Iran Air 655 Incident- ACI last night.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. Also, the valuation disparity in compensation between 655 and Pan Am 103 is utterly laughable.
And without question it would be considered terrorism by many.
The old adage- one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
And without question it would be considered terrorism by many.
The old adage- one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Last edited by Jakey; 17th Jul 2012 at 19:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask a hypothetical question? (I will anyway...)
If that was a US airliner shot down in US waters by an Iranian ship, how would the Americans have reacted?
What would they have done?
If that was a US airliner shot down in US waters by an Iranian ship, how would the Americans have reacted?
What would they have done?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and also, surely, and obviously from the ripostes on here, there's loads of experienced servicemen reading this, the attack profile of an incoming military jet is wholly and entirely different to an airliner cruising or climbing?
Surely an experienced Captain would see this? I mean he was the CO of a state of the art warship....
Surely an experienced Captain would see this? I mean he was the CO of a state of the art warship....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jakey, yer bang on the money there. Rule 46 of military air combat specifically precludes acting like an airliner.
You are not allowed to pretend to be a civvy aircraft in order to sneak up on a warship.
Everyone knows that.
You are not allowed to pretend to be a civvy aircraft in order to sneak up on a warship.
Everyone knows that.
Merc:
The year is 2012.
You are invited to recall that in politics, change is the rule, and perception is a tool, not a reality. What perceptions were in 1988 and what they are in 2012 are subject to change for whatever reasons one can invent.
See Milo's point. The Captain answered for his actions to his chain of command, who had every opportunity to choose to take criminal steps. Such things have happened before. The decision made at the political level were that, among other things, his actions did not involve him losing any of his people, nor his ship, no matter how badly that went for the people in the Airbus. Unlike KAL 007, he did not have a chance at a VID. (That doesn't exonerate his decision making, however: see the long debate in United States Naval Institutes Proceedings, if you are actually interested).
To restate the point: the final decision on his fate, court martial or not, was not well received even by all of his own peers. Some agreed that he was, by our system, set up. Others considered his judgment so bad that it warranted at the least relief from command. Still others suggested more than that, on the basis of the authority/accountability mix of being a Captain at sea.
Note that you may wish to consider: when a CO of a ship has a collision at sea, even if nobody dies, it is common to see him relieved of command.
Compare that to shooting down an airliner, even by accident.
You must thus factor in the POLITICAL issue before you go any further, because his ship being there was MASSIVELY POLITICAL in nature. The political climate in the US had a non trivial influence on this case, and that climate was informed in part by a dislike, to say the least, of Iran and Iranians since the Hostage situation when the Ayatollah and his crew took over.
Attempting to analyze this in absence of that element of the problem strikes me as naive.
Just as an aside: are you from Argentina, or just living there?
If you are of Argentina, I find it droll for you to assert a point on "principles" given the rubbish from that end of the world on the Falkland Islands. I also see that Frau K has tried on this nonsense yet again.
POLITICS: it dirties everything it touches.
The year is 2012.
You are invited to recall that in politics, change is the rule, and perception is a tool, not a reality. What perceptions were in 1988 and what they are in 2012 are subject to change for whatever reasons one can invent.
See Milo's point. The Captain answered for his actions to his chain of command, who had every opportunity to choose to take criminal steps. Such things have happened before. The decision made at the political level were that, among other things, his actions did not involve him losing any of his people, nor his ship, no matter how badly that went for the people in the Airbus. Unlike KAL 007, he did not have a chance at a VID. (That doesn't exonerate his decision making, however: see the long debate in United States Naval Institutes Proceedings, if you are actually interested).
To restate the point: the final decision on his fate, court martial or not, was not well received even by all of his own peers. Some agreed that he was, by our system, set up. Others considered his judgment so bad that it warranted at the least relief from command. Still others suggested more than that, on the basis of the authority/accountability mix of being a Captain at sea.
Note that you may wish to consider: when a CO of a ship has a collision at sea, even if nobody dies, it is common to see him relieved of command.
Compare that to shooting down an airliner, even by accident.
You must thus factor in the POLITICAL issue before you go any further, because his ship being there was MASSIVELY POLITICAL in nature. The political climate in the US had a non trivial influence on this case, and that climate was informed in part by a dislike, to say the least, of Iran and Iranians since the Hostage situation when the Ayatollah and his crew took over.
Attempting to analyze this in absence of that element of the problem strikes me as naive.
Just as an aside: are you from Argentina, or just living there?
If you are of Argentina, I find it droll for you to assert a point on "principles" given the rubbish from that end of the world on the Falkland Islands. I also see that Frau K has tried on this nonsense yet again.
POLITICS: it dirties everything it touches.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:04.
And what is the attack profile of an Anti Ship Missile then?
And Jakey just remember, the armed forces of a democratic country do the bidding of the government of the day. The government that is elected by the 'sane civilian population' as I believe you phrased it.
And Jakey just remember, the armed forces of a democratic country do the bidding of the government of the day. The government that is elected by the 'sane civilian population' as I believe you phrased it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what is the attack profile of an Anti Ship Missile then?
And Jakey just remember, the armed forces of a democratic country do the bidding of the government of the day. The government that is elected by the 'sane civilian population' as I believe you phrased it.
And Jakey just remember, the armed forces of a democratic country do the bidding of the government of the day. The government that is elected by the 'sane civilian population' as I believe you phrased it.
There was, all along, huge doubt. A huge mistake, horrendous, but also hideously misjudged, with not one, but many cock-ups in the decision making and judgment chain.
By any definition, that is an act of terrorism.
If you flip it to be the shootdown in US waters of a US airliner by an Iranian warship, the howls of condemnation from the US would be loud indeed.
