Iranian General Says Vincennes Was Inept
irancourier
Proof
by Karen DeYoung
07/08/1988 The Washington Post
Iran's Air Force commander said tonight that he has proof that Iran
Air Flight 655 was transmitting an identifiable civilian radio signal
at the time it was downed by a U.S. missile Sunday, and he said he
would make this and other information available to a Pentagon team
investigating the tragedy.
At a news conference here, Brig. Gen. Mansour Satary constructed his
case against the USS Vincennes, which Washington has said fired its
missiles in the mistaken belief that the airliner was an F14 fighter.
Satary largely ignored the Iranian government's charge that the U.S.
attack on the civilian airliner, which killed all 290 passengers and
crew, was premeditated.
But his appearance seemed clearly designed to prove to world opinion
that Tehran's insistence that the United States must be held to
account is based on more than an emotional and ideological belief in
American perfidy.
Sticking largely to a military-oriented assessment, Satary criticized
the U.S. Navy for not using radio, intelligence and other information
which he said was readily available to it-as well as common sense-that
would have identified the plane.
He charged the Americans with "not having control" over their own
sophisticated systems, and for amateurish reading of their own
communications.
Condemning American military procedure during the incident, and
disputing the Pentagon's account of what happened in a number of
specific areas, Satary contended that such lax behavior would never
have been allowed "if this were the Gulf of Mexico. They'd have
investigators there every day to make sure these missiles don't go up"
into well-traveled civilian air corridors.
"Maybe the echelons of command don't care if it's Iranian lives," he
said.
Dressed in a summer uniform of blue shirt and trousers, Satary, a trim
man with salt-and-pepper hair, spoke calmly in English. He
occasionally lapsed into wry humor to emphasize his implied perplexity
over what he clearly felt was American military carelessness.
He acknowledged, in response to a question, that he had received
"several weeks of training in the United States" at some point in his
career, before the overthrow of the previous pro-U.S. government here
in 1979.
Satary contradicted the Pentagon's original insistence that the
wide-body A300 Airbus did not identify itself as a commercial plane,
by use of the IFF device that automatically emits identifying
electrical pulses, at the time it was shot down.
Reading from what he said was a transcript of communications between
the control tower at Bandar Abbas, the combined military-civilian
airport, and Flight 655, he said the tower asked the pilot before
takeoff to make sure his transponder was turned on and operating.
"An order has come from the tower to start up the IFF system," he
said, referring to the "identification friend or foe" pulse emitted by
the transponder.
"The airline answers back, `Okay, I have started it {the IFF}.' Again
the tower asked the pilot to confirm. `Okay.' The tower then said, `I
have received your IFF.' "
The Pentagon has said that the Vincennes received a military IFF
signal of the type U.S. intelligence had determined was transmitted by
Iranian F14s, although Iran has said categorically that no F14s were
flying in the area at the time.
The only Iranian military aircraft in the region, he said, was an
Orion P3 propeller-driven surveillance plane that landed at Bandar
Abbas shortly after the airbus took off. There was no chance, Satary
said, that this plane could have been mistaken for either an F14 or
the Airbus. It flies regularly over the gulf to monitor ship
movements, and speaks frequently with U.S. naval vessels.
"They know each other well," he said.
In an initial statement Sunday, Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of
the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Airbus did not identify
itself as a commercial plane as it neared the Vincennes.
Today, however, Pentagon officials acknowledged that the ship did pick
up signals from what they described as the plane's "Mode 3" IFF
channel, which squawks codes used by civilian aircraft.
The Pentagon, however, also claimed at the time that it picked up
signals from the approaching plane emitted only by military aircraft.
But Satary, identifying the Airbus as on the "Mode 3 Alpha" channel,
said that was impossible. Pointing out that both Iran and the United
States use the same "western" code system, he said, "When you receive
on code three alpha, it is a commercial airliner, nothing else."
The signal, he said, also allows its receiver to determine the
altitude of the air craft "to within 10 feet."
Asked whether Iran would make the tapes, which he did not offer to
reporters, or transcripts available to the U.S. investigators, Satary
said, "For sure. When the team comes here, it will have what we have.
That's enough" to determine the truth. It was unclear from his
reference to "here" whether he meant the Pentagon investigators would
be invited to Iran, or was speaking just of its presence in the
region.
The Pentagon already has acknowledged that aspects of its initial
account were in error. The plane was not, as first claimed, flying
outside the standard commercial air corridor, but was well inside it.
There is conflicting information, the Pentagon has acknowledged, over
whether the Airbus was descending or climbing over the Vincennes.
Crowe had said it was descending but data from another U.S. Navy ship
contradicts this.
But even without this information, Satary said, the Vincennes had
numerous other bits of information at its disposal to analyze the
aircraft. Saying there were "two ways" to identify a plane in such
situations, he said that the first thing to do was "read the flight
plan."
He said he assumed that if the Pentagon was able, as it has said, to
obtain such sensitive intelligence information as new basing orders
for F14s at Bandar Abbas, it certainly had access to "commercial
flight plans."
He asked rhetorically, "You do not have access to flight plans? Now,
how are you going to identify" the plane? The answer, he said, was to
use electronic methods. "You intercept all communications, listening
to the tower," he said. "These will help tell you what aircraft is
flying."
The Vincennes, he said, "identified our airliner as an F14. What were
their sources?"
The plane, he repeated, was a regularly scheduled flight, taking off
more or less on time, traveling in a recognized commercial corridor,
and in frequent communication with the control tower.
"When you think about it," Satary said, the Vincennes had 21 minutes
throughout that scenario to identify the plane. "Crowe said there were
just four minutes. That was totally wrong. Even after it was airborne,
there were 13 minutes." The Vincennes, he said, also had its radar
system to rely on.
Satary agreed with Pentagon officials that the radar blip from an
airbus looks the same on the screen as that of an F14. But other
aspects of the airbus' radar signature, he said, would be "totally
different," including its rate of climb, speed and maneuverability.
"These are totally different than a fighter."
"Any radar operator would know that," Satary said, identifying himself
as a "radar man" by training. "If he didn't know that, he should not
be allowed to sit at the radar. They had enough time, they had enough
equipment" and enough information, he insisted, to know they were not
dealing with a fighter.
"They don't use the sources of intelligence at their disposal," he
said. "Who is controlling this system? Three people in a control room
made a mistake? No. The whole system doesn't work."
Asked why the airbus failed to respond to what the Pentagon has said
were 12 separate radio queries, on both military and civilian
frequencies, to identify itself, Satary said that such communications
from the American ships in the gulf were so frequent that Iranian
pilots usually ignored them.
Besides, he said, the ponderous commercial planes did not have the
capacity to undertake the routing contortions the Americans sometimes
demanded. "What should he do?" Satary asked. "Make a 40-degree turn?"
Asked why the Bandar Abbas tower had not monitored the Vincennes'
queries and transmitted them to the airbus on the assumption that the
plane was not receiving them, Satary said the tower was unable to
receive the ship's UHF signal.
Satary insisted that more was at stake than the right of Iran to fly
its commercial aircraft where it wanted, particularly in close-by
areas that have not been declared part of the war zone. Numerous other
commercial flights used the same corridors over the Persian Gulf, the
Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz, he said.
On the day before the incident, he said, there were 189 flights over
the area. "More than 150 airliners fly every day over the same
routes," he said. "Who is going to care for them? Are these air routes
safe, or are you going to make the same mistake again-if it was a
mistake," he added.
Pointing out that five other western nations, in addition to the
United States, have sent naval vessels to the gulf, Satary insisted
that the fleets were not integrated, and in some cases did not even
have compatible communications, thus posing additional risk.
"Is there any space available in the Persian Gulf for people who want
to fly just to go somewhere?" he asked.
