Iran sends missiles against US bases in Iraq...here we go again.

Maddog wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/missile-iran-plane-crash.html

Now Iran admits it.  Looks like Walter Mitty was wrong again.  

nicko wrote: Just admit you were wrong and we'll forget it !

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote: Just admit you were wrong and we'll forget it !

The Iranians were honorable in informing the world.  The Prime Minister of Canada is sending an investigating team.  Canadians and Iranians working together...see what can be accomplished.  Trump could learn.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The Iranians were honorable in informing the world.  The Prime Minister of Canada is sending an investigating team.  Canadians and Iranians working together...see what can be accomplished.  Trump could learn.

The admission was forced out of them, Quill. Both the country's civil aviation authority and the military were saying repeatedly that it was "a big lie" and "psycological warfare" by the United States and there were independent reports that bulldozers were working on the wreckage site almost straight away before independent inspectors could reach the scene. Some reports even said that there was little if any security and local scavengers were taking what might obviously have been vital evidence.

It was not until it became patently obvious and widely reported by the world's Press and broadcasters that there was proven satellite intelligence showing two missile launches and an explosion and that a locally shot video showing two ascending streaks of light followed by a flash had appeared on social media that Iran finally admitted the blunder and apologised - though still trying to shift part of the blame on America.

I fully accept that it was a tragic mistake, but I very much doubt whether Iran's anti-aircraft missile batteries' radar control is so unsophisticated that it could not tell the difference between a small cruise missile and a bloody big Boeing 737 as they are now claiming!

And since they had launched more than 20 ballistic missiles against US bases only a few hours earlier, what the hell were they thinking of by allowing Teheran Airport to permit commercial aircraft take-offs?

nicko wrote:Never heard such bullshit in my life,   for fuck sake Quill admit your wrong and don't keep making excuses for them. I thought you were more honest than this, seems I am sadly mistaken. In the future how can we believe anything you say ?

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The admission was forced out of them, Quill. Both the country's civil aviation authority and the military were saying repeatedly that it was "a big lie" and "psycological warfare" by the United States and there were independent reports that bulldozers were working on the wreckage site almost straight away before independent inspectors could reach the scene. Some reports even said that there was little if any security and local scavengers were taking what might obviously have been vital evidence.

It was not until it became patently obvious and widely reported by the world's Press and broadcasters that there was proven satellite intelligence showing two missile launches and an explosion and that a locally shot video showing two ascending streaks of light followed by a flash had appeared on social media that Iran finally admitted the blunder and apologised - though still trying to shift part of the blame on America.

I fully accept that it was a tragic mistake, but I very much doubt whether Iran's anti-aircraft missile batteries' radar control is so unsophisticated that it could not tell the difference between a small cruise missile and a bloody big Boeing 737 as they are now claiming!

And since they had launched more than 20 ballistic missiles against US bases only a few hours earlier, what the hell were they thinking of by allowing Teheran Airport to permit commercial aircraft take-offs?

My point is that the Iranians admitted their mistake when all the facts were known.  Now, could you imagine Trump admitting that the assassination of Soleimani was his blunder?

I think it shows the character of the two, one of whom reneges on agreements, acts rashly, and is an international killer...the other, an honest state actor.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

My point is that the Iranians admitted their mistake when all the facts were known.  Now, could you imagine Trump admitting that the assassination of Soleimani was his blunder?

I think it shows the character of the two, one of whom reneges on agreements, acts rashly, and is an international killer...the other, an honest state actor.

Fred M. wrote:Those two SAMs would not have been launched without an order from a senior officer, and if both the launch and the strike were monitored by a US surveillance satellite the incident MUST have been monitored by both the launch crew and their battalion or regimental HQ.

nicko wrote: Should target their Leader now, in for a Penny etc !

Fred M. wrote:The two things don't add up; if the pilot had time to turn the aircraft round his co-pilot would have had time to at least send a mayday signal.

nicko wrote: Should target their Leader now, in for a Penny etc !

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Those two SAMs would not have been launched without an order from a senior officer, and if both the launch and the strike were monitored by a US surveillance satellite the incident MUST have been monitored by both the launch crew and their battalion or regimental HQ.

And yet, you, yourself go on to state that "no radio communication" was taking place.  How could a "senior officer' have ordered the launch?    There were ten take-offs that morning before the tragedy with the Ukraine airliner, and no missile was launched at them.  It's appears to have been a tragic accident.

Fred M. wrote:I fail to get your point. The fact that there was no radio communication between the aircraft and the control tower is totally separate to any military signal authorising the launch of the missiles .They would not have been on the same frequency anyway.

Fred M. wrote:And as events are unfolding, it now seems that ordinary Iranian people are demonstrating against their own government's action.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:The two things don't add up; if the pilot had time to turn the aircraft round his co-pilot would have had time to at least send a mayday signal.

Not necessarily.  If the pilot saw the missiles climbing and realized what was happening, it takes about a second to push the rudder and bank the plane.  There would be no time for communication between the pilot and co-pilot, let alone for a m'aidez to go out...especially if the pilot were preoccupied with evasive maneuvers.

Once the plane is redirected, inertia causes it to go in the direction it's told.  Thus, if the northbound aircraft took a right turn, the wreckage would head east, which it did.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And yet, you, yourself go on to state that "no radio communication" was taking place.  How could a "senior officer' have ordered the launch?    There were ten take-offs that morning before the tragedy with the Ukraine airliner, and no missile was launched at them.  It's appears to have been a tragic accident.

