Iranska generalen Qasem Soleimani dödad i amerikansk attack i Bagdad

Sådana personer som Macron? Troligen aldrig men att man får ju ge karln ändå för att han försöker för sin egen och Frankrikes skull.

Den senaste konflikten började med att USA bombade iranska oljekällor.
Trump borde dessutom hålla sig på sin sida av Atlanten, det var väl ett av hans vallöften att USA skulle sluta spela världspolis.

Nja. Den diplomatiska vägen är totalt stängd nu. Du skriver ju själv att Suleimani var populär. Dessutom stod han Aytollah nära...

Iran borde inte tacka nej när möjligheten fanns.

USA vill att Iran hämnas, det är ju hela syftet att provocera fram något som ger USA en anledning att dra igång ett fullskaligt krig och krossa sin gamle fiende Iran.

Jag är tveksam till att de skulle nappa på erbjudande helt klart. Här (bild):


Elijah J. Magnier
@ejmalrai

Following the #US assassination of #Qassem_Soleimani "The red flag was raised over Jamkaran mosque in #Qom #Iran & it won't be taken down until revenge against the US is fulfilled" via
@Sara_Haj

https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/...493821952?s=20

Video:

SIFFAT ZAHRA
@SiffatZahra

First Time In The History, Red Flag Unfurled Over The Holy Dome Of Jamkarān Mosque, Qom Iran.

Red Flag: A Symbol Of Severe Battle To Come.

#Qaseemsulaimani
#قاسم_سليماني

https://twitter.com/SiffatZahra/stat...107888128?s=20

Helen Pen
@quiscustodis

It refers to a Shia martyr Husayn, grandson of the prophet, who was beheaded and along with his family defeated at battle of Karbala.
It took 4 years to wreak vengeance on Husayn's enemy, Yazid.
The flag means vengeance may take time but it will be inevitable and sure.
.

https://twitter.com/quiscustodis/sta...391614976?s=20

Bin Ladin var fattig och omgav sig med en mindre krets människor än den nydödade statsmannen exponerade sig för och var därför mindre hatad och sårbar.
Ursäkta meningsbyggnad.

Det beror helt på vilket tidsperspektiv man har. Som jag ser det så har USA inget att göra i Mellanöstern och alla dessa krig och konflikter som de har orsakat har dödat hundratusentals människor. Resultatet av allt krigade är att situationen har förvärrats. USA stöder envetet iIrans fiende nummer ett Saudiarabien trots att Saudiarabien bryter mot folkrätten på samtliga punkter. USA har omfattande sanktioner mot Iran som de hade lättat på under Obama, men under Trump så har det gått i motsatt riktning. Detta är naturligtvis oerhört provocerande för Iran som anser att USA agerar på uppdrag av Iseael.

Men nog är dessa mord ett flagrant brott mot folkrätten? Eller? Har jag missat något?

Det är därför jag undrar om också Löfven (eller Jimmie) teoretiskt sett skulle kunna bli ett mål för USA projektiler.

Nej. Det är tvärtom.

Nedskjuten drönare.
Beslagtaget fartyg.
Anfall mot KSA:s olja.

-----------Trump röda linje--------------
Mord på en Amerikan
Anfall mot ambassaden.


Trump är en fredshjälte ( ), men inte ens hans tålamod är obegränsat



Det var alltså Iran som eskalerade. Militärt dvs. Som ett svar på Trumps ekonomiska sanktioner.