Iran, he said, could "accept that the Americans are right, that
they've made a mistake." But "is this the situation-to say that you've
made a mistake and after one day to say it is finished? Two-hundred
and ninety people terminated?"
"Or you can say they don't have command over their systems. . . . If
you are not able" to control them, he said, "please leave this area.
Two hundred and ninety people. I think that's enough."
PHOTO,,Ap Caption: Tehran marchers chant slogans as man holds drawing
of Sunday's incident.
Douglas Hayden
----------
Doug Hayden hayd...@apk.net
St. Dogbert's School of Worshipper Fleecing
----------
Dilbert: Do you think you might be abusing your power?
Wally: What would be the other reasons to have power?
-- Scott Adams
Swordfish
news:3b48...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.01070...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Iranian General Says U.S. Ship Was Inept;Commander Pledges To Supply
> > Proof
>
>
>
Oxymoron
--
Swordfish
JWC
Ragnar
> Proof
Fancy that, the Iranian guy thinks the US was inept. Like he could blame
his own people.
irancourier
but doesn't want to disclose it.
PS: Does Khobar "justify" vincennes?
Douglas Hayden <hayd...@apk.net> wrote in message news:<9i8vvv$d8b$1...@plonk.apk.net>...
irancourier
down a civilian airliner, while at the same time arming and supporting
Saddam, who they had to go to war against a few years later.
"Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3u_17.757$tJ3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Henri Lebough
Ayatollah Khomeini was directly responsible for the
deaths of every Iranian after the coup.
"irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> His people didn't take a multibillion dollar cruiser and use to shoot
Peter Skelton
<Henri....@ffl.net> wrote:
>If you take hostages, you sometimes get a payback.
>Ayatollah Khomeini was directly responsible for the
>deaths of every Iranian after the coup.
>
"Look what you made me do", the last refuge of the immature
John D. MacDonald
>"irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> His people didn't take a multibillion dollar cruiser and use to shoot
>> down a civilian airliner, while at the same time arming and supporting
>> Saddam, who they had to go to war against a few years later.
>
>
>
____
Peter Skelton
Ragnar
> down a civilian airliner, while at the same time arming and supporting
> Saddam, who they had to go to war against a few years later.
>
True or False. Did the Iranians attack neutral shipping in the Gulf?
True or False. Did the Iranians continue to attack neutral shipping in the
Gulf after the US (and several other nations) warned them to stop?
True both times.
The Airbus downing was an accident. A tragic accident, to be sure, but an
accident nontheless. Iranian activities, which ultimately resulted in the
shootdown, were planned at the highest levels of government. Had Iran not
been engaged in warfare against neutral shipping, the Airbus would still be
around.
Ragnar
Paul J. Adam
Ragnar <rwo...@earthlink.net> writes
>The Airbus downing was an accident. A tragic accident, to be sure, but an
>accident nontheless.
What makes it so incomprehensible is the sheer magnitude of the errors
involved.
Looking at the numbers of US warships who patrolled the Gulf during the
Tanker War, and how *all* of them avoided lobbing weapons at
noncombatants (even during overt hostilities like PRAYING MANTIS, often
despite significant provocation) then the actions of VINCENNES were a
gift from the deity-of-choice to Iran.
The USN did so well... except for one ship. And then all the years of
patiently, carefully escorting tankers through the Gulf were forgotten
because one of their brightest, shiniest and best cruisers couldn't read
the right IFF squawk, couldn't plot a ICAO air route on their displays
accurately, couldn't tell the difference between "range" and "altitude",
and was barely able to fire its weapons. One cataclysmic screwup and all
the years of weapons-tight escorting, the careful and effective strikes
of PRAYING MANTIS, are forgotten and the USN is "the navy that shoots
down airliners".
>Iranian activities, which ultimately resulted in the
>shootdown, were planned at the highest levels of government. Had Iran not
>been engaged in warfare against neutral shipping, the Airbus would still be
>around.
True, but that still isn't an excuse. US actions, which *also* resulted
in the loss of the airliner, were *also* planned at the highest level of
government. But I don't think President Reagan personally authorised
Captain Rogers to go charging into Iranian waters at flank speed, any
more than the Ayatollah Khomeni personally gave orders to the Pasdaran
gunboats or to Iran Air 655 that morning. Things just happened too fast.
If Rogers and his officers had followed their rules of engagement, that
airliner would have landed safely. The Iranians were *known* to be
trigger-happy and unpredictable, and the ROEs reflected that: which is
why the VINCENNES' helicopter should never have got close enough to
Pasdaran gunboats to take fire from them (but it did). and why a
billion-dollar AEGIS cruiser should never make a thirty-knot sprint into
Iranian waters, into minefields and Silkworm fields-of-fire and other
nastiness (but it did).
If Iran had *planned* the incident, they'd have captured or sunk the
VINCENNES. It would have been led into a minefield inside Iranian
territorial waters, hit one, and been immobilised: to be fired on, or
boarded and towed to Iran, depending. Rogers was damn lucky that the
incident was so evidently *not* planned or prepared by Iran.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
irancourier
"accidentally" shoots someone he didn't "intend" to kill.
2- If Iran's "faults" for attacking "neutral" shipping (in fact Kuwait
and Saudi were cobelligerents not neturals) justifies the shoot down
of a civilian airbus, then all of the historical sins of the US would
justify the shoot down of US airliners. What's good for the goose is
good for the gander.
3- So you're saying that once the Vincenns arrives in a place, it can
willy-nilly shoot down everything just because it is present there?
"Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Wdq27.1952$767.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Ragnar
> 1- It was no more of an accident than a drive-by shooter who
> "accidentally" shoots someone he didn't "intend" to kill.
Still an accident, no matter how much want it not to be.
> 2- If Iran's "faults" for attacking "neutral" shipping (in fact Kuwait
> and Saudi were cobelligerents not neturals)
It wasn't just Kuwaiti tankers that were hit. The word "neutral" still
applies.
> 3- So you're saying that once the Vincenns arrives in a place, it can
> willy-nilly shoot down everything just because it is present there?
>
Thats not what was said and you know it. You need to turn off the attitude
and see the world for what it is.
irancourier
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
> > 1- It was no more of an accident than a drive-by shooter who
> > "accidentally" shoots someone he didn't "intend" to kill.
>
> Still an accident, no matter how much want it not to be.
The word accident implies lack of liability/responsibility, as does
the word mistake - but in these cases there most definitely is
legal/moral liability and responsibility.
>
> > 2- If Iran's "faults" for attacking "neutral" shipping (in fact Kuwait
> > and Saudi were cobelligerents not neturals)
>
> It wasn't just Kuwaiti tankers that were hit. The word "neutral" still
> applies.
Sorry, it doesn't. The Vincennes was not rushing to the defense of any
"neutral" tankers.
> > 3- So you're saying that once the Vincenns arrives in a place, it can
> > willy-nilly shoot down everything just because it is present there?
> >
>
> Thats not what was said and you know it. You need to turn off the attitude
> and see the world for what it is.
You're the one who concluded that once the USS VIncennes was brought
to the scene "because of Iran's attacks on neutrals" then whatever
happened to the airbus was Iran's fault - ergo the vincennes, once
present, is given carte blanche to shoot down airplanes according to
your logic.
Ragnar
news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
> "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<_u337.1656$Cu2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
> > > 1- It was no more of an accident than a drive-by shooter who
> > > "accidentally" shoots someone he didn't "intend" to kill.
> >
> > Still an accident, no matter how much want it not to be.
>
> The word accident implies lack of liability/responsibility, as does
> the word mistake - but in these cases there most definitely is
> legal/moral liability and responsibility.
>
No, the word "accident" means it wasn't intentional.
> >
> > > 2- If Iran's "faults" for attacking "neutral" shipping (in fact Kuwait
> > > and Saudi were cobelligerents not neturals)
> >
> > It wasn't just Kuwaiti tankers that were hit. The word "neutral" still
> > applies.
