Are you an American?... Please read.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
A plane he thought at the time was military, which isn't remotely the same as deliberately targeting civilians.

Well... that's the whole thing, see...

As far as I'm able to detect, the plane was sending off a civilian signal.
See what No1 linked to: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study

The flight path and the signal were both civilian. The captain of the boat knew this.
Fact!

End of story. And he got a reward for his murderous actions as well.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Their military should have established restricted airspace in that region until things cooled off.

No, no, no, no...

The US shouldn't have been in Iranian territorial waters to start with.
And as you so elagantly point out... 11 minutes...

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well... that's the whole thing, see...

As far as I'm able to detect, the plane was sending off a civilian signal.
See what No1 linked to: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study

The flight path and the signal were both civilian. The captain of the boat knew this.
Fact!

End of story. And he got a reward for his murderous actions as well.

Thank you for posting the link that proves that both Captain Rogers and his harsh critic both thought it was an F-14. My quotes proving this are FROM the link you just posted.

I appreciate it.

Originally posted by shavixmir
No, no, no, no...

The US shouldn't have been in Iranian territorial waters to start with.
And as you so elagantly point out... 11 minutes...

Please explain how that negates the prudence of Iran establishing a restricted airspace over a very dangerous situation.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Please explain how that negates the prudence of Iran establishing a restricted airspace over a very dangerous situation.

It doesn't. Unless you take into consideration that 11 minutes is a very short time frame.

However, it doesn't negate the prudence of the US not shooting the living bejesus out of civilians either.

Originally posted by shavixmir
It doesn't. Unless you take into consideration that 11 minutes is a very short time frame.

However, it doesn't negate the prudence of the US not shooting the living bejesus out of civilians either.

It was a very dangerous situation for a lot longer than 11 minutes.

I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks civilian jetliners should be shot down. Where I take exception is with your attempts to make it seem like it was intentional.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
It was a very dangerous situation for a lot longer than 11 minutes.

I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks civilian jetliners should be shot down. Where I take exception is with your attempts to make it seem like it was intentional.

It was.
As I've posted before:

David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, a second ship that was under the tactical control of Rogers at the time of the incident. Carlson claimed that the downing of Iran Air 655 marked the "horrifying climax to Capt. Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." He was referring to incidents on the June 2, 1988, when he claimed that Rogers brought the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate that was searching a bulk carrier, that he launched a helicopter too close to Iranian small boats, and that he fired upon a number of small Iranian military boats instead of directing another, smaller warship to do so. In disagreeing with Rogers's decision – citing the high cost of the cruiser relative to that of the frigates attached to the group – Carlson posited, "Why do you want an AEGIS cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do."[11]

Various independant sources researched the both sides of the situation and came out blaming the US:
Newsweek:
Rogers acted recklessly and without due care

International Strategic Studies Association:
The Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robocruiser' by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its Aegis system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain

Admiral William J. Crowe:
admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[30] This contradicted earlier Navy statements that were misleading if not incorrect. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) report of December, 1988 placed the USS Vincennes well inside Iran's territorial waters

Or in other words, the US first of all even lied about even being in Iranian waters at all!!!

And then this:
When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called ‘scenario fulfillment’ which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario – in the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes’ instruments never indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected.

You defend the horrible if you want.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well... that's the whole thing, see...

As far as I'm able to detect, the plane was sending off a civilian signal.
See what No1 linked to: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study

The flight path and the signal were both civilian. The captain of the boat knew this.
Fact!

End of story. And he got a reward for his murderous actions as well.

WTF was the motive for the American to shoot down a civilian aircraft?

Originally posted by shavixmir
It was.
As I've posted before:

David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, a second ship that was under the tactical control of Rogers at the time of the incident. Carlson claimed that the downing of Iran Air 655 marked the "horrifying climax to Capt. Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." He was referring to incidents on the June ...[text shortened]... d, whilst a civilian IFF signal was detected.

You defend the horrible if you want.

"You defend the horrible if you want"

And by me saying "at the very least Rogers should have been relieved of Command" I'm defending the horrible? Your anti-American bigoted tantrums make it difficult to have a serious conversation with you.

You have no concept of nuance within a discussion. Making a distinction between reckless behavior and deliberately murdering civilians is NOT "defending" him.

Someone who is driving a car recklessly and accidentally kills someone should be punished, but it's still unfair to compare him to someone who breaks into a home and stabs someone to death.

No one here is anti American, I'm sure... it's just a democratic discussion from differing viewpoints.

There is no need for anyone to call others names or deflect by using blustering provocative statements.

Come on guy's, be cool.

You all won't agree on everything but try and agree on what is right, factual and what is lawful.

Originally posted by skipper2666
No one here is anti American, I'm sure... it's just a democratic discussion from differing viewpoints.

There is no need for anyone to call others names or deflect by using blustering provocative statements.

Come on guy's, be cool.

You all won't agree on everything but try and agree on what is right, factual and what is lawful.

I feel all warm. Gee I love you guys. Merry Christmas!

Originally posted by skipper2666
No one here is anti American, I'm sure... it's just a democratic discussion from differing viewpoints.

There is no need for anyone to call others names or deflect by using blustering provocative statements.

Come on guy's, be cool.

You all won't agree on everything but try and agree on what is right, factual and what is lawful.

You do know there are bigots in the world and it's not inconceivable some of them end up being RHP forum members, right.

I haven't deflected anything. I have addressed every single one of shav's points directly. I'm simply calling it as I see and Shav is a bigot.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
A couple things of note here, because I finally had time to read the article you posted.

(IF) Captain Carlson's accounts of events are accurate, which at this point I don't have reason to disbelieve, I agree that Captain Rogers should have been relieved of duty at the very least.

With that being said, the crews of both ships believed ...[text shortened]... ould[/i] have established restricted airspace in that region until things cooled off.

"Establishing restricted airspace" would essentially have meant shutting down their overseas civilian air flights for as long as the US chose to intervene in the Iraq-Iran war for Saddam's benefit.

Since we agree that Rogers should have been relieved at the least, there's not much more to say. Shav is of course correct that the Vincennes intentionally shot down the plane, but the claim that Rogers and the Vincennes crew would and did intentionally shoot down a civilian airliner is one I do not believe. No USN Captain in his right mind would issue such an order and I doubt that any USN crew would obey such an obviously illegal order if given. I have seen video of the Vincennes bridge in the aftermath of the shooting and once it became apparent that it was a civilian airliner that was shot down, the crew was shocked and horrified.

Originally posted by normbenign
WTF was the motive for the American to shoot down a civilian aircraft?

WTF motive do they ever have?
Nagasaki, for example...

Seemingly the yanks don't need much motivation to blow children to smithereens.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
You do know there are bigots in the world and it's not inconceivable some of them end up being RHP forum members, right.

I haven't deflected anything. I have addressed every single one of shav's points directly. I'm simply calling it as I see and Shav is a bigot.

Yes. You are a bigot.
And a child murderer by the looks of your name.