Iraqi pro-PMU protesters storm US embassy in Baghdad

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212046310624247808

 

[Zapper]

I like how security personnel are taking selfies..

It's looks like they're not security but members of the paramilitary group with whom the protesters aligned

 

[mike2000 is back]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211942033029582850

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211945412816449536

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211952760616296450

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211956312780820480

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211960167492915202

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211963977728745473

Poor Iraq, It's become a battleground for U.S and Iran. Just like Syria is just a battleground for Russia/Iran and U.S/Turkey etc Both countries have weak governments and hence foreign players will obviously hold more sway/influence over them

Iran’s loyalists should be removed

I don't think it's possible, since Iran is already deeply ingrained(being a neighbour makes things easier for them as well) in Iraq with it's proxies and militias on the ground and even in Iraq's political apparatus. It's like saying: Iran loyalists and proxies like Hezbollah should be removed from Lebanon' . lol That's almost impossible, since they are already part of the fabric of the country and it will be the same in Iraq judging from how things are going in the long term. Syria is also a similar case, albeit more limited. Iran basically holds sway and influence over many countries in the region from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq and even Yemen to a lesser extent, Bahrain would have been added to the mix if not for the Saudis directly intervening to crush the Iranian backed Shia uprising there. The only way i think they can be removed is through a popular nation wide public uprising like the popular uprising that happened in Lebanon after Rafic Hariri's assassination calling for the removal of Assad's forces who had been present in Lebanon and influencing the country for decades. However i don't see this happening due to many reasons.

I would say the government in Tehran have played their cards quite well to gain a good foothold in these countries. So on this one i will say geo politically speaking Iran has done a commendable job here.

 

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212066457116446720

 

[mike2000 is back]

I will be honest, they are stupid the US policy makers they aren't cut out to be king makers -- they have such big egos they'll fail to see a losing war. 18+ Years and this garbage is still on going.

Yeah i will say U.S/U.K intervention to remove Saddam Hussein was the biggest blunder we made in the region(it opened the can for many worms. lol). Granted he was a crazy dictator/Maniac , however i think it was better if he had merey been contained not totally removed. If we had just contained him things would have been more stable in the region.
Funny enough these same PMU/Shias parties/elements were the ones pushing/calling and even begging Western powers to intervene and remove Sunnis dictator Saddam which they claimed had been oppressing/killing them for decades, but immediately after western powers removed him they also turned against these same western forces which they were supporting and even collaborating with against Saddam's army. lol Irony. U.S got well played.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

So much for the "heavily fortified American Embassy" they've been telling the whole world for over a decade.

 

[zartosht]

Iraqis have gheirat….. they are nor cowards who let americans roam around free around their country, and airstrike and kill anyone with impunity.

the US got used to this sort of arrangement with some patheticly weak countries, and the Iraqis are going to teach them a lesson now.

Iraq is a lot closer to Iran culturally then I had thought before hand to be honest. Good job Iraqi. after the US violated your lands, and dignity and blatantly murdered security forces on their soil. Only a coward would take that lying down.

every single American on Iraqi soil will be insecure now.

 

[PakFactor]

Yeah i will say U.S/U.K intervention to remove Saddam Hussein was the biggest blunder we made in the region(it opened the can for many worms. lol). Granted he was a crazy dictator/Maniac , however i think it was better if he had merey been contained not totally removed. If we had just contained him things would have been more stable in the region.
Funny enough these same PMU/Shias parties/elements were the ones pushing/calling and even begging Western powers to intervene and remove Sunnis dictator Saddam which they claimed had been oppressing/killing them for decades, but immediately after western powers removed him they also turned against these same western forces which they were supporting and even collaborating with against Saddam's army. lol Irony. U.S got well played. lol

True, also Genghis Khan used traitors from enemy land before he attacked to get information and after the conflict he would kill them saying, If you can't be honorable and loyal to your own, how can you be to me? That lesson fell on deaf ears, US & Coalition Forces were used to remove someone else's threat just so they can come to power. They basically used the West for free so the game was played well depending which side your on.

And like you said it opened a can of worms and now Europe is swamped with refugees, and then again what they did with Iraq they did with Syria -- I'm sure even God is sitting in the clouds thinking what idiot creatures he created where couple of neurons are miss firing.