>
> Sorry, it doesn't. The Vincennes was not rushing to the defense of any
> "neutral" tankers.
No, it was rushing to defend US ships. Who said they could only defend
tankers?
>
> > > 3- So you're saying that once the Vincenns arrives in a place, it can
> > > willy-nilly shoot down everything just because it is present there?
> > >
> >
> > Thats not what was said and you know it. You need to turn off the
attitude
> > and see the world for what it is.
>
> You're the one who concluded that once the USS VIncennes was brought
> to the scene "because of Iran's attacks on neutrals" then whatever
> happened to the airbus was Iran's fault
Well, the Iranians did intentionally fly a civilian airliner into a combat
zone.
irancourier
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<_u337.1656$Cu2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > 1- It was no more of an accident than a drive-by shooter who
> > > > "accidentally" shoots someone he didn't "intend" to kill.
> > >
> > > Still an accident, no matter how much want it not to be.
> >
> > The word accident implies lack of liability/responsibility, as does
> > the word mistake - but in these cases there most definitely is
> > legal/moral liability and responsibility.
> >
>
>
> No, the word "accident" means it wasn't intentional.
Whether he acted intentionall or not is irrelevant to whether he's
liable or not: First, because under international law the standard of
liability is "strict liability" which means you're responsible every
time you shoot down a civilian airliner whether you intended it or
not, and secondly there are crimes which aren't intentional but are
crimes all the same such as reckless manslaughter, and thirdly,
whether he was acting intentionally or not has to be determined by a
court of law or at least a fair and impartial hearing, and not you,
and fourthly, there is evidence to support that he was in fact acting
intentionally (he was under a known air corridor, he was specifically
warned twice of possible comair and raised his hand in
acknowledgement, and none of the other two US naval vessels in the
area considered the airbus to be a threat) and fifthly, if you knew
anything about the law you'd know that once he invaded iranian waters
with guns ablaze, then he was responsible for all the consequences of
his actions whether he intended them or not, just as once a drive-by
shooter starts to shoot, he's responsible for the deaths of everyone
he kills, whether they were the "intended" targets or not -
transferred intent.
> > >
> > > > 2- If Iran's "faults" for attacking "neutral" shipping (in fact Kuwait
> > > > and Saudi were cobelligerents not neturals)
> > >
> > > It wasn't just Kuwaiti tankers that were hit. The word "neutral" still
> > > applies.
> >
> > Sorry, it doesn't. The Vincennes was not rushing to the defense of any
> > "neutral" tankers.
>
> No, it was rushing to defend US ships. Who said they could only defend
> tankers?
Sorry again, the Vincennes was not rushing to the aid of any US naval
vessels either.
>
> >
> > > > 3- So you're saying that once the Vincenns arrives in a place, it can
> > > > willy-nilly shoot down everything just because it is present there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thats not what was said and you know it. You need to turn off the
> attitude
> > > and see the world for what it is.
> >
> > You're the one who concluded that once the USS VIncennes was brought
> > to the scene "because of Iran's attacks on neutrals" then whatever
> > happened to the airbus was Iran's fault
>
> Well, the Iranians did intentionally fly a civilian airliner into a combat
> zone.
Bullshit. There was no way for the Iranians to know that minutes
before takeoff the Vincennes had decided to charge into Iranian
waters. And the Vincennes was the one who should have known of the
regularly scheduled flight of the airbus on the usual route above it.
Ragnar
news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
> > No, the word "accident" means it wasn't intentional.
>
> , and thirdly,
> whether he was acting intentionally or not has to be determined by a
> court of law or at least a fair and impartial hearing, and not you,
And not you, either. At least I'm objective enough to not run around
frothing at the mouth posting the same old diatribe year after year after
year.
>and fifthly, if you knew
> anything about the law you'd know that once he invaded iranian waters
> with guns ablaze, then he was responsible for all the consequences of
> his actions whether he intended them or not, just as once a drive-by
> shooter starts to shoot, he's responsible for the deaths of everyone
> he kills, whether they were the "intended" targets or not -
> transferred intent.
So you're a lawyer now?
> >
> > No, it was rushing to defend US ships. Who said they could only defend
> > tankers?
>
>
> Sorry again, the Vincennes was not rushing to the aid of any US naval
> vessels either.
>
>
Cite?
> > Well, the Iranians did intentionally fly a civilian airliner into a
combat
> > zone.
>
>
> Bullshit. There was no way for the Iranians to know that minutes
> before takeoff the Vincennes had decided to charge into Iranian
> waters. And the Vincennes was the one who should have known of the
> regularly scheduled flight of the airbus on the usual route above it.
>
Double bullshit. There was no way to know that the Airbus that was
"regularly scheduled" had in fact taken off.
irancourier
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.01071...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > No, the word "accident" means it wasn't intentional.
> >
> > , and thirdly,
> > whether he was acting intentionally or not has to be determined by a
> > court of law or at least a fair and impartial hearing, and not you,
>
> And not you, either.
No, and that's why all I have said is that there must be a fair and
impartial hearing.
> >and fifthly, if you knew
> > anything about the law you'd know that once he invaded iranian waters
> > with guns ablaze, then he was responsible for all the consequences of
> > his actions whether he intended them or not, just as once a drive-by
> > shooter starts to shoot, he's responsible for the deaths of everyone
> > he kills, whether they were the "intended" targets or not -
> > transferred intent.
>
> So you're a lawyer now?
Yes, as a matter of fact.
>
> > >
> > > No, it was rushing to defend US ships. Who said they could only defend
> > > tankers?
> >
> >
> > Sorry again, the Vincennes was not rushing to the aid of any US naval
> > vessels either.
> >
> >
>
> Cite?
You want me to cite what he WASN'T doing? I would like you to come up
with the cite that he WAS rushing into Iranian waters to protect a US
vessel. What that imaginary vessel would be doing inside Iranian
waters is of course, another question, but neither the official US
Navy report, nor the Nightline report, nor the Newsweek report, nor
the ICAO report mentioned anything about the Vincennes coming into
Iranian waters to protect a US ship.
>
> > > Well, the Iranians did intentionally fly a civilian airliner into a
> combat
> > > zone.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit. There was no way for the Iranians to know that minutes
> > before takeoff the Vincennes had decided to charge into Iranian
> > waters. And the Vincennes was the one who should have known of the
> > regularly scheduled flight of the airbus on the usual route above it.
> >
>
> Double bullshit. There was no way to know that the Airbus that was
> "regularly scheduled" had in fact taken off.
LOL!! You mean except by using the billion dollar radar on the AEGIS
which could tell what planes were where for miles and miles around,
the same rader which in fact did pick up the flight?
Ragnar
> > Double bullshit. There was no way to know that the Airbus that was
> > "regularly scheduled" had in fact taken off.
>
> LOL!! You mean except by using the billion dollar radar on the AEGIS
> which could tell what planes were where for miles and miles around,
> the same rader which in fact did pick up the flight?
>
And you know darn well that the radar can't tell you what kind of airplane
it is based on the radar return.
irancourier
Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had. So you're saying
that the Airbus has to be bear the risks of the Vincennes ineptitude?
Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
regularly scheduled flight, in the middle of an internationally
recognize air corridor, doing everything he should have been doing, or
the captain of the VIncennes who was doing everything he shouldn't
have been doing?
"Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<0SK37.1337$JS2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Ragnar
> SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
> Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had.
Cite?
> Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
> regularly scheduled flight
And apparently neglected to listen to his radio while the Vincennes was
calling him.
> in the middle of an internationally
> recognize air corridor
Which was itself in the middle of the Persian Gulf, which was a war zone.
Or are you saying that the pilot totally forgot that his country was at war
with Iraq and was regularly attacking neutral shipping in the Gulf?
