Palestinian Attack on Powell Motorcade Foiled

[babek-]

Maybe my English is not good enough to understand what you have written.

But if you are really trying to tell that the iranian airbus was filled with already dead corpes and it was planned by the Iranians that the Vincennes shoot it down, you must be totally mad.

The plane was otw in its regular flight path from Bandar Abbas to one of the arab contries (UAE or Oman or something like that).

The Vincennes was involved in a small battle between a group of iranian speedboats which were attacking an oil tanker - so it was in a extreme stress situation.
Also the ship had the information that iranian F-14 were operating from Bandar-Abbas.

Some weeks (months ? ) ago an iraqui missile has hit an US-ship and killed many Navy-men and the US Captain reacted too late.

So the Vincennes Captain didnt wanted to repeat this mistake and opened the fire on a plane which was approaching the Vincennes from Bandar Abbas.

Tragicly it was not an iranian F14 but a civilian Airbus of the Iran Air.
Instead of the sinking and attacking fighter the airbus was on its exact regular flightpath, it was climbing and it was also exact in its time scedule.

I personally can understand the failure of the Vincennes - under such circumstances a terrible thing like that could happen.

But I consider it as an awful perversity to  to bring a story that the iranians had sent in full intention a plane with already dead bodies and hoped that the Vincennes would shoot them down.

I repeat - maybe I misinterpreted your text, because my English is not very good. If I did - I apologize - but if you really meant the pervert story you should consider to contact a psychiatrist and start a therapy.

[lord dolf vader]

i tell you what a man who saw it with his own eyes told me. i make no special claim but i know the rules for auto engagement were indeed changed after this incident . the idea was not a suicide attack by the airbus. it was a trojan horse used to get within missile range of the vessel without being detected  and the only reason it didnt work was the new radar system had resolution to see the planes flyin in close ( like 20 feet from each other ) formation, the stark had ntds combat system dating from the 1950s ( my own ship had this system and it was about usless for that sort of attack) but she was also not looking for any attack. the second ship would not be a push over and they knew it . so they tried the above mentioned tactics and they didnt work. then no more attacks . yes i believe it, infact would bet my life on it. as i said it was a well known incident. the men that were killed on the stark were operations specialists one half of the total onboard compliment  as they were on port and starboard duty if you were in the berthing asleep you died. the iranians were angry about our asistancd to irac during their war but that is another story that didnt get told. cool thing was we got reperations for the stark attack ( i knew a fellow on that ship also he claimed 3 imaginary rolexes

[Hamish]

Originally posted by Nashwan

It wasn't a battleship, it was the USS Vincennes (sp?)

The Vincennes crew believed the Iranian Airbus was an F-14. They called several times on the distress requency to alert the Iranian plane, but because they believed it was an F-14 they addressed the messages to "Iranian fighter" rather than unidentified aircraft. The Airbus pilot didn't answer because he had no reason to believe "Iranian fighter" was addressed to him.

For some reason, two of the radar operators on the Vincennes then said the Iranian plane was starting a descent toward the Vincennes. Later examination of the tapes showed it was still climbing on it's normal flightpath.

This was my point. It's not hard to get information on this story. Yes it was the Vincennes. A Guided-Missile Cruiser. A battleship couldn't have even fired the missiles that shot down the airbus. The TAO(a LT at the time) who ordered the shots to be fired was CO of my first ship when i joined the Navy. He was also the best CO i've ever had. When put in the situation he was in, i'd have shot too.

The incident that happened shortly before the airbus getting shot down was, the U.S.S. Stark was hit by 2 Exocet anti-ship missiles. The TAO of the Vincennes that ordered the Shots fired on the airbus went to court-martial for it and was found innocent of any misconduct or wrongdoing.

If the guy is going to use incidents such as these to help prove his point, at least he could do is get the facts somewhat straight. How reliable is the rest of his info?

[babek-]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i tell you what a man who saw it with his own eyes told me.  

Then maybe he should get some medical treatment to avoid that he tells such nonsense in future.

I doubt that he has the medical ability to define the status of decay of a death corpse which he see (from a ship probably) in the water - after a plane crash/plane explosion in high altitude and under the climatic circumstances of the region.

