12 ms·
Everything's possible, but there would be no debate about UI mistakes if it was Iran shooting down a US plane. They would've done because they are evil by natur
by locallost 3y ago
Everything's possible, but there would be no debate about UI mistakes if it was Iran shooting down a US plane. They would've done because they are evil by nature, or at least perceived as such. In that case the media and the public buys into its own reality, but of course the UI discussion could be a distraction from the public maybe starting to question if that's actually the reality.
Also from the Wiki page about this shootdown:
In 1991, political scientist Robert Entman of George Washington University compared U.S. media coverage of the incident with the similar shootdown of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 by the Soviet Union five years earlier by studying material from Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS Evening News. According to Entman, framing techniques were used to frame the Korean Airlines incident as sabotage while framing the Iran Air incident as a tragic mistake,[67] stating "the angle taken by the U.S. media emphasized the moral bankruptcy and guilt of the perpetrating nation. With Iran Air 655, the frame de-emphasised guilt and focused on the complex problems of operating military high technology."[68][a] By "de-emphasizing the agency and the victims and by the choice of graphics and adjectives, the news stories about the U.S. downing of an Iranian plane called it a technical problem while the Soviet downing of a Korean jet was portrayed as a moral outrage."
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoOne only has to see the differences between NATO bombing of serbian power stations vs the russians doing the same with Ukraine, or Israel killing children in gaza vs russian killing children vs the US killing afghan or Iraqi children. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/us/crew-of-cruiser-that-downed-iranian-airliner-gets-a-warm-homecoming.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/us/crew-of-cruiser-that-d...
- tpm 3y agoNATO bombing of serbian power stations was done in response of Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, after the horrible crimes against humanity perpetrated by serbian forces in Bosnia. "russians doing the same" is a blatant lie. What the russians are doing is a genocide.
- cies 3y agoRussia's invasion of Ukraine is pretty low on civ casualties. Look at Gaza, or the Iraq/Vietnam invasions compare numbers (civ casualties AND time it took) and then draw conclusions on the use of the word genocide. I also would abstain from using "russians" (or USAers, or Israelis) when referring to actions of the respective govts. Keeps the discussion cleaner of generalizations wrt people that may totally not support their govt's actions.
- kranke155 3y agoRussia’s invasion of Ukraine currently suffers from severe undercount. The RF forces sieged Mariopol like a medieval city at the start of the war, creating large scale suffering. Afaik there was no water or power and people were melting ice for water. The civilian casualties on the Ukraine war are at least 100,000+ maybe a multiple of that number.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoWhile we're on the subject of "under-counting", there is no official count of the number of civilians killed during the US Gov's invasion of Iraq. No sense counting what you don't want to know and don't want to be accounted for? US voters / citizens certainly don't care. Independent sources put it at 100,000+. I've randomly read 2x to 3x that but 100k+ is bad enough. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/ir...
- meeuwer 3y agoWhatever the number, it was “worth it”. https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8 https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoUgh, she was vile.
- 3y ago
- nojvek 3y ago[flagged]
- scotty79 3y agoIsreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades using defensive measures. They constructed probaby best in the world air defense systems to protect their civilians daily. They could just send one rocket for one they were targetted by instead and Gaza would be inhabitable decades ago. So when they were rewarded for their restraint on 7 Oct with savagery I'm not really surprised that huge part of the world gives them now blank checkque to do what they believe they need to. Not to mention that what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".
- CrzyLngPwd 3y ago[flagged]
- shenberg 3y agoIf you're seriously suggesting that attacking unarmed civilians intentionally, killing parents in front of their children and then kidnapping the children, slaughtering defenseless party-goers, etc. is what I any resistance movement would do, that's ridiculous. If Hamas would only have attacked military targets, there would be no legitimacy to Israel's actions. However, what actually happened was that they attacked plenty of civilian targets, in a premeditated fashion, in areas that are recognized internationally to be part of Israel.
- 616c 3y agoPerhaps you should read about what Haganah did to the British before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
- reitanqild 3y agoPerhaps you shouldn't use something that happened 75 years ago against someone to justify something someone else did a month ago?
- raverbashing 3y agoExcept the Soviets had visual confirmation of the target Vincennes did not (which to be fair should have done - and not excusing their actions here)
- airtonix 3y ago[dead]
- dsego 3y agoThat's a good point, why didn't they seek visual confirmation first?
