Iran Not to Forgive Perpetrators of Attack on Iran Air Flight 655

[Penguin]

You know, sometimes it seems to me you feel like just starting a quarrel for the sake of a quarrel. How can the case of an airplane that has violated the air space of a nation be similar to the case of Iran's airliner that was flying over Persian Gulf?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? They were compensated? End of story? It is not about the compensation or settlement. It is about the fact that a country, thousands of km away, gives itself the right to bring its destroyers in an area that it has no business in and then shoot down a passenger airplane that was flying from a third country to another third country and then not apologize, because it can.

Now if you think all that is ok, then keep it to yourself please.

Instead, let me know some nice locations to visit in Amsterdam for a family trip with kids. Good restaurants is appreciated too. Please send me a private message if you will.

Nobody is debating what happened to Iran Flight 655 or how it happened. But the fact is that there was a settlement that Iran accepted. And that netheretheless there are a bunch of revenge-yellers here. If they can come yell here, I can come reply here.

Um... okay?

Not wishing to be rude Penguin, but I don't see your point. I'm not about to defend the USSR for them shooting down a civilian airliner, I'm condemning the US for doing it. The USSR was not mentioned.

Though if you insist:

The Russians offered no apologies, but they also didn't demand or accept a settlement. Unlike some other country.

Always is hard for me to understand you Europeans.

As if there is such a thing as 'us Europeans'....

In Iran, most of the people believe that Americans did this to support Saddam, push Iran to accept United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 as well as send message to people of Iran that you are not safe more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_598

So, uhm, how exactly would shooting down a civilian airliner from Iran help Saddam? Or push Iran to accept UNSC resolution 590? And what does the US gain by scaring Iranian people?

you should be at that time and then judge every side intention.
as you said Iran was in direct war in Persian gulf with foreign powers not just America, Iran also hit soviet warship before and was in war with them in Afghanistan too.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/world/soviet-ship-attacked-by-iran-in-gulf-us-says.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/world/soviet-ship-attacked-by-iran-in-gulf-us-says.html
I said what? Where?

I think Americans want to finish Iran-Iraq war to push Iran toward east against soviet.

anyway Americans wanted to end war and they got it.

And this related how to Flight 655? How does US gain from pushing Iran towards the CCCP?

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independentolitical analyst, publisher, and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, where this editorial first appeared.

In his own words: I provide analysis and commentary from outside the standard framework, challenging mainstream narratives, exposing government and media propaganda, and broadening the scope of the discussion.
Founding editor and publisher of Foreign Policy Journal.
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/about/

Its purpose is to challenge the propaganda narratives presented by the mainstream media, which serve to manufacture consent for government policies.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/about/

This is what is written about him.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Foreign-Policy-Journal-reliable ?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/deconstructing-jerry-hammond-part-1-jack-frank-sigman
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jeremy-hammond-antisemite-jack-frank-sigman

 

[Iranm]

Nobody is debating what happened to Iran Flight 655 or how it happened. But the fact is that there was a settlement that Iran accepted. And that netheretheless there are a bunch of revenge-yellers here. If they can come yell here, I can come reply here.

In this world you get what you can get at the time and try to get the rest when ever you can
You think by paying some money Iranian will forget about that incident?
Believe me the whole world someday will hate America with this killings. Yesterday was Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iran....
today Syria, Yemen, Iraq ......

 

[Penguin]

In this world you get what you can get at the time and try to get the rest when ever you can
You think by paying some money Iranian will forget about that incident?
Believe me the whole world someday will hate America with this killings. Yesterday was Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iran....
today Syria, Yemen, Iraq ......

Yes, and Iran has made no such enemies over the years, with the things and people it supports?

 

[Iranm]

Yes, and Iran has made no such enemies over the years, with the things and people it supports?

If that's what you think lets forget about what I said
I'm not politician but I know that Iran doesn't try to occupy any country and those countries have asked for help against invaders.

 

[Penguin]

If that's what you think lets forget about what I said
I'm not politician but I know that Iran doesn't try to occupy any country and those countries have asked for help against invaders.

It is not about what I think. I said/asked: Iran has made no such enemies over the years, with the things, groups and people it supports? All fine, I suppose? Friendly, humane lots?

 

[Iranm]

It is not about what I think. I said/asked: Iran has made no such enemies over the years, with the things, groups and people it supports? All fine, I suppose? Friendly, humane lots?

I'm not in favor of my government but I prefer it much more than America.
They may have supported some Shiite group or nation but those who have being oppressed, not those nation that are just willing to kill peoples for money or power or any of their interest.

 

[Penguin]

I'm not in favor of my government but I prefer it much more than America.
They may have supported some Shiite group or nation but those who have being oppressed, not those nation that are just willing to kill peoples for money or power or any of their interest.

So, Iran is willing to support groups/nations willing to kill people, just so long as it is not for money, power or any of their interest?

 

[AmirPatriot]

It is not about what I think. I said/asked: Iran has made no such enemies over the years, with the things, groups and people it supports? All fine, I suppose? Friendly, humane lots?

Do you honestly think we give a shit anymore?

