[W:104:1192]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

[Divine_Wind]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

how many have we killed? I know of at least an entire airliner that we shot down in Iran in I believe it was 1988...how many did we kill that day? Traitorous? You havent made a damn sacrifice one for this country other than your armchair...you really should not talk about people being traitorous..especially supporting that scumbag in office who is selling us out to the very people who flew planes into the WTC.

it was a they fired upon an airliner and killed lots of innocent people type of attack...290 to be exact, including 66 children. We claim that we thought it was a Tomcat F14...it is an Airbus 300, pretty damn hard to confuse the two...as they don't really look anything alike.

how does one confuse an F14 Tomcat and an Airbus 300?

So, Clara, are you know going to declare the Iranians purposefully shot down a Ukrainian 737 or will you defend them and say it was a "tragic accident"?

Trudeau and Johnson say they have intelligence Iran shot down Ukrainian airliner - CNNPolitics
Canada and Britain's leaders said Thursday that they have intelligence a Ukrainian airliner was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile.

"This may have been unintentional," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a press conference in Ottawa.
"There is now a body of information that the flight was shot down by an Iranian Surface to Air Missile. This may well have been unintentional. We are working closely with Canada and our international partners and there now needs to be a full, transparent investigation," British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement.

...A US official familiar with the intelligence said the plane was shot down by two Russian made SA-15 surface to air missiles. The US saw Iranian radar signals lock onto the jetliner, before it was shot down.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Far out Dude! :roll:

I thought it was pretty groovy at the time even though I had to join the ranks of the unemployed for 9 months.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

So now that the escalation has reached a point where massive amounts of blood has been spilled, perhaps inadvertently, now what? How is either side further ahead? Soleimani was just replaced with a more hardline general and a new generation of American-hating Iranians has been created. Iran has license to build nuclear weapons. More American soldiers are entering the Middle East, America is on the verge of getting kicked out of Iraq.

What has been gained?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

So now that the escalation has reached a point where massive amounts of blood has been spilled, perhaps inadvertently, now what? How is either side further ahead? Soleimani was just replaced with a more hardline general and a new generation of American-hating Iranians has been created. Iran has license to build nuclear weapons. More American soldiers are entering the Middle East, America is on the verge of getting kicked out of Iraq.

What has been gained?

So you believe there's a good chance the Iranians shot down the airliner on purpose?

The Iranians has a license to build nukes with the treaty. It just slowed down their program.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

So you believe there's a good chance the Iranians shot down the airliner on purpose?

I hope not. A likely scenario is that Iran mistook the nature of the aircraft and shot it down on purpose.

The Iranians has a license to build nukes with the treaty. It just slowed down their program.

Any negotiator worth his salt would use the extra time to broker a better agreement when the current one sunsets. Do you think Trump leveraged the agreement effectively?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I hope not. A likely scenario is that Iran mistook the nature of the aircraft and shot it down on purpose.



Any negotiator worth his salt would use the extra time to broker a better agreement when the current one sunsets. Do you think Trump leveraged the agreement effectively?

Oh, there's no doubt they shot it down on purpose....reportedly with two missile hits, but my question regarded shooting down an airliner on purpose. Like the Vincennes and Ukrainian MH17 incidents, I think this was just "friendly fire" where they mistook an airliner for a hostile aircraft.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Not cavalier, just dismissal as conspiracy theory nonsense.

However, IF you can provide evidence that the US Navy deliberately downed a civilian airliner just for kicks, please post it. Same goes for the Moon Landing Hoax, LBJ killing JFK and any other conspiracy theories which catch your fancy.

I never said that it WAS deliberate. I said it was either deliberate or gross negligence. Shooting down a commercial jet is serious -- just like the case we now face and the case of the Russians shooting down a plane over the Ukraine.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

So because we've had people murdered in the United States, that makes our country a battlefield?

LOL, so your down to reduction ad absurdum. :lamo

 

[Jredbaron96]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

LOL, so your down to reduction ad absurdum. :lamo

Your argument is absurd at face value.

 

[apdst]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I never said that it WAS deliberate. I said it was either deliberate or gross negligence. Shooting down a commercial jet is serious -- just like the case we now face and the case of the Russians shooting down a plane over the Ukraine.

At least you're acknowdging that it happened...lol

 

[GreatNews2night]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I suspect that most would consider dealing with a national leader who is responsible for killing an American and mocking America claiming they cant do a thing about it in response IS in our national interest. Don't doubt for a moment that you genuinely believe that instead cowering in the corner in hopes that they wont kill more Americans is in our best interest.

