« "militia" & "partisans" my ass .... russian command and control .... russian bird .... russia shot down the malaysian jet .... | Main | rt news .... (anyone say putin's tool?) .... says russian defense ministry detects ukrainian buk radar active when malaysian flight shot down .... »

July 19, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Leon

You may be of the opinion Vladimir Putin is a thug, perhaps he is, but he is not stupid. Just what do you think he would acheive by shooting down a civilian aircraft? Oh and don't try to claim the U.S.A. is innocent in this, in '88 a U.S. missile cruiser shot down a civilian aircraft in the middle east, despite the captain being told by U.S.Military Pilots in the air at the time AND giving the correct code for the civilian passenger aircraft the skipper still ordered the launch of the missile which killed nearly the same number of people as the latest air tragedy. It is a lot more involved than you seem to imagine. Just because Putin is showing up how pathetic the latest administration is does not make him dumb enough to order the downing of a civillian aircraft in a show of bravado, unlike the captain of the missile cruiser who was then given a medal by Reagan on hisreturn.

john jay

john leon:

1. putin is a thug. and, no, he is not stupid, not be any stretch of the imagination.

2. i am quite aware that a u.s. warship shot down an iranian civilian airliner, w/ missiles.

3. i am not aware that the captain of the ship was told of the identity of the aircraft by u.s. military pilots, nor that the plane's identity was known. my memory of the incident, which may be fuzzy, was that the transponder of the aircraft had been disabled.

4. not that it makes a great deal of difference, but, i thought the iranian plane carried fewer passengers.

5. how is this incident "more involved" than i imagine? i sort of regret asking this question, as i suspect that you will have an "answer" of sorts, but, if you feel like explaining your remark, please feel free to do so.

6. putin is indeed showing us how pathetic obama is, but, i have known that obama for a long long long time. obama could not possibly sink to any depths that would surprise me.

7. you comment about russian bravado seems to imply that the russian military would, in deed and in fact, respond to a putin order to down a civilian air liner by doing so.

i tend to agree.

8. i do not know that the russians shot down the air liner on purpose, knowing that it was an air liner.

9. i have not set out to my own satisfaction any line of thought that the russians might have adopted to see that purposefully shooting down the liner was to their advantage, in any way.

10. that being the case, it would seem to me logical that the russians made a mistake of some sort, though, it seems to me perfectly clear that the shooting was intentional, and purposeful.

11. your last point is so hopelessly prolix & compound that it is difficult for me to respond to it.

you seem to imply that the naval officer responsible for ordering the downing of the iranian air liner did so in a display of "bravado," and that the same "bravado" was awarded by president reagan in a similar act of "bravado."

this seems to me stupid beyond contention. and, no point in attempting to refute it. you may believe as you wish to believe. that is fine with me.

12. i was not aware that president reagan decorated the capitan and/or commander of the naval vessel which shot down the iranian plane, for the act of shooting down the plane.

this seems to me quite unlikely.

as i remember the incident, civilian air craft were warned to stay out of the airspace involved, and that the iranian craft flew into it, without an active transponder and did not answer calls to identify itself.

if i am wrong, i welcome correction.

john jay

p.s. are you suggesting that if the u.s. shot down an airliner in 1988 by mistake, that the russians get a free pass on this airliner, by claiming a similar mistake? or, that the russians did mistakenly shoot the liner down, but that the u.s. murdered the iranians on purpose?

i think you should intelligibly set forth your position on the matter. it is a bit unclear to me, reading your post, just exactly what you mean to say.

perhaps others understand it with more clarity, but, i do not.

i welcome other analysis.

john jay

john leon, friends:

i took the opportunity to look at the wikipedia account of the u.s.s. vincennes incident.

all quotes taken from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 .

my memory was faulty. i had thought, and said above, that the iranian flight had no turned on its transponder. this is wrong, and it flat wrong, as demonstrated by the u.s. navy's official findings on the matter:

"This version was finalized in a report by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988.[22] Only parts of this report have been released (part I in 1988 and part II in 1993). The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."

the vincennes did try to make radio contact w/ the iranian airliner, but using a frequency different from the air traffic control frequency likely used by the iranian plane. notes wikipedia:

"According to the same reports, the Vincennes tried unsuccessfully to contact the approaching aircraft, seven times on the military emergency frequency and three times on the civilian emergency frequency, but never on air traffic control frequencies. This civilian aircraft was not equipped to pick up military frequencies and the messages on the civilian emergency channel could have been directed at any aircraft. More confusion arose as the hailed speed was the ground speed, while the pilot's instruments displayed airspeed, which was 50-knot (93 km/h) different.[21]"

the united states admitted fault, and some years later reparations were paid for the loss of life involved, per international court.

i am not going to quote it directly, but, the wikipedia article confirms that the navy established that the flight profile of the iranian liner was in a normal airspace, and that the plane's path and flight pattern were consistent with a commercial flight and not that of an attacking fighter/bomber type aircraft, as was airspeed.

one final matter. the commander of the u.s.s. vincennes did not receive any commendation for his actions in the shooting down of the iranian airliner. he received a general commendation for his command of the ship, which period covered the downing of the plane. he did not receive any sort of commendation for his role in the downing of the plane.

the u.s. has never issued an apology to the government of iran for the plane's destruction.

john jay

john jay

p.s. according to the wikipedia article, after the downing of the iranian flight u.s. naval ships in the area received radio equipment that worked on air traffic control frequencies.

and, more complete schedules of civilian commercial flights through the straits of hormuz.

it is interesting to note that the captain of the iranian flight communicated w/ air traffic control, in english, just prior to the missile launch which killed him and his passengers.

The comments to this entry are closed.