So this "medical expert" saw these corpes and said: "Wew - they were already dead when the missiles hit the plane. So the mad iranians went through one of their largest civilian airports, put all these corpes in a civilian airliner, put them on their seats, fastened their seat belts and ordered the pilot to fly directly to the USS Vincennes so it could shoot it down."

So the mad iranians were really lucky that the stupid americans on the Vincennes did what they want.
Just imagine the surprise if the Vincennes havent shot the missiles and the plane landed as planned in Dubai.
This would have been a strange check-out...

No - This ugly story of the man is simply a lie. A stupid and pervert story. I dont know why this man told you such a nonsense.

Just consider that in the plane were also many arabs who were returning to Dubai. Do you think that the iranians had kidnapped them, killed them to get their corpes also into the plane?

And do you know how fast the decay of a corpse is, when the circumstances are like the one of the persian gulf?

Then about the USS Stark:
I didnt compared the technical devices of the Stark with those of the Vincennes.
I just tried to point out that the US-Captain of the Vincennes was under psychical stress. There was a fight with iranian boats before. He had reports that iranian F14 were operating in the area (Btw - why he was disturbed about this info? The iranian F-14 are not able to perform ground attacks. He should have been more concerned if an iranian F4 appeared.)
He knew what happened to the USS Stark months before, which was attacked by an iraqui Mirage which fired Exocet-missieles on the ship and because their captain reacted too late - so this influenced him to order to shoot the missiles.

Then another story which you can tell the man who told you the corpes-story:
The Captain of the shot-down Iran-Air-airbus wanted to flee from Iran. He has often been in the USA and learned there how to fly a plane (maybe he was member of the Imperial Iranian Air Force before). He had managed to send parts of his family (if I am right his wife and his sister) to the USA. His daughter was born in USA, ahortly after he was killed.
Do you really think that this man would perform a suicide mission with a plane full of death corpes when he could use the landing in Dubai to leave the region and join his family in the USA - even with a plane full of dead corpses?

The Vincennes-incident was terrible enough, so there is no need for pervert stories which are only dicriminating the deaths and their relatives.

[Nashwan]

Sorry Hamish, I thought you were denying any such incident had taken place.

I haven't been to the site, just correcting what I thought were misconceptions about the Vincennes.

However, in that guys defence, "battleship" is used by some people as a generic term for warship.

My understanding of the incident totaly contradicts LDV's.

There were no F-14s involved, and the order to fire was given by a man, not a machine. From what I have read, the data from the Vincennes was analysed after the even and found to have been misinterpreted by the crew(ie the claim of diving)

Is that correct?

I didn't mean to imply an judgement of the Vincenne's crew, I don't know enough to judge them. If it came across that way, I'm sorry.

The only real error I can see is that they addressed their radio messages to "Iranian fighter" rather than unknown aircraft.

My opinion is that they were under stress, expecting an attack, and reacted accordingly.

[Karnak]

The Vincennes' incindent occured because the crew was in a stressed situation and misread the information the computer was giving them.  That is why the audio has the aircraft identified as a decending Iranian F-14 when the computer data (also recorded) show it as climbing as standard for a commercial airliner.

This was exacerbated by the fact that the Vincennes' foward gun had jammed in the gun duel with the gunboats while this was going on.  The Captain ordered a very hard turn to bring the aft gun into action.  This tossed bridge crew from their stations and caused further confusion.

With the information given to him by his crew, the Captain made the correct decision to fire on the decending fighter.  Unfortunately for all involved (particularly the passengers on the airliner) the information given to the Captain was incorrect.

This was not the fault of the Iranian airliner.

This was not an intentional act by the US Navy.

This was a tragic accident.

Unfortunately, we failed to live up to our standards and tried to place blame elsewhere (The Iranians shouldn't have flown an airliner into a combat zone.  Seems reasonable, but then you realize that the area had only been a combat zone for 10 minutes, not enough time even inour military to communicate with civilian autorities and get flights scrubbed.  Another was the "Week old dead bodies" story, but babek- has already pointed out the obvious flaws in that statement.)  We also gave medals to every member of the Vincennes' crew for their actions.  That I cannot see as appropriate.  Medals should be given for good work, not simply being in combat.