 

[mike2000 is back]

True, also Genghis Khan used traitors from enemy land before he attacked to get information and after the conflict he would kill them saying, If you can't be honorable and loyal to your own, how can you be to me? That lesson fell on deaf ears, US & Coalition Forces were used to remove someone else's threat just so they can come to power. They basically used the West for free so the game was played well depending which side your on.

ahaha....yes indeed. Totally agree. Well, i think the U.S/U.K and other western powers thought that things will be easier after getting encouragement from Iraqis shia's elements and seeing how unpopular Saddam was among Iraqis Shia's they obviously thought it will be easy to crush Saddam's Iraq's mainly sunni led forces and since Shia's being majority they would keep supporting U.S/Western powers even after Saddam's removal and thereby making U.S job of rebuilding and stabilizing the country more easier and favourable towards the West. However, the U.S/West got it wrong, since after they deposed and dissolved Saddam's baathist army/government and gave power to to the Shia's led forces who had supported/collaborated and fought alongside US/Western forces these same forces immediately played a double game and turned back against the same Western forces they had supported and collaborated with earlier and even leading to an internal civil sectarian war with their former Sunnis rulers/remnants of Saddams regime( they called it their own revenge i suppose). So yes the West got played here. lol What they call: ''Killing with a borrowed knife''. i.e Attack using the strength of another (in a situation where using one's own strength is not favourable).

And like you said it opened a can of worms and now Europe is swamped with refugees, and then again what they did with Iraq they did with Syria -- I'm sure even God is sitting in the clouds thinking what idiot creatures he created where couple of neurons are miss firing.

Well, yes, but Iraq's case is different from Syria to be honest. In fact the U.S/U.K(our parliament rejected intervening to remove Assad, they learned from the Iraq fiasco) did well by not intervening to remove Assad(as bad as he might be just like Saddam) directly. Since i can remember there were many Sunnis rebels/elements in Syria and even the region calling/pleading with the west to intervene and remove Assad for them and claiming(rightly i confess) how Assad Shia led regime has been oppressing/killing them since the uprisings and even for decades. Fortunately enough we didn't fall for the bait this time. lol Since if we did intervene to remove him, i am 100% sure these same elements will have been the first ones to turn their weapons and attention against us immediately after we removed him. They too would have started fighting against each other for power and looking for vengeance against their former rulers/oppressors i.e Shias leading to another sectarian conflict like we saw in Iraq post Saddam thereby leading to the weakening and fracturing of the government and country even further. It's good we limited our involvement to targeted strikes against elements detrimental to our interests/security. That was the best way to deal with this. Let them fight and shed their own blood if they really want to be free from their own dictators/tyrants.

As the saying goes: " , fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me ".

 

[zartosht]

ahaha....yes indeed. Totally agree. Well, i think the U.S/U.K and other western powers thought that things will be easier after getting encouragement from Iraqis shia's elements and seeing how unpopular Saddam was among Iraqis Shia's they obviously thought it will be easy to crush Saddam's Iraq's mainly sunni led forces and since Shia's being majority they would keep supporting U.S/Western powers even after Saddam's removal and thereby making U.S job of rebuilding and stabilizing the country more easier. However, U.S/West was wrong, since after they deposed and dissolved Saddam's baathist army/government gave power to to the Shia's led forces who had supported US/Western forces these same forces immediately played a double game and turned back against the same Western forces rhey had supported and collaborated with earlier and even leading to an internal civil sectarian war with their former Sunnis rulers/remnants of Saddams regime( they called it their own revenge i suppose). So yes the West got played here. lol What they call: ''Killing with a borrowed knife''. i.e Attack using the strength of another (in a situation where using one's own strength is not favourable).

The only people who got played were the western taxpayers paying the trillions for the war, and the soldiers doing the dying/ getting mutiliated.

The elites got rich off this war. Weapons manufacturers executives made their companies billions and themselves 10s of millions in bonuses. Same with oil execs, and all the contractors associated with them.

when the average joe in the west realizes their biggest enemy isn't some poor muslim in the middle east going about his business but the parasitic Zionist elite who throw their own countries interests in the toilet to make the rich richer, and advance israeli interests...

Iraq was an oil rich strategic country that was anti-israel. The US thought it would be a cakewalk to topple saddam, take over Iraq and advance israeli security interests.... what could go wrong?

and im only talking about foreign policy.. internal policy is a whole different matter altogether.

 

[TNT]

I think attacking and storming an embassy is a very cheap and below the belt kind of thing. Iranians have tendency to do such cheap attacks, they ve done it in past.

 

[Crystal-Clear]

Iraqis have gheirat….. they are nor cowards who let americans roam around free around their country, and airstrike and kill anyone with impunity.

the US got used to this sort of arrangement with some patheticly weak countries, and the Iraqis are going to teach them a lesson now.

Iraq is a lot closer to Iran culturally then I had thought before hand to be honest. Good job Iraqi. after the US violated your lands, and dignity and blatantly murdered security forces on their soil. Only a coward would take that lying down.

every single American on Iraqi soil will be insecure now.

after killing 2 millions iraqi . only ambassy.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Khan used traitors from enemy land before he attacked to get information and after the conflict he would kill them saying, If you can't be honorable and loyal to your own, how can you be to me? That lesson fell on deaf ears, US & Coalition Forces were used to remove someone else's threat just so they can come to power.

Well, you got a point. However, that's long in the past. In today's modern world, it wasn't feasible for U.S/U.K to kill off or get rid of all these collaborators or "traitor's" as you called them(they were in the hundreds of thousands ), since we live in a modern world and doing so will lead to an international and even local outcry for the U.S . Back in the days you could basically slaughter anyone you wanted without any repercussions or international scrunity. It was a real jungle world were the strong slaughtered and walked on the weak with total impunity. Today's world is relatively different and not feasible to carry out such acts

 

[PakFactor]

Well, you got a point. However, that's long in the past. In today's modern world, it wasn't feasible for U.S/U.K to kill off or get rid of all these collaborators or "traitor's" as you called them(they were in the hundreds of thousands ), since we live in a modern world and doing so will lead to an international and even local outcry for the U.S . Back in the days you could basically slaughter anyone you wanted without any repercussions or international scrunity. It was a real jungle world were the strong slaughtered and walked on the weak with total impunity. Today's world is relatively different and not feasible to carry out such acts

I don’t believe much has changed — under the disguise CIA and others kidnap torture and probably even kill their captives. We have seen cases of black cells US used all across Europe so I don’t believe anyone really holds a higher ground and back lash doesn’t amount to anything really all you hear is noise.

 

[mike2000 is back]

I don’t believe much has changed — under the disguise CIA and others kidnap torture and probably even kill their captives. We have seen cases of black cells US used all across Europe so I don’t believe anyone really holds a higher ground and back lash doesn’t amount to anything really all you hear is noise.

If you don't think much has changed then you should go an re read history. Do you even know how many hundreds of millions of people died under the Mongols? While cities were massacred and heads displayed publicly to scare others into Submission and there was no real international outcry. In fact those living away from the areas of conflict didn't even know or heard or cared about such news much, it was normal since the world wasn't a globalised/modern world back then.
To give you an example of how things have changed. , If the world was the same like back in that period of time then there will be no North Korea under Kim rule today, neither will there be any Iranian regime as we know it today. Since they would have been removed and invaded and anybody who even mentioned anything favourable to them in the country willb slaughtered publicly without anybody giving a shit and no international outcry since there will be no media or social media or international organization or human rights groups , No UN per se. Etc So people outside the region/country won't even know what's really going there, neither will they even care much to be honest.
In short back then you could basically invade any country you wanted and kill and slaughter anybody you wanted as long as you had the power and capabilities to do so. Just look at how empires back then used to invade a conquer countries and did what they wanted. For example there is no way Britain can even invade/colonise rule another country today even if we wanted to or had the capabilities to do so. The national/local outcry alone will be enough to topple that government altogether. So you can't compare the ruthless jungle rule of the past to today's more organised and civil international system.
That's not to say there's is no strong bullying the weak nowadays. Just that it's nothing compared to back in the days.