6 ms·

You're referring to the "list of airliner shootdown incidents"? It definitely has the Iran Air flight.

by lutorm 5y ago

freeflight 5y ago
My bad, I searched for "United States", that only gave me a hit on the Itavia Flight, but skipped Iran Air because that section uses "US". Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature. Why’s that difficult to believe?
  - janeroe 5y ago
    >> Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature. > Why’s that difficult to believe? Because of stories like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/us-airstrikes-civilian-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/us-airstrikes-civilian... > Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet… dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors. > The site of the bombing was bulldozed; the unit that conducted the strike vindicated itself; key evidence was buried; military logs were altered; and investigations were stalled and subverted. Although the Pentagon's independent inspector general managed to launch a probe, "the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike." The last paragraph is some Karimov's Uzbekistan level shit.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      What does an air strike in a war zone have to do with US missiles or fighter jets shooting down commercial airliners? If you’re going to say “we don’t trust them” or something you’d have to then go and find all sorts of unaccounted for airliners that disappeared without cause and just decide to, without evidence, claim the U.S. secretly shot them down and is covering it up. It’s just a big conspiracy goose hunt. Oh and while you’re at it, we can toss in that airliners that crashed were just secret US cover-ups of shooting them down maliciously too because they “scrubbed the logs”.
      - janeroe 5y ago
        What war zone has to do with people sitting in a secure facility and drone attacking civilians on the other side of the planet? Then covering that up. > you’d have to then go and find all sorts of unaccounted for airliners that disappeared without cause Wrong. Open the list above and see the soviet cases. None of those were unaccounted. They just crashed "of natural causes".
        ericmay 5y ago
        > What war zone has to do with people sitting in a secure facility and drone attacking civilians on the other side of the planet? Then covering that up I think it's because the people doing what you're describing are doing it to a war zone and not commercial airliners? Are drone pilots shooting down commercial airliners now? I'm confused. And if you take issue with calling the area a war zone no big deal, let's just call it a defined geographic area. It's beside the point. > Wrong. Open the list above and see the soviet cases. None of those were unaccounted. They just crashed "of natural causes". Ok. Can you list some civilian airliners that the US shot down and is covering? I'd love to know more about that. As far as I know the U.S. isn't shooting down airliners and covering it up but hey maybe you have some really good evidence or sources.
        janeroe 5y ago
        If you forgot the parent comment was about "reckless behavior". Bombing weddings, hospitals, whole families who worked for the US (as in the latest case in Afghanistan), and running civilians seems quite reckless to me. I have no info on US downing commercial planes. But given the history of war crimes and lack of accountability I wouldn't be surprised if they did something of that sort.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Sure, and the Dutch have a history of colonizing people and chopping off the hands of Africans so they probably secretly shoot down commercial airliners too. I have no proof but ya know I wouldn’t put it past them.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    Can you name another nation that has had such a global, and active, military presence as the US has had, particularly since the establishment of formal air-forces? We are also talking about a military that does not only have a recent string of burrowing civilian casulties, like in Afghanistan or Syria, but has been doing so in plenty of other conflicts. So yes, it's a bit difficult to believe that in decades of war the US ever only shot down two wrong planes, most likely that wikipedia list simply ain't anywhere to complete, like most of them.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > We are also talking about a military that does not only have a recent string of burrowing civilian casulties, like in Afghanistan or Syria, but has been doing so in plenty of other conflicts. > So yes, it's a bit difficult to believe that in decades of war the US ever only shot down two wrong planes, most likely that wikipedia list simply ain't anywhere to complete, like most of them. I think your starting with what you want to believe is true and then walking back from that to find evidence to fit a narrative. There’s no reason to think that because the U.S. has willingly or unwillingly killed people in, say, an Afghan village that they’d be likely to misidentify commercial aircraft which have technology that positively identifies the aircraft. And in one case I recall with Iran it was a tense situation and you can at least give some amount of plausible deniability to the US military. They did pay out to the victims too IIRC, certainly not something that Russia or others have done. As you mentioned, the U.S. has a global military presence. That means that encountering commercial aircraft all over the world would be a common occurrence and positive identification of those aircraft comes from U.S. led or contributed technologies and processes for making sure that they aren’t misidentified. So I’m not really sure it’s difficult to believe that the U.S. just doesn’t make many mistakes here, whereas in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria the situation is not comparable, error-prone, and quite complicated.
      - freeflight 5y ago
        > And in one case I recall with Iran it was a tense situation Said tense situation was the result of the USS Vincennes sailing into Iranian territorial waters, while the Iran-Iraq war was waging. It wasn't something that was just randomly forced onto them. Which has way more parallels to MH17 than most Americans would be comfortable admitting.
- fit2rule 5y ago
  This site details a lot of recklessness: http://airwars.org/ http://airwars.org/

You're referring to the "list of airliner shootdown incidents"? It definitely has the Iran Air flight.

by lutorm 5y ago

You're referring to the "list of airliner shootdown incidents"? It definitely has the Iran Air flight.