Not to forget, Suleimani killed at least 603 Americans, if not 1,100.

One thing that bothers me, though, is Trump's need to lie. Today he said Suleimani was about to blow up our embassy in Bagdad. There's no evidence for that.

I'd rather hear from him: "Osama bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We took him out. Al-Baghdadi killed hundreds of Westerners, beheading them, including Americans. We took him out. Suleimani killed at least 603 Americans, likely more. We took him out. Do you have a problem with that? Because I don't." Then, let Congress and/or the courts sort out if the lack of "imminent" threat resulted in this killing being unconstitutional.

Typically the courts have actually shied away from issuing a position in these matters. Congress can censure the president for all I care. If they do, they should censure Obama for going after bin Laden as well, who at the time was kind of isolated with his wives and kids in a compound in the middle of nowhere and not posing any imminent threat, kind of ostracized. Wouldn't the only constitutional action at that time, be that the Navy Seals should have arrested him and brought him back to the US to submit him to terrorism charges? But who cares about Osama bin Laden's rights??? What American, except for the most disturbed and misguided ones, laments the death of Osama bin Laden??? Actually my screen name, Great News Tonight, was started (in some other website) when I learned of the death of Osama bin Laden. Great news indeed. And I'll tell you what, I profoundly dislike Trump, but the death of Suleimani sounds like great news to me, as well.

I think that being upfront about it would have been more palatable than making up some sort of imminent threat. I think that taking out a mass murderer who killed between 603 and 1,100 Americans and up to 1,500 of his own co-citizens is a reason for celebration for humankind and for all civilized peoples in this planet, regardless of our Constitution requiring Congress authorization for an act that can be construed as an act of war, for the simple fact that other than being a mass murderer and a terrorist, Suleimani also held an appointment as a general in a sovereign country.

Great, so, if some country decided to bestow upon Osama bin Laden an appointment as a general and a high official in that country, that would have made him off-limits? F... that! I don't think that something akin to diplomatic immunity should apply to terrorists.

USA Today found that 52% of Americans believe that Trump killing Soleimani was reckless. Maybe so. But I'll tell you what, I'll continue to oppose Trump in many other ways, but I won't go out of my way to blame him for this specific act.

I'm aware that what I'm saying goes against the ideal of the respect for laws and the Constitution. In this particular case, though, I don't care. Go make the constitutional case to the families of the 603 Americans he killed, and see if they care.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

LOL, so your down to reduction ad absurdum. :lamo

My God is your post stupid.

"Reductio Ad Absurdum" isn't a term used to criticize an argument. It's not something one can be "down to" because it isn't a bad thing. It's a type of argument that shows that when you take the principles someone else has used to reach the conclusion they like and extend them further, they reach absurd results. This shows the other person - that's YOU in this case - made an absurd argument. For your argument not to be absurd, you need more than the mere principles you stated.

Why? Because, again, if the principles you stated were all that mattered, they would lead to an absurd conclusion. At face value, as he points out, it fails. It needs more. Alone, it is crap.

Why is it crap? Because it leads to absurd conclusions applied elsewhere. Conclusions you would not agree with.




Capisce?

Probably not.






:lamo indeed.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

My God is your post stupid.

"Reductio Ad Absurdum" isn't a term used to criticize an argument. It's not something one can be "down to" because it isn't a bad thing. It's a type of argument that shows that when you take the principles someone else has used to reach the conclusion they like and extend them further, they reach absurd results. This shows the other person - that's YOU in this case - made an absurd argument. For your argument not to be absurd, you need more than the mere principles you stated.

Why? Because, again, if the principles you stated were all that mattered, they would lead to an absurd conclusion. At face value, as he points out, it fails. It needs more. Alone, it is crap.

Why is it crap? Because it leads to absurd conclusions applied elsewhere. Conclusions you would not agree with.




Capisce?

Probably not.






:lamo indeed.

My God. is your post idiotic. :roll:

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I never said that it WAS deliberate. I said it was either deliberate or gross negligence. Shooting down a commercial jet is serious -- just like the case we now face and the case of the Russians shooting down a plane over the Ukraine.

Then you trotted out other conspiracy theories. LOL

 

[GreatNews2night]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Oh, there's no doubt they shot it down on purpose....reportedly with two missile hits, but my question regarded shooting down an airliner on purpose. Like the Vincennes and Ukrainian MH17 incidents, I think this was just "friendly fire" where they mistook an airliner for a hostile aircraft.