Paul Gooding
> SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
> Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had. So you're saying
> that the Airbus has to be bear the risks of the Vincennes ineptitude?
>
> Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
> regularly scheduled flight, in the middle of an internationally
> recognize air corridor, doing everything he should have been doing, or
> the captain of the VIncennes who was doing everything he shouldn't
> have been doing?
Your question, which is no doubt intended to be somehow profound, actually
exposes the tragically mundane aspect of such a fuckup. Neither captain was
"more at fault". Each was doing what he thought was the right thing to do.
Both were wrong in their own way. A hideous mistake was made.
It reminds me of the Waco debate. Gee, who was more to blame: The
government, or David Koresh? Who wants to waste time on an argument like
that? They both acted like stupid shitheads, from where I am sitting. From
such a conclusion, one might actually learn something. From the "who is
more to blame" argument, one learns nothing. Once some Usenut takes a
position -- "The Gummint Is Evil" -- it is only a short leap to defending
Koresh and the idiot Davidians. I mean, if you have to have an Evil
Gummint, then the other side has to be pure, right? Sorry, real life ain't
that simple.
People who want to have arguments like this give me a severe headache. I
can imagine two of you, looking out over the smoking ruins of the world
after a cataclysmic war, arguing over who is to blame. A, or B? How
enlightening that argument will be. It's people who have these kinds of
arguments who get us into those situations in the first place. I hope that
the last two people left on earth are not the sorts who will waste their
energy having that stupid argument.
The airliner should not have been there, apparently blind to the risks. The
ship should not have fired on it. It was, and it did. How refreshing now
to sit around and flap our gums over who was "more to blame." Very helpful.
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>"irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:49dea02a.0107...@posting.google.com...
>> SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
>> Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had.
>
>Cite?
>
>> Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
>> regularly scheduled flight
>
>And apparently neglected to listen to his radio while the Vincennes was
>calling him.
ON a frequency civil aircraft do not copy. It was a cf, admit it
& move on
>> in the middle of an internationally
>> recognize air corridor
>
>Which was itself in the middle of the Persian Gulf, which was a war zone.
>Or are you saying that the pilot totally forgot that his country was at war
>with Iraq and was regularly attacking neutral shipping in the Gulf?
>
>
>
>
____
Peter Skelton
Ragnar
"Peter Skelton" <Skel...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3b502ae9.1119547@news...
> ON a frequency civil aircraft do not copy. It was a cf, admit it
> & move on
>
I freely admit it was a cf. But I don't give total blame to the Vincennes,
unlike certain other people. Both parties were at fault.
Keith Willshaw
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
> > Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had.
>
> Which was itself in the middle of the Persian Gulf, which was a war zone.
> Or are you saying that the pilot totally forgot that his country was at
war
> with Iraq and was regularly attacking neutral shipping in the Gulf?
>
>
I dont doubt he was very aware of that.
However he was flying in a recognised ICAO corridor
squawking his proper ident and had clearance from
the civil air traffic control authorities with whom he was in contact
I really doubt that being shot down by a trigger happy
crew that couldnt tell the diference between the range
and altitude readouts was at the top of his list of
problems. Nor would I expect the pilot of an Airbus
thats climbing to heed warningsdirected at an
F-14 in a dive !
Face it the Vincennes Crew screwed up
Keith
Peter Skelton
wrote:
Pure utter bullshit. Your example (blaming the A/C for not
responding to a message on a frequency it should not have been
reading) is a perfect example of the sort of nonsense American
appologists put up. The plane was doing what it should have been
doing, when it should have been doing it, following its
procedures immaculately and obeying both the spirit and letter of
its instructions. VINCENNES failed all these tests.
Generally the US's actions are sensible and morally acceptable,
sometimes they are not. This is an example of the second type.
____
Peter Skelton
irancourier
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
> > Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had.
>
> Cite?
Cite THIS. Go do your own homework.
Both the MOntgomery and the Sides correctly ID'd the Airbus. Read the
ICAO report and the letter by Capt Carlson of the USS Sides which was
published in the US Navy's official journal, Proceedings.
>
> > Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
> > regularly scheduled flight
>
> And apparently neglected to listen to his radio while the Vincennes was
> calling him.
Read the ICAO report. Of the 7 warnings, only one MAY have been
identifiable, if the Capt of the Airbus wasn't busy doing what he
should have been doing which is talking with ground countrol. Again,
you're placing the risk of the Vicennes' failings on Airbus.
> > in the middle of an internationally
> > recognize air corridor
>
> Which was itself in the middle of the Persian Gulf, which was a war zone.
Sorry, it wasn't. And even if it was, the US was officially neutral
and the Vincennes had no business chargining into Iranian waters, and
still had no business shooting down an airliner, then lying about
where it was located and what it was doing there.
> Or are you saying that the pilot totally forgot that his country was at war
> with Iraq and was regularly attacking neutral shipping in the Gulf?
The pilot was flying a civilian airliner just like ALL of the other
nations in the region who were flying on their normal routes. That was
the whole purpose of the presence of the US navy in the region,
supposedly, to ensure the safety of traffic, not to shoot it down.
irancourier
> "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:49dea02a.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
> > Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had. So you're saying
> > that the Airbus has to be bear the risks of the Vincennes ineptitude?
> >
> > Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
> > regularly scheduled flight, in the middle of an internationally
> > recognize air corridor, doing everything he should have been doing, or
> > the captain of the VIncennes who was doing everything he shouldn't
> > have been doing?
>
> Your question, which is no doubt intended to be somehow profound, actually
> exposes the tragically mundane aspect of such a fuckup. Neither captain was
> "more at fault". Each was doing what he thought was the right thing to do.
> Both were wrong in their own way. A hideous mistake was made.
So that's the law now, "you can do whatever you want, as long as you
think it is the right thing to do"? Wow. Imagine this:
"But at the time, I thought it was the right thing to do!" -Lt.
William Calley,
"Heck, we all thought it was the right thing to do, at the time" -
Nurnberg defendants.
"Well, it certainly appeared to be the right thing to do, at the
time"- OJ Simpson.
The Captain of the Vincennes violated intenrational law, and his own
ROE and also manipulated/lied to his commanders. The US Navy lied to
Congress. I don't think "Heck, he thought it was right to do that" is
going to save his ass, if there was a real investigation. I can't find
"It was the Right Thing To Do" defense in any criminal law book
either.
> It reminds me of the Waco debate. Gee, who was more to blame: The
> government, or David Koresh? Who wants to waste time on an argument like
> that? They both acted like stupid shitheads, from where I am sitting.
How exactly was the Capt of the Airbus a stupid shithead for flying
his Airbus on a regularly scheduled flight, in the middle of a busy
and internationally-recognized air corridor, at the rights speed, at
the right altitude, etc. etc.?
Or are you one of those who says that the entire air traffice of the
entire middle east had to come to a total stop because the Vincennes
can't be trusted not to classify an asceding Airbus as a descending
F-14?
From
> such a conclusion, one might actually learn something. From the "who is
> more to blame" argument, one learns nothing. Once some Usenut takes a
> position -- "The Gummint Is Evil" -- it is only a short leap to defending
> Koresh and the idiot Davidians. I mean, if you have to have an Evil
> Gummint, then the other side has to be pure, right? Sorry, real life ain't
> that simple.
You seriously think it would be all that complicated had an Iranian
cruiser shot down an American civilian jetliner as it took off from
JFK? Somehow I doubt that. How "simple" would it be if it was one of
YOUR relatives who was shot down on July 3 1988?
> It's people who have these kinds of
> arguments who get us into those situations in the first place.
Yes, and certainly not trigger-happy AEGIC captains who shoot at
Airbuses or anything...
> The airliner should not have been there, apparently blind to the risks.
The risk that the Vincennes Captain and crew were too inept and
trigger happy?
>The
> ship should not have fired on it.
Understatement of the year...