My bad, I searched for "United States", that only gave me a hit on the Itavia Flight, but skipped Iran Air because that section uses "US". Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature.

ericmay 5y ago
> Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature. Why’s that difficult to believe?
- janeroe 5y ago
  >> Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature. > Why’s that difficult to believe? Because of stories like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/us-airstrikes-civilian-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/us-airstrikes-civilian... > Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet… dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors. > The site of the bombing was bulldozed; the unit that conducted the strike vindicated itself; key evidence was buried; military logs were altered; and investigations were stalled and subverted. Although the Pentagon's independent inspector general managed to launch a probe, "the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike." The last paragraph is some Karimov's Uzbekistan level shit.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    What does an air strike in a war zone have to do with US missiles or fighter jets shooting down commercial airliners? If you’re going to say “we don’t trust them” or something you’d have to then go and find all sorts of unaccounted for airliners that disappeared without cause and just decide to, without evidence, claim the U.S. secretly shot them down and is covering it up. It’s just a big conspiracy goose hunt. Oh and while you’re at it, we can toss in that airliners that crashed were just secret US cover-ups of shooting them down maliciously too because they “scrubbed the logs”.
    - janeroe 5y ago
      What war zone has to do with people sitting in a secure facility and drone attacking civilians on the other side of the planet? Then covering that up. > you’d have to then go and find all sorts of unaccounted for airliners that disappeared without cause Wrong. Open the list above and see the soviet cases. None of those were unaccounted. They just crashed "of natural causes".
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > What war zone has to do with people sitting in a secure facility and drone attacking civilians on the other side of the planet? Then covering that up I think it's because the people doing what you're describing are doing it to a war zone and not commercial airliners? Are drone pilots shooting down commercial airliners now? I'm confused. And if you take issue with calling the area a war zone no big deal, let's just call it a defined geographic area. It's beside the point. > Wrong. Open the list above and see the soviet cases. None of those were unaccounted. They just crashed "of natural causes". Ok. Can you list some civilian airliners that the US shot down and is covering? I'd love to know more about that. As far as I know the U.S. isn't shooting down airliners and covering it up but hey maybe you have some really good evidence or sources.
        janeroe 5y ago
        If you forgot the parent comment was about "reckless behavior". Bombing weddings, hospitals, whole families who worked for the US (as in the latest case in Afghanistan), and running civilians seems quite reckless to me. I have no info on US downing commercial planes. But given the history of war crimes and lack of accountability I wouldn't be surprised if they did something of that sort.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Sure, and the Dutch have a history of colonizing people and chopping off the hands of Africans so they probably secretly shoot down commercial airliners too. I have no proof but ya know I wouldn’t put it past them.
- freeflight 5y ago
  Can you name another nation that has had such a global, and active, military presence as the US has had, particularly since the establishment of formal air-forces? We are also talking about a military that does not only have a recent string of burrowing civilian casulties, like in Afghanistan or Syria, but has been doing so in plenty of other conflicts. So yes, it's a bit difficult to believe that in decades of war the US ever only shot down two wrong planes, most likely that wikipedia list simply ain't anywhere to complete, like most of them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > We are also talking about a military that does not only have a recent string of burrowing civilian casulties, like in Afghanistan or Syria, but has been doing so in plenty of other conflicts. > So yes, it's a bit difficult to believe that in decades of war the US ever only shot down two wrong planes, most likely that wikipedia list simply ain't anywhere to complete, like most of them. I think your starting with what you want to believe is true and then walking back from that to find evidence to fit a narrative. There’s no reason to think that because the U.S. has willingly or unwillingly killed people in, say, an Afghan village that they’d be likely to misidentify commercial aircraft which have technology that positively identifies the aircraft. And in one case I recall with Iran it was a tense situation and you can at least give some amount of plausible deniability to the US military. They did pay out to the victims too IIRC, certainly not something that Russia or others have done. As you mentioned, the U.S. has a global military presence. That means that encountering commercial aircraft all over the world would be a common occurrence and positive identification of those aircraft comes from U.S. led or contributed technologies and processes for making sure that they aren’t misidentified. So I’m not really sure it’s difficult to believe that the U.S. just doesn’t make many mistakes here, whereas in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria the situation is not comparable, error-prone, and quite complicated.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      > And in one case I recall with Iran it was a tense situation Said tense situation was the result of the USS Vincennes sailing into Iranian territorial waters, while the Iran-Iraq war was waging. It wasn't something that was just randomly forced onto them. Which has way more parallels to MH17 than most Americans would be comfortable admitting.
fit2rule 5y ago
This site details a lot of recklessness: http://airwars.org/ http://airwars.org/