I fail to get your point. The fact that there was no radio communication between the aircraft and the control tower is totally separate to any military signal authorising the launch of the missiles .They would not have been on the same frequency anyway.

The SAMs were probably vehicle mounted and the crew would not have launched without orders.

No-one is doubting that it was a tragic accident; it was Iran's initial insistence, backed up by their accusations that the Western powers were guilty of lying and conducting "psychological warfare", that is in question.

And as events are unfolding, it now seems that ordinary Iranian people are demonstrating against their own government's action.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:And as events are unfolding, it now seems that ordinary Iranian people are demonstrating against their own government's action.

That's another matter.  I daresay, Trump probably helped the Iranian government to rally the citizens, where they were otherwise having quite a difficult time of it.

The sophisticated approach would have been to let the whole thing implode.  But, Trump lives to inflict pain, and he likes the visceral feeling of causing the pain directly.

Fred M. wrote:You may well be right about Trump, but I wouldn't care to express an opinion on that because I am not a psychologist.

Fred M. wrote:Having said that, I can see that taking out a military commander who is said to be personally responsible for much of the world's proxy fundamentalist terrorism and who may well have been behind other attacks including that on the US embassy is little different to and equally as justified as Obama's successful strike against Bin Laden.

Fred M. wrote:Simply pushing the rudder, or stabiliser, of an aircraft does not cause it to bank.

Maddog wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I fail to get your point. The fact that there was no radio communication between the aircraft and the control tower is totally separate to any military signal authorising the launch of the missiles .They would not have been on the same frequency anyway.

The SAMs were probably vehicle mounted and the crew would not have launched without orders.

No-one is doubting that it was a tragic accident; it was Iran's initial insistence, backed up by their accusations that the Western powers were guilty of lying and conducting "psychological warfare", that is in question.

And as events are unfolding, it now seems that ordinary Iranian people are demonstrating against their own government's action.

Between the funeral and this missile attack on a plane the Iranians seem to be the biggest threat to the Iranians.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Simply pushing the rudder, or stabiliser, of an aircraft does not cause it to bank.

I know how the controls of an aircraft work.  Note I said "push the rudder and bank the plane..."  "And" expresses a conjunction, so that it is two things: rudder and banking.  I was not suggesting that one causes the other.

More to the point, both control maneuvers can be done in the same second.  The actual point is that such action takes far less than the time it would take to transmit a m'aidez, even had the pilot and co-pilot had opportunity to talk about it.  Thus, the action putting the aircraft debris to the east took far less time than broadcasting a distress call.

Fred M. wrote:I was simply pointing out that ailerons and not a rudder make an aircraft bank.

Fred M. wrote:The two things don't add up; if the pilot had time to turn the aircraft round his co-pilot would have had time to at least send a mayday signal.

Maddog wrote:The short story deals with a vague and mild-mannered man who drives into Waterbury, Connecticut, with his wife for their regular weekly shopping and his wife's visit to the beauty parlor. During this time he has five heroic daydream episodes. The first is as a pilot of a U.S. Navy flying boat in a storm, then he is a magnificent surgeon performing a one-of-a-kind surgery, then as a deadly assassin testifying in a courtroom, and then as a Royal Air Force pilot volunteering for a daring, secret suicide mission to bomb an ammunition dump. As the story ends, Mitty imagines himself facing a firing squad, "inscrutable to the last." Each of the fantasies is inspired by some detail of Mitty's mundane surroundings:

Original Quill wrote:Fred, I think Redneck's post is meant for me, not you.  Red always returns to the same theme: he mocks anyone who has achieved more than him.

Essentially, it's his jealousy and low self-esteem.  Anyone who has achieved more than his mundane existence, is allegedly "showing him up."  So, he takes the position that it could never happen.  It’s denial.

It's better than other subjects he would open up on.  He is a rank southerner.  How would you like a diatribe on how the Negroid race is inferior?  Or, how you should carry a handgun into your wife's birthing room.  Better for us that he hides those views.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Fred, I think Redneck's post is meant for me, not you.  Red always returns to the same theme: he mocks anyone who has achieved more than him.

Essentially, it's his jealousy and low self-esteem.  Anyone who has achieved more than his mundane existence, is allegedly "showing him up."  So, he takes the position that it could never happen.  It’s denial.

It's better than other subjects he would open up on.  He is a rank southerner.  How would you like a diatribe on how the Negroid race is inferior?  Or, how you should carry a handgun into your wife's birthing room.  Better for us that he hides those views.

Oh dear. Is the Civil War about to be re-run?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Fred, I think Redneck's post is meant for me, not you. Red always returns to the same theme: he mocks anyone who has achieved more than him.

Essentially, it's his jealousy and low self-esteem. Anyone who has achieved more than his mundane existence, is allegedly "showing him up." So, he takes the position that it could never happen. It’s denial.

It's better than other subjects he would open up on. He is a rank southerner. How would you like a diatribe on how the Negroid race is inferior? Or, how you should carry a handgun into your wife's birthing room. Better for us that he hides those views.

Oh dear. Is the Civil War about to be re-run?

Wiki wrote:The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat, twin turbofan engine, straight wing jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic for the United States Air Force (USAF).

It is commonly referred to by the nicknames "Warthog" or "Hog", although the A-10's official name comes from the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II fighter-bomber effective at attacking ground targets.

The A-10 was designed for close air support (CAS) of friendly ground troops, attacking armored vehicles and tanks, and providing quick-action support against enemy ground forces.