>It was, and it did. How refreshing now
> to sit around and flap our gums over who was "more to blame." Very helpful.
Well, then go discuss it with the US Navy which says that the BLAME is
all on the Iranians for "allowing" the airbus to fly on a regularly
scheduled flight and path over the Vincennes.
Paul Gooding
"irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49dea02a.0107...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Gooding" <ppgo...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:<F6S37.9558$D5.15...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>...
> > "irancourier" <iranc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:49dea02a.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > > SO what - every other ship in the region correctly identified the
> > > Airbus anyway using whatever technology they had. So you're saying
> > > that the Airbus has to be bear the risks of the Vincennes ineptitude?
> > >
> > > Who was at greater fault: the captain of the airbus who took of on a
> > > regularly scheduled flight, in the middle of an internationally
> > > recognize air corridor, doing everything he should have been doing, or
> > > the captain of the VIncennes who was doing everything he shouldn't
> > > have been doing?
> >
> > Your question, which is no doubt intended to be somehow profound,
actually
> > exposes the tragically mundane aspect of such a fuckup. Neither captain
was
> > "more at fault". Each was doing what he thought was the right thing to
do.
> > Both were wrong in their own way. A hideous mistake was made.
>
>
> So that's the law now, "you can do whatever you want, as long as you
> think it is the right thing to do"? Wow. Imagine this:
Don't be an asshole. My opinion is not "the law" any more than yours is.
This newsgroup is not a courtroom.
> "But at the time, I thought it was the right thing to do!" -Lt.
> William Calley,
> "Heck, we all thought it was the right thing to do, at the time" -
> Nurnberg defendants.
> "Well, it certainly appeared to be the right thing to do, at the
> time"- OJ Simpson.
Cute, and irrelevant. Who appointed you judge and jury in the case?
Whatever bakes your cookie. Without outrage, your argument is just a bunch
of hot air. With it, it is just outrage. Get it?
>
> > It's people who have these kinds of
> > arguments who get us into those situations in the first place.
>
> Yes, and certainly not trigger-happy AEGIC captains who shoot at
> Airbuses or anything...
Yes, your honor.
>
> > The airliner should not have been there, apparently blind to the risks.
>
> The risk that the Vincennes Captain and crew were too inept and
> trigger happy?
>
> >The
> > ship should not have fired on it.
>
> Understatement of the year...
As compared to your overstatements? Thus we balance each other. Life is
good.
>
> >It was, and it did. How refreshing now
> > to sit around and flap our gums over who was "more to blame." Very
helpful.
>
>
> Well, then go discuss it with the US Navy which says that the BLAME is
> all on the Iranians for "allowing" the airbus to fly on a regularly
> scheduled flight and path over the Vincennes.
I don't care what the Navy says. The more you go on and on, the less I care
what you think. If the Navy learns something constructive from the
experience, then they are the better for it. In any case, I suspect that
they will not reach this lofty goal on account of you. Which was my
original point.
If your mission is to change the Navy, you are in the wrong venue. If your
mission is to bash the Navy, then you are done, and it is time for you to go
away. Unless, of course, you are just obsessive, in which case you will go
on and on and people will start using you for target practice here in the
shooting gallery. My hunch is the latter, but hey, I have been wrong
before.
Joe
wrote:
GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The US admitted fault and paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the
victims.
GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ragnar
> Read the ICAO report. Of the 7 warnings, only one MAY have been
> identifiable, if the Capt of the Airbus wasn't busy doing what he
> should have been doing which is talking with ground countrol. Again,
> you're placing the risk of the Vicennes' failings on Airbus.
>
So what was the co-pilot doing all this time?
Random
wrote:
>Cite THIS. Go do your own homework.
>Both the MOntgomery and the Sides correctly ID'd the Airbus. Read the
>ICAO report and the letter by Capt Carlson of the USS Sides which was
>published in the US Navy's official journal, Proceedings.
The Proceedings of the Naval Institute are not the official journal of
the USN. They're just better.
>>
snip
>
>> > in the middle of an internationally
>> > recognize air corridor
>>
>> Which was itself in the middle of the Persian Gulf, which was a war zone.
>
>Sorry, it wasn't. And even if it was, the US was officially neutral
>and the Vincennes had no business chargining into Iranian waters, and
>still had no business shooting down an airliner, then lying about
>where it was located and what it was doing there.
I see. It is perfectly alright for the IRGN et al to deliberately use
C-130 and P-3 aircraft to target and then have naval and air forces
shoot up officially neutral vessels without mercy but they find that
it is absolutely callous and merciless slaughter for anyone else to
shoot up innocent passengers by accident....
>
>> Or are you saying that the pilot totally forgot that his country was at war
>> with Iraq and was regularly attacking neutral shipping in the Gulf?
>
>The pilot was flying a civilian airliner just like ALL of the other
>nations in the region who were flying on their normal routes. That was
>the whole purpose of the presence of the US navy in the region,
>supposedly, to ensure the safety of traffic, not to shoot it down.
Nope. We were actually there to do something about the murder of
innocent neutral seaman and the destruction of innocent neutral
shipping that had been attacked for over 5 years by Iran. Iran shoots
up over 50 ships and then gets all excited over the shooting of one
airplane. You have offered all kinds of justifications for killing
ships and crewman and have repeatedly said it was nothing less than
they deserved. The Saudis deserved to be killed. The Kuwaitis
deserved to be killed, those British tankers trading with the Kingdom
deserved to be killed, ad nauseum.
Tot up the number of Iranians killed prior to the shootdown.
Tot up the number of Iranians killed by Iraq after the shootdown.
Isn't it odd that the obscene killing almost ended that day?
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
J...@nowhere.com (Joe) wrote:
> The US admitted fault and paid hundreds of millions of dollars to
> the victims.
The US made an ex gratia payment of about 60 million. The whole point
of ex gratia payments is that you are not admitting anything. An ex
gratia payment is similar to an out of court settlement. It is a bribe
to drop the case before it is decided in a court.
I vaguely remember coverage at the time in British media. In spite of
the Special Relationship nobody tried to deny that it was a massive
American cock up.
In fact there were two major cock ups. First the actual shooting down
and second the US attempt at a cover up. About the only people who
believed the American version of events were the Americans.
However I wish irancourier would stop posting the Vincennes incident
to this group. The incident has now been settled and the responses are
largely predictable.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Joe
......The State Department said no U.S. money would go to the Iranian
government. Family members of Iranians killed when the U.S. Navy
cruiser Vincennes shot an Iran Air A-300 Airbus out of the air over
the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, will share $61.8 million, the
department said.
It said the other $70 million in the package will go into bank
accounts used to pay off private U.S. claims against Iran and Iran's
expenses for the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which is handling the
claims. That portion was in settlement of Iranian claims involving
banking matters, not the airliner, U.S. officials said.
from
Presley Cannady
the United States Government proactively sought
to cover up the incident. That the VINCENNES
adventure was a mishap is a matter of public record,
and the weight of consequence borne by the crew
and our government was decided a long time ago;
probably not to your satisfaction, considering your
insistence on bringing this up on a monthly basis.
Now demonstrate further wrong doing by proving your
assertion that our government misled involved parties
and the public on the facts of the case.
Rev Prez
irancourier
Lets say the co-pilot was playing diddly-poke with his pecker. That is
still no excuse for the actions of the Vincennes.
irancourier
waters, but it wasn't, and defending itself - which it wasn't -
against an Iranian attack- which didn't happen - to protect a civilian
merchant ship - which doesn't exist. if that's not "misleading" then
what is?
I suggest you read the Newsweek-Nightline report.
rev...@mit.edu (Presley Cannady) wrote in message news:<90E49F081re...@18.247.2.125>...
Bill Orr
BigCrosby
> The "public record" says that the Vincennes was in international
> waters, but it wasn't, and defending itself - which it wasn't -
> against an Iranian attack- which didn't happen - to protect a civilian
> merchant ship - which doesn't exist. if that's not "misleading" then
> what is?