There'd be a blood price exacted, if the last ten to twelve years is any indication.
As to the apology, not in general disagreement, as noted above.
What puzzles me on that score is how the administration at the time, internally but very for the benefit of the American public, basically admitted that it was in error.
As before, POLITICS is involved.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf,
Whilst I disagree firmly with some of your views, I would at least totally agree with you about politics, and the greed for power and wealth.
At the end of the day, this was all about oil. Nothing else, nothing more.
The US Government couldn't give a fig for the majority of atrocities committed in many countries provided they get their oil and other stuff (their covert support of the Pol Pot regime is proof enough of this).
As luck would have it, I was in Tehran during the overthrowing of the Shah. I spent a short time there as a kid, and it was amazingly westernised. It's a great shame that whatever flag you fight for, you fight for politicians, not your people.
Whilst I disagree firmly with some of your views, I would at least totally agree with you about politics, and the greed for power and wealth.
At the end of the day, this was all about oil. Nothing else, nothing more.
The US Government couldn't give a fig for the majority of atrocities committed in many countries provided they get their oil and other stuff (their covert support of the Pol Pot regime is proof enough of this).
As luck would have it, I was in Tehran during the overthrowing of the Shah. I spent a short time there as a kid, and it was amazingly westernised. It's a great shame that whatever flag you fight for, you fight for politicians, not your people.
Attemptign to analyze this in absence of that element of the problem strikes me as deliberately dishonest, or just naive.
Just as an aside: are you from Argentina, or just living there?
If you are of Argentina, I find it droll for you to assert a point on "principles" given the rubbish from that end of the world on the Falkland Islands. I also see that Frau K has tried on this nonsense yet again.
If you are of Argentina, I find it droll for you to assert a point on "principles" given the rubbish from that end of the world on the Falkland Islands. I also see that Frau K has tried on this nonsense yet again.
I donīt like Ms. K, less her manners. But I donīt agree with you about the Malvinas and, surely, I have full rights to voice my opinion in this subjetc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone English, I fail to see how we can realistically own Islands the other side of the world. Or really fairly want to.*
It's like the Isle of Wight being owned by China.
(*unless of course there's huge antarctic mineral rights involved...)
It's like the Isle of Wight being owned by China.
(*unless of course there's huge antarctic mineral rights involved...)
Jakey,
No doubt Occam's razor would convince the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe to bring inside the walls of the city - it couldn't possibly contain some Greek troops that would come out at night and open the city gates...
Ruse of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While not saying it applies in this particular case - adopting the profile of an airliner has been used by military aircraft to obtain a tactical advantage, indeed as a concept it appeared in commercial print as long ago as 1966:
The Penetrators by Anthony Gray - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists
I would suggest that relying on Occam's razor when making military decisions is a somewhat flawed policy!!
No doubt Occam's razor would convince the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe to bring inside the walls of the city - it couldn't possibly contain some Greek troops that would come out at night and open the city gates...
Ruse of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While not saying it applies in this particular case - adopting the profile of an airliner has been used by military aircraft to obtain a tactical advantage, indeed as a concept it appeared in commercial print as long ago as 1966:
The Penetrators by Anthony Gray - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists
I would suggest that relying on Occam's razor when making military decisions is a somewhat flawed policy!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
That is the whole argument in a nutshell.
The captain judged on military protocol. Had he have accepted he was acting without any form of international manifesto, in foreign and non-militarised waters, he would have judged on civilian protocol.
Thus, his judgement was severely flawed and it was exactly his failure to accept that things were as they appeared that forced the paranoid search for imaginary evidence.
(the only other possible explanation, and quite a plausible one, is it was a stitch-up on him by the US governement)
That is the whole argument in a nutshell.
The captain judged on military protocol. Had he have accepted he was acting without any form of international manifesto, in foreign and non-militarised waters, he would have judged on civilian protocol.
Thus, his judgement was severely flawed and it was exactly his failure to accept that things were as they appeared that forced the paranoid search for imaginary evidence.
(the only other possible explanation, and quite a plausible one, is it was a stitch-up on him by the US governement)
Last edited by Jakey; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:29.
By any definition, that is an act of terrorism.
Proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism
Since 2000, the United Nations General Assembly has been negotiating a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. The definition of the crime of terrorism, which has been on the negotiating table since 2002 reads as follows:
"1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."[36]
That definition is not controversial in itself; the deadlock in the negotiations arises instead from the opposing views on whether such a definition would be applicable to the armed forces of a state and to Self-determination movements. Thalif Deen described the situation as follows: "The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of īterrorismī. For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a 'liberation movement'? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes 'state terrorism'?"[37] The coordinator of the negotiations, supported by most western delegations, proposed the following exceptions to address those issues:
"1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, peoples and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law.
2. The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.
4. Nothing in this article condones or makes lawful otherwise unlawful acts, nor precludes prosecution under other laws."[38]
I do not disagree that the shooting down of that aircraft was a gross error of judgement.
I strongly disagree that it was a terrorist act. It was not murder. It was an error of judgement with tragic results. Whether you choose to accept it or not the CO of the USS Vincennes believed that his vessel and crew were under threat of attack. He reacted to protect his crew, as he was trained, paid and expected to do.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As someone English, I fail to see how we can realistically own Islands the other side of the world. Or really fairly want to.*
It's like the Isle of Wight being owned by China.
It's like the Isle of Wight being owned by China.
Are you really that naive?
It's a great shame that whatever flag you fight for, you fight for politicians, not your people.
As anyone who has ever served will tell you if it comes down to fighting then your fighting for your mates, no one else.