On the good side, we did fully review how information was being misread and took effective measures to make sure that it did not happen again.  Things such as the Captain having a screen shoeing him what the computer is reporting rather than just having it relayed to him by a single crewman.  That eliminated a point where a single failure changed everything.

[lord dolf vader]

ok i found the websight you got your info


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html


there are several things i have a problem with

1." Aboard the Vincennes, it was now 9:49. Rogers was totally consumed with his fire fight against the gunboats. He was shouting for the five-inch-gun crew to load faster" having tossed the rounds for a identical system this is just silly several men toss the rounds onto a coveyer for the guns. the rate of fire of the guns never even came near the speed the crew can load them . "call roadkill"

2.at 9:39 On the bridge, the lookouts reported that though their giant "Big Eyes" - they could see the launches' wake more clearly now, "
amazing that they could see 2 hours after sunset on regular big eyes ( just a real big pair of binoculars not infared or thermal imaging) aint it . "call roadkill"

3.also they said that the f 14s we sold them were only fighters not ground attack. yea right how hard is it to use the hardpoints for a exocet? give the arabs a little credit for mechanical ability.

4."You want me to what?" Rogers bristled over the circuit, McKenna could hear chortles of laughter from the Vincennes combat information center."

 this is the united states navy your talking about no one and i mean no one laughs at a order on a open comms circuit. these are some of the most tight assed people you will ever meet one mistake like that and your carrer is over " call roadkill"

and for the topper they claim that the airbus didnt know it was iluminated by the targeting radar. your killin me  the iluminting radars can be used at that range to fry a planes electronics that close he would have heard it as a ditinctive tone and his instrements would have gone nuts.  he had to know at least he was iluminated . just silly crap.

all in all the version i heard sounds alot more plausable. and i was not trying to be inflamitory just telling a sea story i represented as hearsay. i truly appologise tho to all the iraqi families who lost loved ones who read this post . . and to sadam the peacemaker.

[Fishu]

When US warship shoots down an airliner, it's a tragic accident.

When single middle eastern shoots couple overly curious reporters in his country, it's war declaration between the countries.

[Dinger]

I don't think any Iraqis lost their lives in the Vincennes incident.  Iran was at war with them.
About a decade ago, they played a videotape from the bridge of the Vincennes during the incident.  From what I saw, the "F14s hiding in the Airliner's signature" bit is something of a sea story.

Now, if you want a story like that, I suggest you bring up the alleged shootdown of an Itavia DC-9 off of Ustica in the Med in 79.

[Nefarious]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader



there are several things i have a problem with


3.also they said that the f 14s we sold them were only fighters not ground attack. yea right how hard is it to use the hardpoints for a exocet? give the arabs a little credit for mechanical ability.


i truly appologise tho to all the iraqi families who lost loved ones who read this post . . and to sadam the peacemaker.

First off.

The exocet missile can not be put on an F-14A.

If it was able to be jerry rigged to a F-14A, then it would have to have a guidance system placed within the cockpit. And chances are it never would be. Mechanical ability? more like a BF waste of time. If you really think it is possible I would like to see some proof.

Second.

I dont think the smiley face after your apology to the Iraqi families is very appropiate.

[mrsid2]

Cut Lord Vader some slack..

He claims to be an expert on the area and yet he doesn't even know how to spell or use capital letters in the beginning of the sentences.

It's a waste of bandwith to start to argue with experts like this

[Karnak]

ldv,

That is not where I got my info.

That seems like a highly embellished version of the reports that I have read.

[~Caligula~]

3.also they said that the f 14s we sold them were only fighters not ground attack. yea right how hard is it to use the hardpoints for a exocet? give the arabs a little credit for mechanical ability.

LOL
I give them as much credit as I give You.