- gpderetta 3y agoAnother US ship was attacked by Iraqi Exocet missiles beyond visual range on the same region just one year before. US had also attacked Iran assets in the year before after one US ship was damaged by Iranian mines. Tensions were very high.
- modo_mario 3y ago>US had also attacked Iran assets in the year before after one US ship was damaged by Iranian mines. Wasn't this in Iranian territorial waters. I don't quite see how that held up as a justification for the retaliations.
- areyousure 3y ago> Wasn't this in Iranian territorial waters. In case anyone is curious, the topic of discussion appears to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58)#1988_deployment_and_mine_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58)... All sources appear to indicate that the mine was in international waters.
- metabagel 3y agoThey probably would have, if they would have had the capability.
- knallfrosch 3y agoIt's not really a UX error when your helicopter-carrier invades Iran after one of your helicopters invaded Iran. In wartime. What were these warships even doing in the PERSIAN gulf? And why do they shoot Iranian airplanes in Iranian airspace while they themselves are in Iran? I image "UX error" wouldn't cut it if a chinese missile cruiser shot down an US airliner while steaming up the Hudson.
- bonzini 3y agoPresumably some mission during the Iran–Iraq war? Iraq was an ally of the US at the time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kortilla 3y agoThey were in wartime, you answered your own question. >I image "UX error" wouldn't cut it if a chinese missile cruiser shot down an US airliner while steaming up the Hudson. Yes, that would be up for debate if the US were in an active war with China.
- knallfrosch 3y agoIran was at war with Iraq, not the US with Iran.
- AdamN 3y agoThe US and Iran had been in a cold war since 1979 with flareups the entire time all the way through to the current day.
- throwawayqqq11 3y agoThe mentioned iran-iraq war was conducted by then us-ally saddam husein on behalf of the us. The us where the aggressor. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo
- formerly_proven 3y agoA not so subtle difference is that the pilot shooting down KAL 007 identified it as a civilian airliner and proceeded to shoot it down anyway. Another more subtle difference is that in the Iranian Airlines shootdown, the US took responsibility and at least apologized. Meanwhile the Soviets denied anything happening until they couldn't and then claimed it was a spy plane (legitimate target).
- p_l 3y agoIdentified it as a Boeing 747, but not as a civilian airliner. The same types of planes as civilian airliners are often used as platforms for military and spy planes. FWIW, they would have ended up better off if the original TASS press release was not cancelled just before publication (the one where it was claimed a mistaken shooting due to misidentification).
- ceejayoz 3y ago“It’s a Boeing” could be waved away this way. 747s aren’t used as military or spy planes with the exception of Air Force One and the E-4, neither of which would ever be there unescorted and unannounced.
- thereddaikon 3y agoThey also don't have a large an obvious "Korean Air" livery on them. Military aircraft are marked appropriately. I wouldn't necessarily expect a soviet fighter pilot to read english but I would expect him to recognize what a civil airliner looks like. The USSR had their own and also wore colorful liveries.
- Tangurena2 3y agoIt was shot down at night. There's no way to view the livery on a dark plane at just before 2 AM.
- 3y ago
- dontlaugh 3y agoAlso, what was the US navy even doing there? The Persian Gulf is nowhere near the US. It's as if Iran had their navy parked on the US east coast, it would be seen as an outrage immediately.
- School-Cotton 3y agoThe Persian Gulf, despite the name, is not Iranian territorial waters. Anybody can go there. Iran would be well within its rights to send its warships into the Atlantic Ocean, yes.
- dontlaugh 3y agoAnd what do you think the reaction of Americans would be if that happened? And especially if those warships were prepared to shoot?
- School-Cotton 3y agoIt would be a minor news article that most people would not care about, just like when China/Russia sail near US territory in the Pacific (which actually does happen).
- switch007 3y agoAmerican foreign policy is fully subscribed to the idea of American exceptionalism, as are many of their citizens and media outlets. Hypocrisy means nothing to them and won’t shame them in to not doing something
- t0mas88 3y agoThis happens all the time. There is a documentary for example on the HMS Elizabeth carrier from the UK and how they deliberately navigated through Crimea waters (together with the Dutch navy) to make a point that they're allowed to do so because that water is Ukrainian and not Russian. In the same documentary you also see Chinese ships follow around the British group, and Russian jets overflying it. All in international waters, all legal, both not appreciated by the UK side of things.