Even if we supported Jesus himself to come back and conquer the world peacefully with unicorns and rainbows, nobody would give a shit, ok? We'd still be the "axis of evil".

Meanwhile the US arms and protects an absolute monarchy that doesn't even let women drive to watch the public beheadings. And nobody bats a fucking eyelid.

You should know better than to bring these weak moral arguments that mean nothing these days. This is the law of the jungle, nothing more.

 

[Penguin]

Do you honestly think we give a shit anymore?

Even if we supported Jesus himself to come back and conquer the world peacefully with unicorns and rainbows, nobody would give a shit, ok? We'd still be the "axis of evil".

Meanwhile the US arms and protects an absolute monarchy that doesn't even let women drive to watch the public beheadings. And nobody bats a fucking eyelid.

You should know better than to bring these weak moral arguments that mean nothing these days. This is the law of the jungle, nothing more.

Glad you point that out for us. Whose moral arguments are weak now? (Did I even make any?). Poor Iran.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Glad you point that out for us. Whose moral arguments are weak now? (Did I even make any?). Poor Iran.

I pointed out that you're suggesting that if we exclusively supported "things, groups, people, nations" etc. that the west found morally good, that all would be good and dandy and that everybody would love us.

I also pointed out that such moral arguments mean jack shit because morality means **** all in geopolitics, hence your moral arguments are weak.

 

[Penguin]

I pointed out that you're suggesting that if we exclusively supported "things, groups, people, nations" etc. that the west found morally good, that all would be good and dandy and that everybody would love us.

I also pointed out that such moral arguments mean jack shit because morality means **** all in geopolitics, hence your moral arguments are weak.

I've not suggested any such thing. Haven't even used the word morality. Just been pointing out that Iran, as a state, is not any different than any other state in that is persues its goals in the best way it can. I.e. real politik. Not any better than US in that respect, as some here claimed. It is those people making a moral claim, thank you. Good night.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I've not suggested any such thing. Haven't even used the word morality.

You have not said such a thing. Doesn't mean we can't infer it, easily.

 

[Fafnir]

I've not suggested any such thing. Haven't even used the word morality. Just been pointing out that Iran, as a state, is not any different than any other state in that is persues its goals in the best way it can. I.e. real politik. Not any better than US in that respect, as some here claimed. It is those people making a moral claim, thank you. Good night.

Yes,but when the us does it ie real politik,the results tend to be far,far worse than when iran does it,so the question here should not be if both sides use real politik because obviously they do,the question should be what are the actual real world results[costs] of that real politik in action and here the comparison is really pretty stark and certainly not in america or the wests favor,but hey nice try at an,moral or otherwise,equivalency argument

 

[Penguin]

You have not said such a thing. Doesn't mean we can't infer it, easily.

You can infer all you like, that doesn't mean it is what I think. Interprete all you like. Spoken/written word counts.

Yes,but when the us does it ie real politik,the results tend to be far,far worse than when iran does it,so the question here should not be if both sides use real politik because obviously they do,the question should be what are the actual real world results[costs] of that real politik in action and here the comparison is really pretty stark and certainly not in america or the wests favor,but hey nice try at an,moral or otherwise,equivalency argument

There are certain areas in the world where the actual real worl results (costs) of Irianian real politik in action are quite high. Esp. in that part of the world. So, beg to differ. You may not see the Iranian carriers but that doesn't mean its missiles aren't all over the region. And that's just one example, and a technological one at that.

 

[Fafnir]

You can infer all you like, that doesn't mean it is what I think. Interprete all you like. Spoken/written word counts.


There are certain areas in the world where the actual real worl results (costs) of Irianian real politik in action are quite high. Esp. in that part of the world. So, beg to differ. You may not see the Iranian carriers but that doesn't mean its missiles aren't all over the region. And that's just one example, and a technological one at that.

Really?,thats funny because I cant think of any countries that iran has invaded and destroyed or governments it has overthrown unlike the us actions in the region,now as for irans missiles I can only think of two,perhaps three countries where they are located,you have iran of course and syria produces the fateh 110 under license as the m600 and possibly lebanon,altho as yet there is no evidence of the transfer of these systems ie guided missiles apart from the usual unsubstantiated israeli claims,so technically there are no iranian missiles in lebanon just short range unguided rockets,so you have at most 3 countries with iranian missiles,perhaps 4 if you throw in the very small stocks of short range antiship cruise missiles that the houthis probably only received after the saudis with us support started attacking yemen,and 2 of those countries only received short ranged missiles ie 300kms range,so its pretty far from "all over the region",in addition iran has only ever used its missiles in anger once since the end of the iran iraq war,last month to be exact with perhaps 6 fired in total,now how many times in the same space of time has the us used its forces in anger?,well quite a few to put it mildly.Now by comparison we see that the us in addition to its bases and occupation forces in the region has supplied at a minimum tens of billions of dollars worth of various types of high end weaponry to multiple client states thru out the middle east,so its pretty obvious that there is little comparison between irans missiles and the us supply of weapons regionally and the same can also be said for the costs of irans real politik vs us actions in the region.