[lord dolf vader]

the smiley face was a joke, iraq has no internet conection at all so there is no way any of them saw it . sorry i have to explain i thought it was comon knowledge.

cite
http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/internet/mena/iraq.htm

and you are right about the f14 not having been set up for anti ship in the form we sold it. but our f14 can use the harpoon missile. if it can be esily adapted for the firecontrol system for the  harpoon it can be adapted for a exocet. im not saying they did but there is no question they could. and even if not iraq had fighter aircraft capable of exocet launch . your saying they mistaked a f 14 for a airbus seems like a mirage could be mistaken for a f 14 ?


mr sid thanks for the insult on my writing .your not so cleverly stated  point was that since my grammar is poor i must be a idiot. hope your kid is dislexic so you can try a lifetime of it.
also i never claimed to be a expert but i have done every thing i said and pointed out such facts as you cant see in the dark perhaps you find that in the realm of "expert" . sorry man obviously i offended you enough to just fling out insults. i will reframe.

caligula what can i say to a zelot ? nothing but happy hating to you .

[babek-]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader

3.also they said that the f 14s we sold them were only fighters not ground attack. yea right how hard is it to use the hardpoints for a exocet? give the arabs a little credit for mechanical ability.

i truly appologise tho to all the iraqi families who lost loved ones who read this post . . and to sadam the peacemaker.

1st: It was an iraNian Airbus which was shot down - not an iraqui one.
Saddam the peacemaker was surely applauding to his (what he called in these days) US-allies who helped him against the iranian subhumans.

2nd: Iranians are no Arabs. They are from the indo-german race like the Indians and not semites like the arabs. They have their own language although they adopted the writing during the arab occupation and they even built their own Islam - the Shi´ite-Islam, which is seen by orthodox sunnites as a heretic religion.

Iranians and arabs hate each other - so when Saddam invaded Iran shortly after the downfall of the Shah and in the middle of the iranian revolution, the political inner fightings in Iran ended apruptly to close the ranks and fight against the "arab invasor".

Many problems in this regions are because of their long and bloody history. When the islamic Azerbeidjan fought its war against the christian Armenia, the fundamentalist and bad guy Iran supported the christian armenians while the good and Nato-member Turkey supported the islamic Azerbeidjan.

3rd: Iran had no access to Exocet missiles. France delivered arms like tanks, missiles, fighters and VTOL to Iraq.
Iran was able to get weapons from China and the USSR (which also delivered to Iraq).
But they were also able to keep a part of the huge weapon arsenal of the Shah operational.
Ironicly the USA and Israel helped them by delivering secretly spare parts for the made in USA military hardware in Iran
(You remember the Iran-Contra-affair?). Without israeli help Iran wouldnt be able to keep 70 of the 250 F4 Phantoms flying which played an important role during the war against Iraq.

Even today at least 15 of the F14 are flying in Iran - although I dont think that they have anything F14-like inside with all the inferior soviet and chinese technical devices which replaced the US original parts Last year a formation of 15 F14 flew over a troop parade in Teheran - so these planes are still flying - even after a 20years-embargo.
The Iranians have also been able to keep many other of the Shah-arsenal flying like their VTOL´s and F4, F5´s.
They even produce today VTOLs like Bell 206 and 205 (there was a report and photos in Janes Weekly).

So there is no doubt that the iranians were and are very able to modify the hardware they had.

But it remains unlinkely that they
1. get a french missile they never used in the whole 1st Gulf War
2. modified a F14 to a ground fighter - a thing they never did during the whole 1st Gulf War
3. send out such a plane to attack a US naval vessel, instead of all the other things they could do for such a stupid attack.
Bandar Abbas is a large military base. It lies on a strategic important point at entrance to the Persian Gulf.
So there are fleet units, military aircraft bases and also chinese Silkworm missile batteries.
If they really would be so stupid to attack the Vincennes and get the full revenge of the USA they would not have sent a single fighter.

The simple truth is that they didnt.

There was no F14 or other iranian fighter over the Vincennes.
It was a simple an innocent civilian aircraft.
The Airbus was shot down by the Vincennes by accident.
And many innocents died tragicly by an accident while others were traumatized for the rest of their life.
I am sure that many of the US-personal on board of the ship were also shocked and ashamed when they heared about the fact that they shot down a civilian airliner.
But again: It was an accident and no one could be blamed for it.

But people who are telling horror-stories about planes full of already dead corpes which were only used for propaganda could and should be blamed.