Debates
10 Dec 11
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou actually mean the US ship was illegally situated in Iranian waters...
What you didn't mention is that the ship was actively engaged in combat with Iranian forces at the time.
Whether it was an understandable accident or the result of negligence from either side, I will reserve judgment because I wasn't there and I don't know anything about the Navy's policies and procedures at the time, or the equipment th ...[text shortened]... e fact that someone of your character hates me is the greatest compliment you can pay.
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by shavixmirYou're deflecting. Comparing an accident to deliberately targeting civilians is wrong, correct? When you're done deflecting we can address other topics related to this incident if you wish.
You actually mean the US ship was illegally situated in Iranian waters...
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWe weren't at war with Iran. Hostilities were intermittent and focused on protecting oil shipping in the Gulf. Civilian flights were still routinely flying out of and into Iran. "They must have known" is nonsense given the facts of the situation and just an attempt to blame the victim.
I'll read the report later on when I have time, as I said I haven't ruled out negligence as a factor.
With that being said, even IF he was negligent that is distinctly different than deliberately targeting a civilian jetliner.
And how could they NOT know they were flying over a battle zone? If the US troops were engaged off of the coast of New York do you have any doubt flights would be canceled out of JFK?
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIranian forces were actively engaged with US troops. Sending flights right over the battle zone is beyond stupid. Whether or not there was a declared war is completely irrelevant.
We weren't at war with Iran. Hostilities were intermittent and focused on protecting oil shipping in the Gulf. Civilian flights were still routinely flying out of and into Iran. "They must have known" is nonsense given the facts of the situation and just an attempt to blame the victim.
You say I'm attempting to blame the victim, and I say I'm giving my honest opinion given the situation. Believe me, I have the utmost respect for your belief in your psychic powers but I think I would know if that's what I was attempting to do.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYour position is moronic as the article from the US Naval Institute shows. How was a flight supposed to get from Iran to the Arabian Peninsula but from over the Persian Gulf (remember they were at war with Iraq)? Really you need to actually think about these things rather than give a knee jerk "patriotic" response based on propaganda statements from high ranking US officials.
Iranian forces were actively engaged with US troops. Sending flights right over the battle zone is beyond stupid. Whether or not there was a declared war is completely irrelevant.
You say I'm attempting to blame the victim, and I say I'm giving my honest opinion given the situation. Believe me, I have the utmost respect for your belief in your psychic powers but I think I would know if that's what I was attempting to do.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderEither fly around it or cancel the flight all together, it's that simple.
Your position is moronic as the article from the US Naval Institute shows. How was a flight supposed to get from Iran to the Arabian Peninsula but from over the Persian Gulf (remember they were at war with Iraq)? Really you need to actually think about these things rather than give a knee jerk "patriotic" response based on propaganda statements from high ranking US officials.
Given the fact that countries have been known to accidentally shoot down their own planes from time to time, yes flying a civilian charter right over the battle is extremely risky. You think otherwise, and apparently I was right.
My disagreeing with you isn't a knee jerk "patriotic" response, it is simply me disagreeing with you. I know that's a difficult pill for that massive ego of yours to swallow.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHe deliberately targetted that aeroplane.
You're deflecting. Comparing an accident to deliberately targeting civilians is wrong, correct? When you're done deflecting we can address other topics related to this incident if you wish.
It was over Iranian territory and was bleeping a civilian signal.
He didn't accidentally shoot it out of the sky with a multi-thousand rocket. Really, he didn't trip on a bag of chips and accidentally push that bloody button.
Now, if you'd just come back to reality for a minute, you'd see that this plane was DELIBERATELY shot down.
14 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperPlease read the article. The "battle" started a grand total of 4 minutes before the Iranian airliner took off. The idea that the Iranian pilot deliberately overflew a "battle" is absolutely ridiculous given the facts (which you seem to want to remain ignorant of); he and his air traffic controllers had no way of knowing the US had started a battle in Iranian waters. How exactly he could have "flown around" a battle he didn't know existed or how his controllers should have cancelled a flight because of a battle they knew nothing about is a complete mystery to everyone's mind but yours. The flight was a regularly scheduled civilian one listed on a schedule that the Vincennes had and the plane was doing everything required by international aviation law to identify itself as a civilian plane.
Either fly around it or cancel the flight all together, it's that simple.
Given the fact that countries have been known to accidentally shoot down their own planes from time to time, yes flying a civilian charter right over the battle is extremely risky. You think otherwise, and apparently I was right.
My disagreeing with you isn't a agreeing with you. I know that's a difficult pill for that massive ego of yours to swallow.
You weren't "right". You were and are ignorant of the facts. Get the facts and then talk to me rather than continuing to blather.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperFriendly fire incidents are not rare in warfare, not just in the air, but often close up on the ground. Another thing not mentioned is that it isn't unheard of for nations to use commercial aircraft for military purposes. Anyone here remember Sept. 11, 2001?
Either fly around it or cancel the flight all together, it's that simple.
Given the fact that countries have been known to accidentally shoot down their own planes from time to time, yes flying a civilian charter right over the battle is extremely risky. You think otherwise, and apparently I was right.
My disagreeing with you isn't a ...[text shortened]... agreeing with you. I know that's a difficult pill for that massive ego of yours to swallow.
Fighters were dispatched from Selfridge in Michigan to shoot down Flight 93 if it had not crashed in Shanksville, PA.
While I question many times whether our government is forthright and truthful about incidents of this type, I tend to trust officers of the US Navy, and question what possible benefits or motives they would have had to intentionally shoot down a civilian airliner. These weren't HS kids playing the latest war video game. These were Annapolis grads, with years of experience, and the responsibility for the safety of their ship and crew.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by shavixmirA plane he thought at the time was military, which isn't remotely the same as deliberately targeting civilians.
He deliberately targetted that aeroplane.
It was over Iranian territory and was bleeping a civilian signal.
He didn't accidentally shoot it out of the sky with a multi-thousand rocket. Really, he didn't trip on a bag of chips and accidentally push that bloody button.
Now, if you'd just come back to reality for a minute, you'd see that this plane was DELIBERATELY shot down.
14 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't doubt the possibility that the pilot didn't know there was a battle taking place, but the airport should have been notified. That information should have been passed along. I can think of no scenario where US forced can be engaged off of our own coast and nearby airports aren't notified and restricted airspace isn't established.
Please read the article. The "battle" started a grand total of 4 minutes before the Iranian airliner took off. The idea that the Iranian pilot deliberately overflew a "battle" is absolutely ridiculous given the facts (which you seem to want to remain ignorant of); he and his air traffic controllers had no way of knowing the US had started a battle in Ira nt of the facts. Get the facts and then talk to me rather than continuing to blather.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperExpecting the Iranians to pass such information within their entire civilian infrastructure in 4 minutes is unrealistic and absurd. As 9-11 showed, the US could not get reliable information from its civilian air sector to its military sector and vice versa in anywhere near such a time frame. In fact, the US ships involved could not get information passed from each other in such a time frame; some officers on the Sides positively IDed the plane as a commercial airliner but couldn't get that info to their Captain until after the Vincennes fired. It seems you are using two very different standards to judge Iranian and US actions.
I don't doubt the possibility that the pilot didn't know there was a battle taking place, but the airport should have been notified. That information should have been passed along. I can think of no scenario where US forced can be engaged off of our own coast and nearby airports aren't notified and restricted airspace isn't established.
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderA couple things of note here, because I finally had time to read the article you posted.
Expecting the Iranians to pass such information within their entire civilian infrastructure in 4 minutes is unrealistic and absurd. As 9-11 showed, the US could not get reliable information from its civilian air sector to its military sector and vice versa in anywhere near such a time frame. In fact, the US ships involved could not get information passed nes fired. It seems you are using two very different standards to judge Iranian and US actions.
(IF) Captain Carlson's accounts of events are accurate, which at this point I don't have reason to disbelieve, I agree that Captain Rogers should have been relieved of duty at the very least.
With that being said, the crews of both ships believed the plane to be an F-14 right up until the moment the missile was fired. The difference was CPT Carlson rightly believed it to be behaving in a manner inconsistent with hostile intent.
Indeed, as Captain Carlson would learn minutes after the Airbus plummeted into the water, the electronic specialists in the Sides' combat information center had correctly identified the aircraft's commercial transponder code at virtually the same instant that the Vincennes fired her missiles.
"And this is where I take some responsibility for this mess. If I had been smarter, if I had said it doesn't smell like an F-14, and pushed for a re-evaluation, and if my guys had come forward, saying that's an IFF squawk for a haj [Islamic pilgrim] flight, I might have been stimulated to go back to Rogers and say, 'It looks like you've got COMAIR here."
I never suggested they inform the entire population, but certainly local airports would be a priority. By the time the order was given to fire the missile the fighting had been going on for 11 minutes (according to records). What's more, the Iranians knew the situation was getting heated long before a shot was fired, given the fact that they had deployed multiple gun boats to that area. Their military should have established restricted airspace in that region until things cooled off.