Remembering the Innocent Victims of Iran Air flight 655

[somebozo]

the commander of that Cruiser was called Robocruiser due to his trigger happy attitude.. he intruded into Iranian waters and knowing well that the aircraft in question was a commercial airliner... had it shot down

He was also ordered by Omani navy to vacate omani waters after hostile maneuvering..

 

[Solomon2]

the problem is that first there was no skirmish between Iranian and USA ships -

...Admiral William J Crowe, Jr, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference that the US government deeply regretted the incident.

However, he said, the Airbus was four miles west of the usual commercial airline route and the pilot ignored repeated radio warnings from the Vincennes to change course.

Less than an hour before the shooting down of the passenger jet, he added, the Vincennes was engaged in a gun battle with three Iranian gunboats after a helicopter from the Vincennes was fired on.​

 

[somebozo]

the problem is that first there was no skirmish between Iranian and USA ships and at all there was no reason for Vincences to be there.
2nd problem is that Flight 655 was not aware of any ship there , and it even didn't expect any ship to be there and it never called by any USA ship what Vincences was trying to contact was a non existent Iranian military plane which certainly there was no reason fro flight 655 to answer that .

Buddy these are all political games with secret agenda which probably only the captain Will Rogers knew..perhaps he was part of another CIA black ops which even the president of USA is unaware..more details will emerge when files are unclassified several years later...It was clearly an intentional act at a time when US was desperately looking for an excuse to establish permanent presence in Gulf..Regan has said earlier that if US wouldn't do it..the soviets would definitely do it..

 

[Hack-Hook]

...Admiral William J Crowe, Jr, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference that the US government deeply regretted the incident.

However, he said, the Airbus was four miles west of the usual commercial airline route and the pilot ignored repeated radio warnings from the Vincennes to change course.

Less than an hour before the shooting down of the passenger jet, he added, the Vincennes was engaged in a gun battle with three Iranian gunboats after a helicopter from the Vincennes was fired on.​

you mention that damage control lies from pentagon ? for the Information ,ICAO affirmed Iran stance that the airplane was exactly at the center of commercial airline route and later pentagon had to admit to that .
and 1 hour before the incident there was no Gun battle between Iranian boats and Vincennes ,at the time USA wanted to goad Iranian boats to come to international water by faking signal from a mythical Liberian tanker.

for the information pentagon even lied to the USA congress about the position of USS Vincennes and its proven that the pilot was not ignoring any warning but from the 10 time Vincennes tried to hail flight 655 for 7 time they used military channel that was impossible for flight 655 to recieve and for the other 3 time they hailed on civillian channel they hailed it as military airplane that approach USA navy ship in international waters. which was not the case about flight 655 , it was in iranian waters ,it was ascending , its speed was less than what was stated by Vincennes ,and it was not a military airplane at all.
Its like I tag 500 in a post that I expect you to answer in that case I can only blame myself if you don't answer that post not you.
here let post some of the lies that USA official stated at the beginning that they had to take back latter.

For example, on July 3, at the first Pentagon press conference on the incident, Adm. William Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Iranian plane had been flying at 9,000 feet and descending at a “high speed” of 450 knots, “headed directly” for the Vincennes. In fact, however, the Aug. 19 report—written by Rear Adm. William Fogarty of U.S. Central Command—concluded (from computer tapes found inside the ship’s combat information center) that the plane was “ascending through 12,000 feet” at the much slower speed of 380 knots. “ and that it had reached 13,500 feet by the time the missile knocked it out of the sky. "At no time" did the Airbus "actually descend in altitude," the report said.

Crowe had said the plane was flying “outside the prescribed commercial air route”; the report said it was flying “within the established air route.” Crowe had said the plane’s transponder was “squawking” a code over the “Mode 2” military channel; the report stated that it was squawking over the “Mode 3” civilian channel. Crowe had said the Vincennes issued several warnings; the report confirmed this, but noted, “Due to heavy pilot workload during take-off and climb-out, and the requirement to communicate with” two air traffic control centers, the pilot “probably was not monitoring” the international air-distress channel.

In 1992, four years after the event, Adm. Crowe admitted on ABC’s Nightline that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time it shot down the plane. Back in 1988, he and others had said that the ship was in international waters.

Buddy these are all political games with secret agenda which probably only the captain Will Rogers knew..perhaps he was part of another CIA black ops which even the president of USA is unaware..more details will emerge when files are unclassified several years later...It was clearly an intentional act at a time when US was desperately looking for an excuse to establish permanent presence in Gulf..Regan has said earlier that if US wouldn't do it..the soviets would definitely do it..

Are you aware that they published the documents related to the incident but before that they have blackened more than 90% of the texts in those documents . some one might ask if it was a mistake as they say why they had to remove more than 90% of the documents.

He was also ordered by Omani navy to vacate omani waters after hostile maneuvering..

and do you knew what happened when Oman asked them to leave their waters. that rogers guy and his officers not only ignored them but also make joke about them and then laugh at them.

 

[Solomon2]

you mention that damage control lies from pentagon ? for the Information ,ICAO affirmed ... there was no Gun battle between Iranian boats and Vincennes...t was in iranian waters ,it was ascending...here let post some of the lies that USA official stated at the beginning that they had to take back latter...
Are you aware that they published the documents related to the incident but before that they have blackened more than 90% of the texts in those documents . some one might ask if it was a mistake as they say why they had to remove more than 90% of the documents....

Adm. Crowe answered and clarified many of these points in his 1992 testimony to Congress: link

 

[Serpentine]

Adm. Crowe answered and clarified many of these points in his 1992 testimony to Congress: link

Our Zionist friend is trying to bring excuses for shooting down a civilian airliner and burning 290 people including many children alive. Well is anyone surprised here? This guy is the supporting Israel's cause too.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Adm. Crowe answered and clarified many of these points in his 1992 testimony to Congress: link

if it was not a cover-up , why they lied to congress about the position Vincennes to the congress . they even went to the extent of faking a map by wiping out Iranian Island of Hengam of it so they can claim that Vincennes was in international water at the time.

and that article is about us activity in Persian gulf in general and won't talk about the incident , I found these parts interesting

"A senior Pentagon official" was reported as authorizing the use of a "decoy ship" to lure out Iranian boats. This charge also has no basis in fact. I recall hearing discussed the possibility of employing some type of "Q" ships such as those used in World War I. But the idea never got out of the brainstorming stage. This week I polled the main operational commanders in the Gulf -- Admirals Bernsen, Less, and Fogarty and General Crist. Aside from measures to conceal our own ship movements, they know of no deception plans either being approved or employed. Certainly I did not approve or order any deception scenario. Frankly, we established control of the Gulf without resorting to such measures. More significantly, our first priority was not to lure them out, but to keep the Iranian units, both large and small, in port. Newsweek does not identify its senior Pentagon official.

can he then explain to us what the hell was a nonexistent Liberian tanker called "Stoval"

ABC and Newsweek were especially fascinated with Vincennes' entry into Iranian waters, suggesting that I had conceded the truth only when confronted on the Nightline program. It is accurate that I told the truth, but that was the first time I had ever been asked that question by a reporter. (Incidentally, the article in referring to my 3 July press briefing says I talked to Captain Rogers. I never met or saw Will Rogers until several months after I retired. The information I was using came from Vincennes messages.) At my 3 July 1988 press briefing, which Newsweek attended, not one question was asked about the geographic position of the ship. The ship's position relative to the air corridor, however, was the subject of several queries. For quite some time after that I was under the impression that Vincennes had not entered Iran's territorial waters but that matter was properly and appropriately left to the formal investigation to sort out.

he admit they at first stated the ship was in international water and later they accepted the fact that it was in Iranian water . the question is how its possible that the head quarter of the 5th fleet in Persian gulf knew the ship was in Iranian water but they report to this Crowe guy that its in international water?

One of Newsweek's colorful charts (page 31) asserts in bold print that Vincennes' helicopter was in territorial waters at the time it was fired on: I am aware of two independent groups working through the available data since the Newsweek article was published, and I personally reconstructed the incident. We all concluded that initially both the helicopter and the offending boghammers were in international waters. A most comprehensive effort was made by the Naval War College, and I will be happy to furnish Congress with a copy of its work and comments. The data is not as cut and dried as I would prefer. In addition, there are one or two verbal statements in the record estimating range to the helicopter that would have put it in a slightly different location, but those were eyeball judgments and not consistent with the available data.

yes at the beginning they both were in international water but mr. Crowe fail to mention that later when the boats were returning to their base that helicopter followed them to Iranian water and then come down and however exactly over them for the excuse that the pilot wanted to count and see how many people were are in the boat .which was and is considered an aggressive maneuver in any army .and then was they received a warning shot. at the time they were in Iranian water.

It was the querying of various merchantmen by the Iranians and the suspicious explosions that were worrisome and provoked the helicopter reconnaissance -- not Stoval.

the article say it was worrying somebody must ask this Crowe guy have ever been a single day since 50 years ago that a ship could passed the straight of hormuz without being hailed Iran or Oman ? what was strange about that that made it worrisome .

In any event, I don't understand what purpose a fictitious ship would have achieved. The Iranians hear the transmission, come out and find no ship. What do they do then? Perhaps for lack of anything else to do, they would attack an American warship and fall into our trap? Not likely. I find the whole scenario silly. Also, there were other merchant ships being harassed by boghammers in the Straits that morning and the authors have not questioned their existence.

again nonsense there were ships but non were harassed at all , Iran a the time only targeted ships that were using false flag to smuggle Iraqi oil which was under embargo and it was completely legal to stop the ships that were smuggling for Iraq. and for the information non of the ships at the time in area were participated in such actions and were left alone . the idea of them being harassed was figment of imagination of captain rogers and the captain of those ships denied such harassment when contacted by him.

the rest f the question remain unanswered by this article.

 

[mohd497]

Very sad incident indeed. Americans have shown time and again they only target defenseless, anything greater only shout and cry.

 

[Solomon2]

if it was not a cover-up , why they lied to congress about the position Vincennes to the congress -

Admiral Crowe offers his own opinion about this charge in the link I provided.

Our Zionist friend is trying to bring excuses for shooting down a civilian airliner -

Why hasn't anybody demanded that the Iranian gov't explain how it allowed a civilian airliner to take off from a shared civilian-military airfield heading almost directly towards a warship in the middle of its battle?

 

[Jlaw]

According to the United States Government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter

How do you not tell a F14 vs A300. Again, this is BS.

 

[Oldman1]

How do you not tell a F14 vs A300. Again, this is BS.

Funny you should ask the Russians that when they shot down the civilian aircraft over Ukraine.

 

[Arminkh]

Funny you should ask the Russians that when they shot down the civilian aircraft over Ukraine.

You first!

 

[Oldman1]

You first!

Well I would say the Russians first since this was their second shot down of a civilian airliner. But for us, it was mistaken identity. It be like the USS Stark being hit by the Iraqis. Guess it was mistaken identity for Iranian warship eh?

 

[Arminkh]

Well I would say the Russians first since this was their second shot down of a civilian airliner. But for us, it was mistaken identity. It be like the USS Stark being hit by the Iraqis. Guess it was mistaken identity for Iranian warship eh?

No that was very intentional. Saddam wanted to keep US navy away from the Persian Gulf as in his dreams, they could pose limits to his being the police of the region after being done with Iran.

For Russians, the second shoot down was never confirmed. It could have been done by the pro-Russian rebels who also had access to the same type of AA missile (as a matter of fact, whole former eastern block could have had access to those missiles). I always consider who is the beneficiary of any such incident and current government of Ukraine ripped the result of that disaster. It could have been them as well. If Russia were so rogue, they would have shoot at NATO aircraft or vessels "by mistake" that are getting aggressively closer to its borders.

 

[Oldman1]

No that was very intentional. Saddam wanted to keep US navy away from the Persian Gulf as in his dreams, they could pose limits to his being the police of the region after being done with Iran.

For Russians, the second shoot down was never confirmed. It could have been done by the pro-Russian rebels who also had access to the same type of AA missile (as a matter of fact, whole former eastern block could have had access to those missiles). I always consider who is the beneficiary of any such incident and current government of Ukraine ripped the result of that disaster. It could have been them as well. If Russia were so rogue, they would have shoot at NATO aircraft or vessels "by mistake" that are getting aggressively closer to its borders.

No, Saddam was busy fighting the Iranians and we have the Tanker wars. Its well known that the Iraqis thought they were shooting at what they thought was an Iranian warship. Saddam has no reason to start a war attacking American warships which would lead to disaster. Saddam even pay compensation for it. Russia was not a rogue, they just mistaken a civilian airliner as a military aircraft.