taken place through Reagan's campaign manager and later director of central intelligence William Joseph Casey and the Iranian arms dealer Jamshid Hashemi.
That's how politics works. If the United States wanted to silently and secretly dump Soleimani, they had plenty of options. But why then with a drone or a rocket so that everyone can watch it?
Your posts read as if you lived in Iran. Do you have that ? Before you drag the participants in this thread into the dirt, you should consider whether you have been attacked by others or by me. If not, then your report is a lot more embarrassing than mine.
Tensions are growing not only between the United States and Iran, but also between Washington and the government in Baghdad, Iraq. US President Donald Trump has now threatened Iraq with drastic sanctions in the event of the hostile expulsion of some 5,000 US soldiers from the country.
If the country does not meet the US conditions for withdrawal, the US government will impose sanctions "like never before," Trump said journalists traveling on Sunday evening (local time) during the return flight from Florida to Washington, Trump said.
In addition, the United States would not leave Iraq unless the country paid for the US Air Force base there: "We have an extremely expensive air force base there. The construction cost billions of dollars long before my time. We will not leave before we do don't pay for it. "
Trump went on to say that his government might consider publishing intelligence related to the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimanis. The pressure on the US government to justify the deadly attack on Iraqi soil is growing daily.
I just hear the news from Radio Israel Free Iran. As far as the news is true, the Iranian government has suspended a $ 80 million bounty on Trump. We all knew that there would be an answer. Still, that's still a war away.
Avalon member mgray has an article today questioning motives for this, as it relates to the past Iran Nuclear Deal that Obama sent all the cash over for, Ukraine-related arms trafficking, impeachment to cover up, etc.
https://grayseconomy.com/2020/01/06/...-deal-partner/
Quote:
Soleimani death silences Iran deal partner
..
Soleimani was the key negotiator working with Bijan Kian for the US, who worked with Lt. Col. Mike Flynn, to broker the Iran nuclear deal.
..
If I was President Trump, then I would take another look at the advisor(s) who brought the idea of taking out Soleimani and question motive. Did we take out Soleimani as an appropriate response to the attack on our embassy in Baghdad, or did they want to silence a know collaborator?
Question everything Mr. President.