- da_chicken 3y agoYou can't really compare how a nation judges being a victim of it's own mistakes directly to how a nation would judge being a victim of its enemy's mistakes. Obviously there's going to be a whole lot more skepticism and distrust.
- mistermann 3y agoWhich is not the same as whether it can be done at all, it's more so that accuracy and epistemic humility are currently low priorities for early 21st century humanity.
- gpderetta 3y agoTo be fair, Iran mistakenly shot down an Ukrainian civilian plane only a few years ago, again on a period of heightened tension. They admitted to the mistake a few days later and I don't remember there was a widespread suggestion of second motives.
- mistermann 3y ago> According to Entman, framing techniques were used to frame the Korean Airlines incident as... Framing is a major problem in almost every single problem Humans have, yet it gets almost no attention....which I suspect may not be accidental especially considering how useful it is (it's getting heavy usage in this very thread, wow how surprising).
- kortilla 3y agoThat’s a stupid comparison because the USSR intentionally shot down a plane without trying to contact it and then didn’t cooperate at all on search efforts. Additionally, the pilot positively identified it was a passenger jet due to the double decker windows but shot anyway because they were shooting down “spy planes”, not anything that was an actual threat. This is in contrast to the US incident where they tried to contact the plane on 10 different frequencies (3 civil aviation) and were operating under the understanding the plane was a fighter carrying missiles. There is obviously going to be some media bias, but equivocating these two events is terrible from a “moral outrage” perspective.
- itsoktocry 3y ago>That’s a stupid comparison because the USSR intentionally shot down a plane without trying to contact it and then didn’t cooperate at all on search efforts. I don't know much about either incident, but your summary sounds exactly what the OP is saying: "Here are the reasons the Russians did it. It's different, because they're evil". One side was lying about thinking it was a spy plane, but the other side legitimately thought the plane had missiles on it? It's actually astonishing that anyone who's been on this planet for more than a couple decades can take any of these narratives seriously.
- flappyeagle 3y ago[flagged]
- addicted 3y agoIt’s “Russia made no efforts to contact” and “Russia made no efforts to search” both of which indicate it was because Russia was up to no good. Funny how you ignore the reasons the commenter you’re replying to gives to indicate Russia did it because it was evil, reasons which do not apply to the U.S. case, and pretend they never gave those explanations at all.
- naasking 3y agoThe point is that 1) those reasons are themselves assuming a particular value system in order to judge evil (for someone who believes national sovereignty is absolute, neither country need give any reason to justify such decisions), and 2) those reasons are simply the propaganda you've heard, not necessarily what actually happened.
- contravariant 3y agoI mean that's the fundamental attribution error isn't it? If we do it it's because of external factors, if they do it it's because they're inherently bad people.
- brabel 3y agoWe see this in much smaller scale everywhere. When someone you don't like does something wrong , it's surely because they're such an idiot... when it's someone you really like, it's definitely due to external causes. Not to mention simple discrimination, which is rampant, seemingly no matter how much we try to make that go away.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoWe judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions.
- chadash 3y ago> * there would be no debate about UI mistakes if it was Iran shooting down a US plane* If Iran shot down a US plane and then immediately admitted it was a mistake and helped investigate, I don’t think this is true. People would still be angry and a UI mistake doesn’t really exonerate you from that anger.
- fmajid 3y agoIran actually shot down a Ukrainian plane by mistake. They took their sweet time admitting it, but did eventually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...
- arp242 3y agoDo you think Iran would have acknowledged their mistake? The US immediately did, and ended up putting their money where their mouth is by both fixing the errors that lead to this mistake and paying damages to Iran. Looking at the details of that Korean Air flight: "the Soviet Union initially denied knowledge of the incident, but later admitted to shooting down the aircraft, claiming that it was on a MASINT spy mission." That's not the same at all. Never mind "The Soviet Union found the wreckage under the sea two weeks later on September 15 and found the flight recorders in October, but this information was kept secret by the Soviet authorities until 1992, after the country's collapse", among a lot of other lies and misinformation. This a hugely different response. We've seen this again with Russia's shooting of MH-17. I fully believe that too was accidental, yet even for accidents you have to take responsibility. Hell, they even lied to their own people with Kursk.