I'm no aviation expert, and no military expert, but as a lay person, maybe misguided, I find it kind of hard to believe that if you are in the vicinity of an international airport, you mistakenly take a taking-off plane for some sort of enemy combatant plane. Between Iran's missile attack on the Iraqi bases and this plane taking off and being brought down, how much time had passed? Four or six hours, right? Neither the US nor Iraq scrambled jets to respond to the missile attack. By that time Iran had already notified the United States via Switzerland and two other countries that they did not intend to do anything else than firing those 15 missiles... The US despite having an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Oman, didn't make any fighter plane airborne, which Iran would know about, by simple radar surveillance.

So, how in the hell did they mistake a taking-off commercial jetliner, coming from the country's main international airport (that is, from right the middle of the country's capital rather than flying to Iran from across their borders), as an enemy plane???

I think it stretches credibility. I think more likely some rogue combatant thought "they killed Suleimani, f... them, this is likely a commercial airliner but like all international flights, I bet it's full of Westerners from countries that are enemies of Iran, so, I'm taking them down."

 

[Hamish Howl]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I'm no aviation expert, and no military expert, but as a lay person, maybe misguided, I find it kind of hard to believe that if you are in the vicinity of an international airport, you mistakenly take a taking-off plane for some sort of enemy combatant plane. Between Iran's missile attack on the Iraqi bases and this plane taking off and being brought down, how much time had passed? Four or six hours, right? Neither the US nor Iraq scrambled jets to respond to the missile attack. By that time Iran had already notified the United States via Switzerland and two other countries that they did not intend to do anything else than firing those 15 missiles... The US despite having an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Oman, didn't make any fighter plane airborne, which Iran would know about, by simple radar surveillance.

So, how in the hell did they mistake a taking-off commercial jetliner, coming from the country's main international airport (that is, from right the middle of the country's capital rather than flying to Iran from across their borders), as an enemy plane???

I think it stretches credibility. I think more likely some rogue combatant thought "they killed Suleimani, f... them, this is likely a commercial airliner but like all international flights, I bet it's full of Westerners from countries that are enemies of Iran, so, I'm taking them down."

I was never involved in anti-aircraft, but I spent 10 years in the infantry, and people are dumb all over the world.

Failure is easy. It's just the absence of success. It takes something special to go straight to fiasco, but it happens often enough.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I was never involved in anti-aircraft, but I spent 10 years in the infantry, and people are dumb all over the world.

Failure is easy. It's just the absence of success. It takes something special to go straight to fiasco, but it happens often enough.

OK, so, it could have been a mistake. But who is to say that it wasn't very deliberate, even if it didn't come from the higher ups, but rather from some rogue soldier who had control over earth-to-air missiles, knew he was in the vicinity of an international airport, felt very disturbed with the death of his idol Soleimani, and just decided to take down an airplane, assuming (which was a good and accurate guess) that the plane would have many passengers who were Westerners?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

OK, so, it could have been a mistake. But who is to say that it wasn't very deliberate, even if it didn't come from the higher ups, but rather from some rogue soldier who had control over earth-to-air missiles, knew he was in the vicinity of an international airport, felt very disturbed with the death of his idol Soleimani, and just decided to take down an airplane, assuming (which was a good and accurate guess) that the plane would have many passengers who were Westerners?

I'd say it's at least equally likely that this was just weaponized stupidity, as opposed to being malicious.

What did Iran gain from shooting down a planeload of Canadians?

 

[GreatNews2night]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I'd say it's at least equally likely that this was just weaponized stupidity, as opposed to being malicious.

What did Iran gain from shooting down a planeload of Canadians?

Iran, nothing. A rogue soldier, revenge.

Apparently the plane brought down over Ukraine was taken down by rogue insurgent soldiers on the ground too, not by virtue of an order from Moscow.

So, what I'm saying is that I doubt that higher ups would have ordered this strike. They had to know that the plane was in the vicinity of their main international airport, and that no planes had breached Iran's borders coming from abroad.

But I don't doubt that some Iranian soldier took upon himself to bring down a plane.

See, Iran as a state has "concluded" (in their own words) their retaliation for the death of Soleimani. It doesn't mean that lone wolves won't mount their own attacks on Westerners.

Whoever did this, if intentional, probably didn't know that the plane only had Iranians, Canadians, Germans, Ukrainians, and a few other nationals. The soldier probably thought "chances are that there are a few Americans there; and even if there aren't, I bet there are at least some Westerners, and those infidels from several Western countries are enemies of Islam and of Iran anyway, so, death to them."

 

[Hamish Howl]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Iran, nothing. A rogue soldier, revenge.

