Israel military action against Iraq before November? | Polymarket Tracker

This market is closed and no longer accepting bets.

Israel military action against Iraq before November?

Last updated 6 months ago

2145

Comments

1

Market

0

Comments per hour

Summary

The discussion revolves around the uncertainty surrounding an alleged military action by Israel against Iraq, with users expressing skepticism about reports and evidence of such an event occurring. There is a strong leaning towards betting "No" on the occurrence of this military action, with some participants mentioning a lack of concrete evidence and the possibility of market manipulation by large account holders. Additionally, some users criticize the platform's apparent bias and premature conclusions, advocating for decisions to be postponed until clearer information surfaces.

There is widespread uncertainty and skepticism about whether Israel has taken military action against Iraq, with users voicing doubts about the credibility of reports and urging for a more cautious approach.
Concerns about market manipulation and potential financial motives behind certain large bets are prevalent, creating suspicion among participants about the integrity of the bet outcome.

Comments

Fox News EDITED their article and REMOVED IRAQ ATTACK and KEPT SYRIA/IRAN attack. General Consensus = NO MILITARY ACTION ON IRAQ

Liked by n/a, n/a and 34 others

As previously stated, verbiage is important. Words like "may" or "suggest" do not constitute confirmation. Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal provide ambiguous or inconclusive reporting, focusing primarily on Iranian territory. The fact that Israeli jets flew through Iraqi airspace does not meet the market's criteria for confirming military action on Iraqi soil. Furthermore, Iraq’s official denial of any strikes on its territory adds weight to the argument against a "Yes" resolution. The phrase "may" in any reporting, such as "Iran said Israel may have used Iraqi airspace," does not constitute definitive confirmation. The market requires explicit evidence of Israeli military action on Iraqi soil, and this has not been provided by any credible media outlet. The lack of any clear consensus, combined with Iraq's denial, means the conditions for a "Yes" resolution are not met. With these points in mind, this market should either resolve as No or remain marked as Too Early until clearer evidence emerges that supports direct military action on Iraqi territory. To resolve this prematurely as "Yes" would be to base the outcome on speculation, not confirmation.

Liked by n/a, n/a and 32 others

I recommend the market immediately remove the additional information, millions of dollars have flowed into this bet since it was released, far above the normal growth rate. Some people come in for 1% return, but risk losing everything.

Liked by n/a, n/a and 31 others

WIKIPEDIA = NO MILITARY ACTION ON IRAQ | NO government confirmation = MARKET NO

Liked by n/a, n/a and 30 others

No American, European or Middle Eastern media reported this! NO government official claimed or made a statement confirming But Polymarket tells you the opposite! 😂😂😂😂😂

Liked by n/a, n/a and 29 others

I am in complete shock. Polymarkets OWN market summary says NO military action against Iraq. Iraq, Israel and US government officials did NOT confirm any military action against iraq. The conditions of this prediction requires a general consensus: so far only 1 NY article and the original FOX article retracted its claim and now have 'reports' without citing a source. Therefore rumours and no official confirmation No majority news outlets reporting on this creating a general consensus Now we have this prediction in the hands of UMA, UMA voters are corrupt and will VOTE YES just so they can profit of this bet whilst also holding power on the outcome. This is outrageous and looks VERY VERY bad for polymarket, even YES holders AGREE that there was no attack but they are still voting YES due to the platform rewarding bias and manipulators in the market. The truth is that there are no military action against IRAQ otherwise IRAQ would have confirmed it. Polymarket should take charge of this bet and part ways with UMA

Liked by n/a, n/a and 27 others

A resolution of ‘Yes’ requires one or both of the following: official acknowledgment by the Israeli government or a consensus of credible reporting. The key word here is ‘consensus.’ As of now, no credible media sources, including Reuters, BBC, AP, or others, have explicitly confirmed that Israeli military action took place on Iraqi soil during the specified period. In fact, Iraqi officials have denied any strikes occurred on their territory, and reports remain ambiguous at best. Without a clear consensus confirming action on Iraqi soil, a ‘Yes’ resolution would contradict the stated requirements for credible confirmation. If a “yes” is reached, sources will need to be provided to compare to Poly’s terms and which combination of credible sources they base decisions on

Liked by n/a, n/a and 26 others

Fox news edited their article removing IRAQ and joined CNN, BBC, and Arab news reporting only on Syria and Iran. As they deliberately did not mention Iraq, they are all not part of the general agreement claimed. NO GOVERNMENT made any official claims or statements either = RESOLVE TO NO

Liked by n/a, n/a and 24 others

WIKIPEDIA = NO | Government officials = NO | Majority of news = NO | IRAQ themselves = NO | BUT polymarket and corrupt UMA say yes? gtfo

Liked by n/a, n/a and 24 others

If anyone can help to spread this message, we would really appreciate that!

Liked by n/a, n/a and 23 others