There's something fishy about the location of the three US servicemen killed in the Middle East this week, officially in Jordan. Incidentally, most of the injured are National Guard, not Federal army troops, so this is quite relevant to the above discussion - National Guard are clearly deployed in the Middle East at present. In this area the US has one base inside Jordan (with the approval of the Jordanian government, so legal), and two bases immediately across the border in Syria (considered by the Syrian government to be illegal), but all very close to each other.
The US claims they were killed in a strike on the US base in Jordan. However, the militant group that has claimed responsibility has only claimed to have attacked the bases in Syria. And Jordan's response is very interesting - initially someone high up said on Jordanian TV that the deaths occurred in Syria, then they stopped talking about the location. The below article in the Jordan Times is intriguing for how it strategically skips around this question. Firstly, it's in the "Region" section of the paper, not the "Local" section - the section for news from neighbouring countries, not Jordan, which is a subtle message about the location. There is not a single article I can find in the "Local" section even mentioning this. The article itself then describes the location simply as "in an outpost near the northeastern borders with Syria" - it carefully avoids even hinting what side of the border. Even the file photo is explicitly stated to be from a location outside Jordan. You'd think if someone had fired on Jordan itself, the Jordanian government would be angry and vocal about it - but they're being surprisingly quiet. These days we often learn the true location of military events from people cross-referencing photos of the event with aerial photos - but in this case I have not seen a single photograph of the attack aftermath (have photos been suppressed to stop georeferencing?).
Personally, joining all the dots but especially the Jordanian statements around it, I think the attack most likely occurred in Syria, with the wounded and dead then taken to Jordan. But the USA is claiming it was attacked in Jordan for political reasons, and Jordan as an ally is choosing not to contradict them but to carefully say nothing. Because there's a big difference in how the international community will perceive deaths in a location where the US is technically occupiers, and deaths in a location where they are welcome. The former would not make the US the victim in the eyes of the world in general, but the second would. This might seem a little nitpicking detail, but there's a good chance that this will be used as a pretext for an enormous escalation in the present Middle East conflict, so details are important. It is little details like this that indicate whether "our side" wants to start / expand a war by exploiting this tragedy, or are genuinely responding to a war that is being thrust upon them against their will.
www.jordantimes.com
The US claims they were killed in a strike on the US base in Jordan. However, the militant group that has claimed responsibility has only claimed to have attacked the bases in Syria. And Jordan's response is very interesting - initially someone high up said on Jordanian TV that the deaths occurred in Syria, then they stopped talking about the location. The below article in the Jordan Times is intriguing for how it strategically skips around this question. Firstly, it's in the "Region" section of the paper, not the "Local" section - the section for news from neighbouring countries, not Jordan, which is a subtle message about the location. There is not a single article I can find in the "Local" section even mentioning this. The article itself then describes the location simply as "in an outpost near the northeastern borders with Syria" - it carefully avoids even hinting what side of the border. Even the file photo is explicitly stated to be from a location outside Jordan. You'd think if someone had fired on Jordan itself, the Jordanian government would be angry and vocal about it - but they're being surprisingly quiet. These days we often learn the true location of military events from people cross-referencing photos of the event with aerial photos - but in this case I have not seen a single photograph of the attack aftermath (have photos been suppressed to stop georeferencing?).
Personally, joining all the dots but especially the Jordanian statements around it, I think the attack most likely occurred in Syria, with the wounded and dead then taken to Jordan. But the USA is claiming it was attacked in Jordan for political reasons, and Jordan as an ally is choosing not to contradict them but to carefully say nothing. Because there's a big difference in how the international community will perceive deaths in a location where the US is technically occupiers, and deaths in a location where they are welcome. The former would not make the US the victim in the eyes of the world in general, but the second would. This might seem a little nitpicking detail, but there's a good chance that this will be used as a pretext for an enormous escalation in the present Middle East conflict, so details are important. It is little details like this that indicate whether "our side" wants to start / expand a war by exploiting this tragedy, or are genuinely responding to a war that is being thrust upon them against their will.
Iran warns US against threats after deadly attack on troops
TEHRAN — Iran on Wednesday warned the United States not to threaten it, after Washington said it decided on a response to an attack that killed three American troops in an outpost near the northeastern borders with Syria."America must stop using the language of threat and projection and focus...
Last edited:
