Debates
10 Dec 11
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell... that's the whole thing, see...
A plane he thought at the time was military, which isn't remotely the same as deliberately targeting civilians.
As far as I'm able to detect, the plane was sending off a civilian signal.
See what No1 linked to: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study
The flight path and the signal were both civilian. The captain of the boat knew this.
Fact!
End of story. And he got a reward for his murderous actions as well.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by shavixmirThank you for posting the link that proves that both Captain Rogers and his harsh critic both thought it was an F-14. My quotes proving this are FROM the link you just posted.
Well... that's the whole thing, see...
As far as I'm able to detect, the plane was sending off a civilian signal.
See what No1 linked to: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study
The flight path and the signal were both civilian. The captain of the boat knew this.
Fact!
End of story. And he got a reward for his murderous actions as well.
I appreciate it.
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirPlease explain how that negates the prudence of Iran establishing a restricted airspace over a very dangerous situation.
No, no, no, no...
The US shouldn't have been in Iranian territorial waters to start with.
And as you so elagantly point out... 11 minutes...
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt doesn't. Unless you take into consideration that 11 minutes is a very short time frame.
Please explain how that negates the prudence of Iran establishing a restricted airspace over a very dangerous situation.
However, it doesn't negate the prudence of the US not shooting the living bejesus out of civilians either.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by shavixmirIt was a very dangerous situation for a lot longer than 11 minutes.
It doesn't. Unless you take into consideration that 11 minutes is a very short time frame.
However, it doesn't negate the prudence of the US not shooting the living bejesus out of civilians either.
I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks civilian jetliners should be shot down. Where I take exception is with your attempts to make it seem like it was intentional.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt was.
It was a very dangerous situation for a lot longer than 11 minutes.
I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks civilian jetliners should be shot down. Where I take exception is with your attempts to make it seem like it was intentional.
As I've posted before:
David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, a second ship that was under the tactical control of Rogers at the time of the incident. Carlson claimed that the downing of Iran Air 655 marked the "horrifying climax to Capt. Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." He was referring to incidents on the June 2, 1988, when he claimed that Rogers brought the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate that was searching a bulk carrier, that he launched a helicopter too close to Iranian small boats, and that he fired upon a number of small Iranian military boats instead of directing another, smaller warship to do so. In disagreeing with Rogers's decision – citing the high cost of the cruiser relative to that of the frigates attached to the group – Carlson posited, "Why do you want an AEGIS cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do."[11]
Various independant sources researched the both sides of the situation and came out blaming the US:
Newsweek:
Rogers acted recklessly and without due care
International Strategic Studies Association:
The Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robocruiser' by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its Aegis system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain
Admiral William J. Crowe:
admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[30] This contradicted earlier Navy statements that were misleading if not incorrect. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) report of December, 1988 placed the USS Vincennes well inside Iran's territorial waters
Or in other words, the US first of all even lied about even being in Iranian waters at all!!!
And then this:
When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called ‘scenario fulfillment’ which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario – in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes’ instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected.
You defend the horrible if you want.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by shavixmirWTF was the motive for the American to shoot down a civilian aircraft?
Well... that's the whole thing, see...
As far as I'm able to detect, the plane was sending off a civilian signal.
See what No1 linked to: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study
The flight path and the signal were both civilian. The captain of the boat knew this.
Fact!
End of story. And he got a reward for his murderous actions as well.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by shavixmir"You defend the horrible if you want"
It was.
As I've posted before:
David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, a second ship that was under the tactical control of Rogers at the time of the incident. Carlson claimed that the downing of Iran Air 655 marked the "horrifying climax to Capt. Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." He was referring to incidents on the June ...[text shortened]... d, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected.
You defend the horrible if you want.
And by me saying "at the very least Rogers should have been relieved of Command" I'm defending the horrible? Your anti-American bigoted tantrums make it difficult to have a serious conversation with you.
You have no concept of nuance within a discussion. Making a distinction between reckless behavior and deliberately murdering civilians is NOT "defending" him.
Someone who is driving a car recklessly and accidentally kills someone should be punished, but it's still unfair to compare him to someone who breaks into a home and stabs someone to death.
15 Dec 11
No one here is anti American, I'm sure... it's just a democratic discussion from differing viewpoints.
There is no need for anyone to call others names or deflect by using blustering provocative statements.
Come on guy's, be cool.
You all won't agree on everything but try and agree on what is right, factual and what is lawful.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by skipper2666I feel all warm. Gee I love you guys. Merry Christmas!
No one here is anti American, I'm sure... it's just a democratic discussion from differing viewpoints.
There is no need for anyone to call others names or deflect by using blustering provocative statements.
Come on guy's, be cool.
You all won't agree on everything but try and agree on what is right, factual and what is lawful.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by skipper2666You do know there are bigots in the world and it's not inconceivable some of them end up being RHP forum members, right.
No one here is anti American, I'm sure... it's just a democratic discussion from differing viewpoints.
There is no need for anyone to call others names or deflect by using blustering provocative statements.
Come on guy's, be cool.
You all won't agree on everything but try and agree on what is right, factual and what is lawful.
I haven't deflected anything. I have addressed every single one of shav's points directly. I'm simply calling it as I see and Shav is a bigot.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"Establishing restricted airspace" would essentially have meant shutting down their overseas civilian air flights for as long as the US chose to intervene in the Iraq-Iran war for Saddam's benefit.
A couple things of note here, because I finally had time to read the article you posted.
(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 ...[text shortened]... ould[/i] have established restricted airspace in that region until things cooled off.
Since we agree that Rogers should have been relieved at the least, there's not much more to say. Shav is of course correct that the Vincennes intentionally shot down the plane, but the claim that Rogers and the Vincennes crew would and did intentionally shoot down a civilian airliner is one I do not believe. No USN Captain in his right mind would issue such an order and I doubt that any USN crew would obey such an obviously illegal order if given. I have seen video of the Vincennes bridge in the aftermath of the shooting and once it became apparent that it was a civilian airliner that was shot down, the crew was shocked and horrified.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYes. You are a bigot.
You do know there are bigots in the world and it's not inconceivable some of them end up being RHP forum members, right.
I haven't deflected anything. I have addressed every single one of shav's points directly. I'm simply calling it as I see and Shav is a bigot.
And a child murderer by the looks of your name.