Misleading? How about the farce that is Iran? The only serious mistake
made was having an Iranian piloting an advanced aircraft and standing into
danger. Thats the problem with rogue, third world nations with no concept
of the world around them and the situations that arise when your outside the
tent pissing on the "American" inside the tent!
vincent Brannigan
BigCrosby wrote:
>
> Misleading? How about the farce that is Iran? The only serious mistake
> made was having an Iranian piloting an advanced aircraft and standing into
> danger. Thats the problem with rogue, third world nations with no concept
> of the world around them and the situations that arise when your outside the
> tent pissing on the "American" inside the tent!
As you point out, the mistake iran made was in believing that we we
intelligent, sophisticated and law abiding enough to distinguish a threat from
an innocent bystander. We aren't, we can't and we're not.
Vince
BigCrosby
"vincent Brannigan" <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:3B656718...@wam.umd.edu...
> As you point out, the mistake iran made was in believing that we we
> intelligent, sophisticated and law abiding enough to distinguish a threat
from
> an innocent bystander.
Iran and innocent bystander can not be used in the same sentence. Was it
tragic? Yes, but that what happens when you step up to the world plate and
try to play hardball. As Americans we deal with our servicemembers and
civilians being killed without regard to "laws" in foreign countries and
even in our own backyard.
Sophistication? We are talking about a country who would shoot chickens at
an F-14. As for our sophistication, laws, et al, aren't we allowed to be as
mean and dirty as the next? Yes, and well we should.
This notion that we ourselves must be above responding to fourth rate
countries who consistently violate "laws of other nations" is ludicrous.
Iran, Iraq, and other poorly developed countries understand what primitive
man understood? Force. If they are doing the bombing, et al then they are
somehow fighting against a "Rogue Superpower" but when we respond with
force, we are unsophisticated. That's a load of cat dung!
Bravo Zulu to Vincennes and her brave crew..
Peter Skelton
Who is? Without excusing Vincennes, I can't think of another navy
whose ship I'd happily fly over in similar circumstances.
(This is simillar to Niven's Laws. If anybody has a copy of them,
I'd like to see them posted, I've lost mine.)
____
Peter Skelton
vincent Brannigan
BigCrosby wrote:
> "vincent Brannigan" <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B656718...@wam.umd.edu...
>
> > As you point out, the mistake iran made was in believing that we we
> > intelligent, sophisticated and law abiding enough to distinguish a threat
> from
> > an innocent bystander.
>
> Iran and innocent bystander can not be used in the same sentence.
we did not shoot at "iran" we shot at religioous pilgrims.
> Was it
> tragic? Yes, but that what happens when you step up to the world plate and
> try to play hardball.
we kill your religious pilgrims? and who should they kill wne we play hardball?
> As Americans we deal with our servicemembers and
> civilians being killed without regard to "laws" in foreign countries and
> even in our own backyard.
We certainly pay no respect at all to the rule of law. Might makes right?
> Sophistication? We are talking about a country who would shoot chickens at
> an F-14. As for our sophistication, laws, et al, aren't we allowed to be as
> mean and dirty as the next? Yes, and well we should.
might makes right?
> This notion that we ourselves must be above responding to fourth rate
> countries who consistently violate "laws of other nations" is ludicrous.
> Iran, Iraq, and other poorly developed countries understand what primitive
> man understood? Force. If they are doing the bombing, et al then they are
> somehow fighting against a "Rogue Superpower" but when we respond with
> force, we are unsophisticated. That's a load of cat dung!
>
> Bravo Zulu to Vincennes and her brave crew..
We are not unsophisticated. Brutal, self centered, thinking only of the short
term, yes,
Making generations of suicidal anti-americans who will be willing to die to kill
some of yes
Vince
vincent Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
>
> >
> > As you point out, the mistake iran made was in believing that we we
> >intelligent, sophisticated and law abiding enough to distinguish a threat from
> >an innocent bystander. We aren't, we can't and we're not.
>
> Who is? Without excusing Vincennes, I can't think of another navy
> whose ship I'd happily fly over in similar circumstances.
We create the circumstances, and then deny responsiblity for the consequences.
Remember the GREER?
Vince
Per Andersson
<fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>we kill your religious pilgrims? and who should they kill wne we play hardball?
I'm certain that you have _some_ televangelists to spare...
Per Andersson
Per Andersson
wrote:
>Who is? Without excusing Vincennes, I can't think of another navy
>whose ship I'd happily fly over in similar circumstances.
Any navy with few or none shipborne SAMs?
Per Andersson
vincent Brannigan
Per Andersson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:11:16 -0400, vincent Brannigan
> <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >we kill your religious pilgrims? and who should they kill when we play hardball?
>
> I'm certain that you have _some_ televangelists to spare...
ROTFLMAO
vince
Iain Rae
Hmmm... bear in mind that Sandy Woodward has admitted that he came
within seconds of firing a Sea Dart at (I think) A Brazilian 707 during
the Falklands. Luckily for him the threat wasn't significant and they
had time to double check the flight path.
Shit Happens.
BigCrosby
> We are not unsophisticated. Brutal, self centered, thinking only of the
short
> term, yes,
> Making generations of suicidal anti-americans who will be willing to die
to kill
> some of yes
>
> Vince
Brutal is nature. Who are we to resist what is natures intention. Is
America perfect? No, we invented baseball. That is imperfection
Self Centered? Yes I am!
Creating nuts who want to die? Man only imitates his/her atmosphere.
Follow a nut home and you will find another nut (and don't say I am a nut
: )
Thinking of the short term? Guilty
Religious pilgrims? Perhaps but they are also citizens of a rogue nation
and as such, despite warnings, the pilot, who had recently received his
certification via "Microsoft Flight Simulator", strayed and was blasted by
an American "Warship". A tragedy. Once again though, we are at peril
everyday as Americans, so why should Iranians be any different.
Bravo Zulu Vincennes.
vincent Brannigan
Iain Rae wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm... bear in mind that Sandy Woodward has admitted that he came
> within seconds of firing a Sea Dart at (I think) A Brazilian 707 during
> the Falklands. Luckily for him the threat wasn't significant and they
> had time to double check the flight path.
even luckier for the passengers
Vince
Iain Rae
Oh I dunno, I think he said he'd rather have faced a firing squad than
face Mrs T.
vincent Brannigan
BigCrosby wrote:
>
> Brutal is nature. Who are we to resist what is natures intention. Is
> America perfect? No, we invented baseball. That is imperfection
The human race has progressed almost in proportion ot its willingness to forgo
short term brutality.
>
> Self Centered? Yes I am!
>
> Creating nuts who want to die? Man only imitates his/her atmosphere.
> Follow a nut home and you will find another nut (and don't say I am a nut
> : )
>
no, you are a bolt. you have a desire to encounter more nuts.
>
> Thinking of the short term? Guilty
>
> Religious pilgrims? Perhaps but they are also citizens of a rogue nation
> and as such, despite warnings, the pilot, who had recently received his
> certification via "Microsoft Flight Simulator", strayed
Strayed????
> and was blasted by
> an American "Warship". A tragedy. Once again though, we are at peril
> everyday as Americans, so why should Iranians be any different.
Americans can, of course if they are really stupid racist bigoted arrogant
and abusive, make a bad situation worse
Vince
BigCrosby
> Americans can, of course if they are really stupid racist >bigoted
arrogant
>
> Vince
Vince--which is pretty close to Vincennes,
You have made your points and each of them, like the airbus that flew too
close to a man o war, are deep sixed. It was terrible that the airbus was
blasted but it would have been a true tragedy if the Vincennes had not
reacted.
Face it, it will happen again! Perhaps you would rather fly another airbus
full of chicken raising morons close to an American warship and "Feel their
pain"
In the meantime pay your taxes and let the men and women guard your right to
speech so that you can raise a little hell. God, don't you love freedom
Vincent? Huh?
Bravo Zulu Vincennes
vincent Brannigan
BigCrosby wrote:
> > Americans can, of course if they are really stupid racist >bigoted
> arrogant
> .>and abusive, make a bad situation worse
> >
> > Vince
>
> Vince--which is pretty close to Vincennes,
>
> You have made your points and each of them, like the airbus that flew too
> close to a man o war, are deep sixed. It was terrible that the airbus was
> blasted but it would have been a true tragedy if the Vincennes had not
> reacted.
I guess those pilgrims getting to mecca would have been a real tragedy.
>
> Face it, it will happen again! Perhaps you would rather fly another airbus
> full of chicken raising morons close to an American warship and "Feel their
> pain"
No, I feel the pain of those innocent american who will be killed so that
cowboys can shout that we don't let any "chicken raising morons" live their
lives in peace unless we feel like it. they will get innocent americans killed
that way.
> In the meantime pay your taxes and let the men and women guard your right to
> speech so that you can raise a little hell. God, don't you love freedom
> Vincent? Huh?
I pay them to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the the united
states. and yes it takes a real soldier or sailor to hold fire since it might
be an innocent civilian. any blowhard with a gun can kill a pilgrim 'cause he
is soooooooo scared that he has to kill any chicken raisers in sight. I just
think better of our service people than that they get sooooooooooooo scared that
they just shoot first and ask questions later.
Vince
Keith Willshaw
"BigCrosby" <bigc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:XNg97.5113$k7.16...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
>
> Religious pilgrims? Perhaps but they are also citizens of a rogue nation
> and as such, despite warnings, the pilot, who had recently received his
> certification via "Microsoft Flight Simulator", strayed and was blasted by
> an American "Warship". A tragedy. Once again though, we are at peril
> everyday as Americans, so why should Iranians be any different.
>
There was no warning broadcast by the Ship to the Airbus
> Bravo Zulu Vincennes.
>
>
For what ?
Risking a billion dollar warship and its crew by chasing
speedboats at flank speed into waters that were
suspected to be mined ?
Firing with both guns at these speedboats for 20 minutes
without a single hit or even a near miss ?
Being unable to tell the difference between an
aircraft thats diving and one thats climbing ?
Not knowing that an Airbus on a scheduled flight ,
in a recognised ICAO corridor that has filed
a flight plan and is squawking its ident loud
and clear isnt a fighter on an attack vector ?
Personally I'd prefer that the Navy maintain its
hard earned reputation of competence.
Keith
Peter Skelton
What part of "Without excusing Vincennes" was unclear?
I meant the more general circumstances, a warship in an area
where another US warship had been attacked and violent inccidents
were occurring frequently. I do not think that the USN's overall
performance was worse than any other navy's should be expected to
be.
____
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
Redeploy Old Ironsides.
____
Peter Skelton
Greg Yantz
> > Americans can, of course if they are really stupid racist bigoted
> > arrogant and abusive, make a bad situation worse
Unfortunately, really stupid, arrogant, abusive, racist bigots seem
to be fairly plentiful everywhere.
> You have made your points and each of them, like the airbus that flew too
> close to a man o war, are deep sixed. It was terrible that the airbus was
> blasted but it would have been a true tragedy if the Vincennes had not
> reacted.
Don't for a second let yourself be slowed down by little things like "facts".
The only thing capable of matching your lack of intellect seems to be your
lack of honor.
> Face it, it will happen again!
If one of our armed services were foolish enough to let the likes of you
into a position of responsibility, yes.
> Perhaps you would rather fly another airbus full of chicken raising morons
> close to an American warship and "Feel their pain"
Civilians on a registered flight, in a known air corridor, correctly
following all procedures. Funny, I thought it was a goal of the armed
forced of civilized nations to spare innocent civilians from harm.
> In the meantime pay your taxes and let the men and women guard your right
> to speech so that you can raise a little hell.
Guard your right to be a really stupid arrogant abusive racist bigot?
It's worth the trade, though I doubt you'd understand why.
> God, don't you love freedom Vincent? Huh?
Even yours.
> Bravo Zulu Vincennes
Though I reserve my right to express my opinion of the likes of you.
-Greg
vincent Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
> >> Who is? Without excusing Vincennes, I can't think of another navy
> >> whose ship I'd happily fly over in similar circumstances.
> >
> >We create the circumstances, and then deny responsiblity for the consequences.
> >Remember the GREER?
>
> What part of "Without excusing Vincennes" was unclear?
>
> I meant the more general circumstances, a warship in an area
> where another US warship had been attacked and violent inccidents
> were occurring frequently. I do not think that the USN's overall
> performance was worse than any other navy's should be expected to
> be.
It's very simple, where in the timeline do you start? 4 minutes before launch? 4
hours? 4 days?
lets back off 4 days. What rules do you provide for a political military conflict.
That is why the Greer is a useful indicator. The Greer was engaged in highly
questionable behavior, which we could cover up and distort to our national interest.
neutrality patrols are always very difficult. A neutral vessel enforcing neutral
rights does not have the same freedom of action of a combatant. Its a police officer,
not a soldier. That is why we don't use soldiers as policemen. The military
mentality is to shoot on subjective feelings of threat, and there are no limits on
where you can go. Police officer have an obligation not to put themselves into a
situation where they will shoot on subjective beliefs of a threat. The united states
was not a belligerent. As a non belligerent Vincennes cannot pursue and punish
combatants. It has to retreat. The was the key command failure. We were not in a
situation where we were free to use force. to extricate ourselves forma subjective
threat. our naval forces failed at the fundamental portion of the mission, to know
what the hell they are supposed to be doing there. Technical competence cannot
obscure this fundamental command failure.
Vince
Greg Yantz
> "BigCrosby" <bigc...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:XNg97.5113$k7.16...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> > Religious pilgrims? Perhaps but they are also citizens of a rogue nation
> > and as such, despite warnings, the pilot, who had recently received his
> > certification via "Microsoft Flight Simulator", strayed and was blasted by
> > an American "Warship". A tragedy. Once again though, we are at peril
> > everyday as Americans, so why should Iranians be any different.
> There was no warning broadcast by the Ship to the Airbus
> > Bravo Zulu Vincennes.
> For what ?
> Risking a billion dollar warship and its crew by chasing
> speedboats at flank speed into waters that were
> suspected to be mined ?
"Please, ambush me!".
Morons. As someone else has already stated, if the Iranians
were competent (or prepared, just a little) then the Vincennes
would likely have been taken or sunk.
> Firing with both guns at these speedboats for 20 minutes
> without a single hit or even a near miss ?
Not something you want to admit.
> Being unable to tell the difference between an
> aircraft thats diving and one thats climbing ?
Even worse.
> Not knowing that an Airbus on a scheduled flight ,
> in a recognised ICAO corridor that has filed
> a flight plan and is squawking its ident loud
> and clear isnt a fighter on an attack vector ?
Makes you wonder, if they *had* encountered a fighter
on an attack vector at any point, would they have
recognized it?
> Personally I'd prefer that the Navy maintain its
> hard earned reputation of competence.
Heh. Thanks, I was feeling the need to make your
post.
-Greg
BigCrosby
"Greg Yantz" <ran...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:fxnn15m...@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu...
Peter Skelton
An American warship can do whatever the hell it likes, limited,
in reality, by the tolerance of the American population in the
short term and that of other governments in the middle term. Many
of these theings are causus belli (however that's spelled) if the
other country is willing to go to war over them, so SSBN's and
probably carriers don't count but few countries would go to war
over the soprt of damage Greer or Vincennes could cause.
While Vincennes had a command failure, command failure was the
cause of the downing only in the local sense. The politcal and
military situation in the Gulf was very likely to result in a
deadly incident. There had already been one, involving Stark.
Blaming Vincennes is like blaming the Captain and mate of the
TItanic for the disaster, ignoring the inadequacies of the safety
procedures of the day, brittle fracture and the other things
we've hashed out so many times. It's valid, but incomplete.
____
Peter Skelton
JT
> Blaming Vincennes is like blaming the Captain and mate of the
> TItanic for the disaster, ignoring the inadequacies of the safety
> procedures of the day, brittle fracture and the other things
> we've hashed out so many times. It's valid, but incomplete.
> ____
>
> Peter Skelton
Peter,
A good answer. I have watched debate rage on for a few days so I thought,
"Hey why not me?"
The tragedy that occured is a grim reminder of times in which we live. As a
naval veteran I am quick to defend her (Navy) honor, but as a realist I also
see mistakes made. However there is nothing that will soothe the wounds and
the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force must carry on and defend our
freedom. In the course of doing so many of our own men and women have died,
as have others for their countries. Some die because of the "actions" of
their countries, many helpless people. If you ask me point blank if the Vin
acted correctly I would have to say that she protected herself. Thats my
humble opinion, and since this has apparently been hashed over a million
times, I will not respond to any more posts.
vincent Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
> We were not in a
> >situation where we were free to use force. to extricate ourselves forma subjective
> >threat. our naval forces failed at the fundamental portion of the mission, to know
> >what the hell they are supposed to be doing there. Technical competence cannot
> >obscure this fundamental command failure.
>
> What part of "Without excusing Vincennes" was unclear?
Does Vincennes mean "the person giving orders on Vincennes" or the entire operation
involving Vincennes?
>
> An American warship can do whatever the hell it likes, limited,
> in reality, by the tolerance of the American population in the
> short term and that of other governments in the middle term. Many
> of these theings are causus belli (however that's spelled) if the
> other country is willing to go to war over them, so SSBN's and
> probably carriers don't count but few countries would go to war
> over the soprt of damage Greer or Vincennes could cause.
I don't disagree, but the whole kuwaiti reflagging operation was to put the imprimatur of
legality on the operation. If we want the benefits of "leagality" we have to play by the
rules.
> While Vincennes had a command failure, command failure was the
> cause of the downing only in the local sense. The politcal and
> military situation in the Gulf was very likely to result in a
> deadly incident. There had already been one, involving Stark.
I agree
> Blaming Vincennes is like blaming the Captain and mate of the
> TItanic for the disaster, ignoring the inadequacies of the safety
> procedures of the day, brittle fracture and the other things
> we've hashed out so many times. It's valid, but incomplete.
Blaming Captain Smith for hitting the iceberg is fair. Blaming him for the entire disaster
is not.
In the same way, there was a system failure that put the ship in a difficult position,
compounded by a personal failure by the captain to recognize the situation. They could
not discipline the captian without exposing the command failure above.
It like pearl harbor, if kimmel had done everything he could, the disaster might still
have happened, but he and we would have known that it was one of the risks you take. But
he was in a risky situaion and did not do everything he could.
Vince
Peter Skelton
<fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> We were not in a
>> >situation where we were free to use force. to extricate ourselves forma subjective
>> >threat. our naval forces failed at the fundamental portion of the mission, to know
>> >what the hell they are supposed to be doing there. Technical competence cannot
>> >obscure this fundamental command failure.
>>
>> What part of "Without excusing Vincennes" was unclear?
>
>Does Vincennes mean "the person giving orders on Vincennes" or the entire operation
>involving Vincennes?
>
The actions taken by the ship on the day.
>>
>> An American warship can do whatever the hell it likes, limited,
>> in reality, by the tolerance of the American population in the
>> short term and that of other governments in the middle term. Many
>> of these theings are causus belli (however that's spelled) if the
>> other country is willing to go to war over them, so SSBN's and
>> probably carriers don't count but few countries would go to war
>> over the soprt of damage Greer or Vincennes could cause.
>
>I don't disagree, but the whole kuwaiti reflagging operation was to put the imprimatur of
>legality on the operation. If we want the benefits of "leagality" we have to play by the
>rules.
You have to behave in a way the American public will accept
immediately and that other governemts will accept in the
mid-term. This may or may not match the law. The US (like almost
everybody else) uses the law as a way to get approval.
>> While Vincennes had a command failure, command failure was the
>> cause of the downing only in the local sense. The politcal and
>> military situation in the Gulf was very likely to result in a
>> deadly incident. There had already been one, involving Stark.
>
>I agree
>
>> Blaming Vincennes is like blaming the Captain and mate of the
>> TItanic for the disaster, ignoring the inadequacies of the safety
>> procedures of the day, brittle fracture and the other things
>> we've hashed out so many times. It's valid, but incomplete.
>
>Blaming Captain Smith for hitting the iceberg is fair. Blaming him for the entire disaster
>is not.
>In the same way, there was a system failure that put the ship in a difficult position,
>compounded by a personal failure by the captain to recognize the situation. They could
>not discipline the captian without exposing the command failure above.
I think they could have, if anybody ad taken the time to think
things through before acting. He certainly did not give his
superiors an unbiased account of what was happening as he asked
for permissions, for example. That could be enough to get him
pushed aside.
The US couldn't discipline the captain without admitting
responsibility for the incident. It wasn't willing to do that for
years.
____
Peter Skelton
JT
blah blah blah
Its useless to argue with a lawyer. those who can, do. Those who can't
teach. We have great stories from Emmitsburg on this cat. A Junk
instructor. The men and women who take the classes there are so
underwhelmed.
He is no "Frank Brannigan" , and the grasp of our navy is slight at best.
Paul J. Adam
<bige...@homer.com> writes
>"vincent Brannigan" <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
>news:3B66DAFD...@wam.umd.edu...
>
>blah blah blah
>
>Its useless to argue with a lawyer. those who can, do. Those who can't
>teach.
Therefore all instruction and learning is useless, correct? Since all
who would instruct are, by your definition, incompetent?
>We have great stories from Emmitsburg on this cat. A Junk
>instructor. The men and women who take the classes there are so
>underwhelmed.
I've met Vincent. He's a gentleman.
I have not had the opportunity of meeting you: on the evidence so far, I
am most profoundly grateful for that mercy.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Ray Trygstad
Niven's Laws.
-- Ray
Ray Trygstad, LCDR USN (Retired)
Maintainer, Naval & Maritime page of the World Wide Web Virtual Library
http://vlib.iit.edu/vlnavmar/ (note the new address)
"Peter Skelton" <Skel...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3b656d48.357705032@news...
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:54:32 -0400, vincent Brannigan
> <fir...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >BigCrosby wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Misleading? How about the farce that is Iran? The only serious
mistake
> >> made was having an Iranian piloting an advanced aircraft and standing
into
> >> danger. Thats the problem with rogue, third world nations with no
concept
> >> of the world around them and the situations that arise when your
outside the
> >> tent pissing on the "American" inside the tent!
> >
> > As you point out, the mistake iran made was in believing that we we
> >intelligent, sophisticated and law abiding enough to distinguish a threat
from
> >an innocent bystander. We aren't, we can't and we're not.
>
> Who is? Without excusing Vincennes, I can't think of another navy
> whose ship I'd happily fly over in similar circumstances.
>
> (This is simillar to Niven's Laws. If anybody has a copy of them,
> I'd like to see them posted, I've lost mine.)
> ____
>
> Peter Skelton
Mark Borgerson
Ray Trygstad wrote:
>
> Try http://members.optushome.com.au/nivenl/stories/nivens_laws.html for
> Niven's Laws.
>
> -- Ray
I'd add one corollary to the second law: Make sure the mirror you're shooting
at isn't the business end of someone else's laser! (c.f. the first encounter
between man and kzin.)
Mark Borgerson