Apparently the plane brought down over Ukraine was taken down by rogue insurgent soldiers on the ground too, not by virtue of an order from Moscow.

So, what I'm saying is that I doubt that higher ups would have ordered this strike. They had to know that the plane was in the vicinity of their main international airport, and that no planes had breached Iran's borders coming from abroad.

But I don't doubt that some Iranian soldier took upon himself to bring down a plane.

See, Iran as a state has "concluded" (in their own words) their retaliation for the death of Soleimani. It doesn't mean that lone wolves won't mount their own attacks on Westerners.

Whoever did this, if intentional, probably didn't know that the plane only had Iranians, Canadians, Germans, Ukrainians, and a few other nationals. The soldier probably thought "chances are that there are a few Americans there; and even if there aren't, I bet there are at least some Westerners, and those infidels from several Western countries are enemies of Islam and of Iran anyway, so, death to them."

Whomever fired that missile had to have been really pissed off, given what's going to happen to him.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

So because we've had people murdered in the United States, that makes our country a battlefield?

LOL, so your down to reduction ad absurdum. :lamo

My God is your post stupid.

"Reductio Ad Absurdum" isn't a term used to criticize an argument. It's not something one can be "down to" because it isn't a bad thing. It's a type of argument that shows that when you take the principles someone else has used to reach the conclusion they like and extend them further, they reach absurd results. This shows the other person - that's YOU in this case - made an absurd argument. For your argument not to be absurd, you need more than the mere principles you stated.

Why? Because, again, if the principles you stated were all that mattered, they would lead to an absurd conclusion. At face value, as he points out, it fails. It needs more. Alone, it is crap.

Why is it crap? Because it leads to absurd conclusions applied elsewhere. Conclusions you would not agree with.




Capisce?

Probably not.






:lamo indeed.

My God. is your post idiotic. :roll:

^^
Cannot address the points, actually believes "I know yours is but what is mine?" is a gotcha. Runs away after saying only that.

:lol:
​

I'm sorry (for humanity) that you don't know what a reductio ad absurdum is, thus why it is actually a very good way of demonstrating that someone has said something quite idiotically. Do feel free to review. I can give you an undeserved 100th chance to actually make an argument worth pissing on, were it on fire.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

I'm no aviation expert, and no military expert, but as a lay person, maybe misguided, I find it kind of hard to believe that if you are in the vicinity of an international airport, you mistakenly take a taking-off plane for some sort of enemy combatant plane. Between Iran's missile attack on the Iraqi bases and this plane taking off and being brought down, how much time had passed? Four or six hours, right? Neither the US nor Iraq scrambled jets to respond to the missile attack. By that time Iran had already notified the United States via Switzerland and two other countries that they did not intend to do anything else than firing those 15 missiles... The US despite having an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Oman, didn't make any fighter plane airborne, which Iran would know about, by simple radar surveillance.

So, how in the hell did they mistake a taking-off commercial jetliner, coming from the country's main international airport (that is, from right the middle of the country's capital rather than flying to Iran from across their borders), as an enemy plane???

I think it stretches credibility. I think more likely some rogue combatant thought "they killed Suleimani, f... them, this is likely a commercial airliner but like all international flights, I bet it's full of Westerners from countries that are enemies of Iran, so, I'm taking them down."

Night, distance from the launcher to the target, altitude (my understanding is that it was above 8000') combined with a jittery, inexperienced crew. The flip-side question is "What does Iran have to gain by shooting down an airliner?" It didn't work out so well for the Ukrainian Separatists. Remember the Soviets shooting down KAL 007? I still have a "747 Tailgunner" t-shirt in my locker.

Korean Air Lines flight 007 | Missiles, Investigation, & Facts | Britannica

In short; there is ZERO international advantage in shooting down an airliner. This tragedy, like the USS Vincennes and the MH17 is just a tragic screw up. No more than "Friendly Fire".

 

[GreatNews2night]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Whomever fired that missile had to have been really pissed off, given what's going to happen to him.

Well, some fanatics are not deterred by that; look at suicide bombers. They think they'll get 72 virgins in Muslim heaven.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Well, some fanatics are not deterred by that; look at suicide bombers. They think they'll get 72 virgins in Muslim heaven.

Well, maybe he will, but first he's getting a bullet in the back of the neck out behind the porta-potties.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Re: [W:104]Iran state TV: Tehran fires at Iraqi base housing US troops

Well, maybe he will, but first he's getting a bullet in the back of the neck out behind the porta-potties.

I pity him when he finds out that there was a typo in the Koran, and it's not 72 virgins. It's one 72-year-old virgin.