Rukmini Callimachi på NYT brukar vara välinformerad. Här berättar hon vad hon har hört om upprinnelsen till mordet:


Rukmini Callimachi
@rcallimachi

1. I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin”.
2. In fact the evidence pointing to that came as three discrete facts: a) A pattern of travel showing Suleimani was in Syria, Lebanon & Iraq to meet with Shia proxies known to have an offensive position to the US. (As one source said that’s just “business as usual” for Suleimani)
3. More intriguing was b) information indicating Suleimani sought the Supreme Leader’s approval for an operation. He was told to come to Tehran for consultation and further guidance, suggesting the operation was a big deal - but again this could be anything.
4. And finally, a) and b) were read in the context of c) Iran’s increasingly bellicose position towards American interests in Iraq, including the attack that killed a U.S. contractor and the recent protest outside the American embassy.
5. But as one source put it a) + b) + c) is hardly evidence of an imminent attack on American interests that could kill hundreds, as the White House has since claimed. The official describes the reading of the intelligence as an illogical leap.
6. One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the “far out option”
7. Trump chose a more moderate option which involved the Dec. 29 strikes on the positions of an Iranian-backed militia. Then came the protest at the gates of the US embassy in Baghdad:
Trump Aides Call U.S. Strikes on Iraq and Syria 'Successful,' Warn of Potential Further Action
U.S. officials said on Sunday that air strikes in Iraq and Syria against an Iran-backed militia group were successful, but warned that "additional actions" may still be taken in the region to defend …
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019...core-ios-share
8. It was after the embassy protests that the president, according to one US official, chose the Suleimani option, but the problem at that point in time is that American intelligence did not know his precise whereabouts. They scrambled to locate him, says the official.
9. According to the official, the strike on Suleimani was pulled together so quickly that initially the US was not sure PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was in the convoy. He was also killed and is also viewed as an Iranian proxy:

10. Since the strike, Iran has convened its national security chiefs. Chatter intercepted by American intelligence indicates they’re considering a range of options. Cyberattacks, attacks on oil facilities and American personnel and diplomatic outposts have all been cited so far.
11. But among the “menu options” that I had not heard before were: (1) kidnapping and execution of American citizens. (This might explain why the State Department has ordered the evacuation of all US citizens in Iraq, not just government and embassy employees).

12. Another is attacks on American diplomatic and military outposts not just in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, but as far afield as UAE and Bahrain. The official I spoke to was particularly concerned for American troops stationed in Iraq, some of whom are co-located with Shia militias
13. How does this impact the war against ISIS? I turned to @Mikeknightsiraq for insight. He’s studied Iraq since the 1990s. What he told me is that months before the strike that killed Suleimani, the tensions with Iran had already degraded America’s ability to fight ISIS in Iraq:
14. In 2019, America has been denied airspace and access to operations in Iraq to go after ISIS at the behest of Iran-backed groups. The US has also been told to stop communicating with Sunni tribes. These are important setbacks that have already weakened the US’ posture in Iraq
15. “It’s all been downhill,” @Mikeknightsiraq told me, in terms of America’s access to the ISIS battlespace in recent months due to Iranian pressure on Iraqi officials. One upshot? US special operations forces have been on the offensive in Diyala, Nineveh and Kirkuk provinces
16. A likely outcome of the recent strike is that small, out-of-the-way outposts for special operations forces will be deemed too vulnerable and will be eliminated. Fighting ISIS is no longer the priority if the outer wall of the US embassy is being attacked.
17. Before I go back to the pool let me just say the obvious: No one’s trying to downplay Suleimani’s crimes. The question is why now? His whereabouts have been known before. His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret. Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...777909761.html

Hur tog drönaren sig ända dit? Ok för Irakiskt flygledning att ha drönare snurrande i luftrummet kring flygplatsen? Eller smög dom sig dit under ett annat squak? För så mycket stealth har väl inte dessa dönare. Dom syns ju på radar.

Tror han syftar på att man inte bara kan avrätta legitima militärklädda personer hur som helst, speciellt när det inte är krig. Det är hederskodex inom det militära man syftar på.

Det är ungefär som att ryssland skulle skicka drönare upp i luften och mörda en av usas högsta generaler på turkisk mark bara för man inte gillar läget vid förhandlingsbordet.

Är du med?

Den iranske generalen var en legitim militär och politiker. Inte en terrorist