4 ms·

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-forc

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.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Hmmm I wonder if there is more to the story than "USS Vincennes sails into Iranian territorial waters"? Vincennes had entered Iranian territory after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits. [1] Totally random how the US ship found itself in Iranian waters. Like a complete roll of the dice even! And before you say something about defending the U.S. or w/e. No. I'm defending honest and civil discussion, and asserting that there is nuance in the world. I don't know if you have the same intentions based on your comments, especially as you leave out seemingly important details to fit a narrative you want to portray. "Why was the US ship near Iranian waters" -> because it can be. "Why did the US ship enter Iranian waters if the speedboat shot from Iranian waters" -> Same reason you'd ignore a border if someone was shooting at you from across it and claiming you can't cross the border. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
LogonType10 5y ago
Civilian deaths caused by Americans is often due to intentional acceptance of collateral fatalities, not due to incorrectly and negligently misidentifying aircraft.
- freeflight 5y ago
  The case of the last Afghanistan drone strike was not a misidentified aircraft, it was a "misidentified" person.
piva00 5y ago
This is all simply speculation until you find evidence of planes shot down by the US that aren't listed on Wikipedia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, provide it or quit this speculative bullshit.
- freeflight 5y ago
  > This is all simply speculation until you find evidence of planes shot down by the US that aren't listed on Wikipedia. Because English Wikipedia is the most conclusive and authoritative collection of such incidents? > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, provide it or quit this speculative bullshit. So we know about two instances, one of them very well established, the other one being a "maybe", yet a third one would suddenly be "extraordinary"? In what context exactly?
ben_w 5y ago
While I understand the narrative and expect that to apply to civilian deaths caused by military action in general (indeed not just those caused by the American armed forces), airliners in particular are very well accounted for; all the world militaries’ combined civilian aircraft fatal mistakes are, I think, just a subset of those cases where we didn’t even find the black box.
nickpp 5y ago
Careful! Your bias and agenda are showing. Too bad reality contradicts your propaganda.

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.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Hmmm I wonder if there is more to the story than "USS Vincennes sails into Iranian territorial waters"? Vincennes had entered Iranian territory after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits. [1] Totally random how the US ship found itself in Iranian waters. Like a complete roll of the dice even! And before you say something about defending the U.S. or w/e. No. I'm defending honest and civil discussion, and asserting that there is nuance in the world. I don't know if you have the same intentions based on your comments, especially as you leave out seemingly important details to fit a narrative you want to portray. "Why was the US ship near Iranian waters" -> because it can be. "Why did the US ship enter Iranian waters if the speedboat shot from Iranian waters" -> Same reason you'd ignore a border if someone was shooting at you from across it and claiming you can't cross the border. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

LogonType10 5y ago

Civilian deaths caused by Americans is often due to intentional acceptance of collateral fatalities, not due to incorrectly and negligently misidentifying aircraft.

freeflight 5y ago
The case of the last Afghanistan drone strike was not a misidentified aircraft, it was a "misidentified" person.

piva00 5y ago

This is all simply speculation until you find evidence of planes shot down by the US that aren't listed on Wikipedia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, provide it or quit this speculative bullshit.

freeflight 5y ago
> This is all simply speculation until you find evidence of planes shot down by the US that aren't listed on Wikipedia. Because English Wikipedia is the most conclusive and authoritative collection of such incidents? > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, provide it or quit this speculative bullshit. So we know about two instances, one of them very well established, the other one being a "maybe", yet a third one would suddenly be "extraordinary"? In what context exactly?

ben_w 5y ago

While I understand the narrative and expect that to apply to civilian deaths caused by military action in general (indeed not just those caused by the American armed forces), airliners in particular are very well accounted for; all the world militaries’ combined civilian aircraft fatal mistakes are, I think, just a subset of those cases where we didn’t even find the black box.

nickpp 5y ago

Careful! Your bias and agenda are showing. Too bad reality contradicts your propaganda.