Ships under attack in the middle east

Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,605
Location
Norfolk.
Well their explanation is laughable. Even if they had mixed it up with an Iranian fighter jet (a third its size btw) it was within it's own territorial waters. So what exactly was the Vincennes trying to do? Initiate war?

It was more "bad US intelligence" and poor human performance (from both the US and Iran) than anything.

Bad Intel - The US Navy was told by the US Intel community that the F-14's had been newly equipped with Air to Ground weapons (they hadn't) and that, following the US Navies sinking of an Iranian ship a few months earlier, the Iranians were after revenge (they weren't).

Poor Human Performance - Huge failures of personal skill aboard the USS Vincennes to mis-identify the Airbus (via radar/IFF - not visually so "size" means very little as a blip on a screen) & the much lesser failure of the aircrew on the Airbus to listen to 121.5Mhz, which is the international emergency frequency every aircraft in the world MUST listen to, which was broadcasting dozens of warning messages to them. Every VHF aircraft radio has this emergency frequency specifically "hard-coded" into it so messages bypass everything else and can't be missed, meaning it has to be manually bypassed by the crew with a switch selection (most aircraft have at least 2-3 radios all with this function and all would need to be bypassed).

So the combination of the two lead to a perfect storm of Human Factors in which both groups (the US more than the Airbus crew) made the situation worse. Reagan also did send his regrets a few days later once the details were made clear but it still took a decade before a formal apology was made, no-idea why it took so long.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,328
Location
London
It was more "bad US intelligence" and poor human performance (from both the US and Iran) than anything.

Bad Intel - The US Navy was told by the US Intel community that the F-14's had been newly equipped with Air to Ground weapons (they hadn't) and that, following the US Navies sinking of an Iranian ship a few months earlier, the Iranians were after revenge (they weren't).

Poor Human Performance - Huge failures of personal skill aboard the USS Vincennes to mis-identify the Airbus (via radar/IFF - not visually so "size" means very little as a blip on a screen) & the much lesser failure of the aircrew on the Airbus to listen to 121.5Mhz, which is the international emergency frequency every aircraft in the world MUST listen to, which was broadcasting dozens of warning messages to them. Every VHF aircraft radio has this emergency frequency specifically "hard-coded" into it so messages bypass everything else and can't be missed, meaning it has to be manually bypassed by the crew with a switch selection (most aircraft have at least 2-3 radios all with this function and all would need to be bypassed).

So the combination of the two lead to a perfect storm of Human Factors in which both groups (the US more than the Airbus crew) made the situation worse. Reagan also did send his regrets a few days later once the details were made clear but it still took a decade before a formal apology was made, no-idea why it took so long.

Was a formal apology made? Happy to be corrected.

The question you have to ask yourself is why was the ship even targeting an aircraft in its own space? If it didn't respond why did it take it down?
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,170
Location
Northern England
Was a formal apology made? Happy to be corrected.

The question you have to ask yourself is why was the ship even targeting an aircraft in its own space? If it didn't respond why did it take it down?

Was halfway through replying but Ianh did a better job :)

Earlier in the day an Iranian military Orion had been in the area which is a closer size to the airliner. This could have caused confusion. Additionally the civilian plane took off from a base also used by the military. Helicopters based on the Vincennes had been attacked by Iranian surface vessels in the days before this.

Oh and seemingly the US captain was a bit of a penis tip.

I don't think the US did ever apologise but issued statements of regret. This is because of the belief that apologising would accept blame whereas they think the plane's pilots bore some responsibility therefore making it a regrettable accident.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,170
Location
Northern England
Good summary.

You realise what would have happened had this been the other way round ?

I don't think we can know what would have happened tbh. Look at MH17, KAL902 or KE17, nowt. Not a thing. Nada. All US allies. Would the US have been worse if it was one of their own though? Maybe.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,328
Location
London
I don't think we can know what would have happened tbh. Look at MH17, KAL902 or KE17, nowt. Not a thing. Nada. All US allies. Would the US have been worse if it was one of their own though? Maybe.

Come on now. Would you like a real world example of how the US would respond?

What are your thoughts on the overthrow of Mossadegh who was democratically elected? All because he nationalised Iran's oil.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,372
Location
On the Amiga500
The Sun literally carried the headline "Brits 45 minutes from doom", the entire thing was a complete lie and a joke. Yet we're being called conspiracy theorists because we aren't blindly believing that Iran is sabotaging oil tankers? Come on. Iran may be doing it, but they're both as bad as each other, so it's not ridiculous to question things we're told. There's clearly a lot of influence being put on America to target Iran at the minute, probably the same influence that ensures Israel receives billions towards their defence budget from the US.

In this thread, a sun article equates to super secret false flag operation.

Also, it is right to question everything, but just because you might have some doubts it doesn't mean the correct response is to assume the complete opposite and that the US conducted some elaborate false flag operation. If you're honest and consider what is most likely, it's clear what your conclusions should be.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,605
Location
Norfolk.
The question you have to ask yourself is why was the ship even targeting an aircraft in its own space? If it didn't respond why did it take it down?

Just to add to Dis86's detailed reply, the Airbus took off from a combination civil/military airport (common in the Middle East) which had two F-14's ready to take off but on standby (so fully powered up with IFF working) and as the Airbus took off the radar operator on the USS Vincennes misplaced his "who is this" IFF cursor by around 1-2mm accidentally selecting the F-14 rather than the Airbus (basically 1-2 pixels out on his display). At that point the IFF said "Mode 2 Iranian Military Code" so the radar operator identified the Airbus as an Iranian F-14 which is shown to the Captain as an enemy/hostile.

The human error was that, when told to recheck the radar operator didn't move the cursor to the now flying Airbus (which was now miles away from the airport) but instead just hit "re-identify" on his IFF and, as the cursor was still on the F-14 at the airport, he reported again that the IFF was saying it was definitely a Hostile, he also failed to use his "Airways" display which showed the international routes used by aircraft which showed the Airbus was on an airway at airliner cruising height. All of these failures forced the Captain to think far too aggressively, especially when the radar track showed the Airbus was heading straight for him (but in an international airway) and was ignoring warnings on the international Emergency aviation channel.

Faced with all that info and believing that he was genuinely coming under attack, the Captain decided "I'm not risking my ship or the sailors" and fired, stopping the "target" from getting into firing range of its own weapons (bad intel again).

Human error, bad intel and overly aggressive attitudes all combined to create this. We studied it for a while in a Human Factors course I took, alongside Challenger and a few other event. Long story short, we're lucky stuff like this doesn't happen more often :(
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
7,928
Location
Leeds
In this thread, a sun article equates to super secret false flag operation.

Also, it is right to question everything, but just because you might have some doubts it doesn't mean the correct response is to assume the complete opposite and that the US conducted some elaborate false flag operation. If you're honest and consider what is most likely, it's clear what your conclusions should be.

Yes, my conclusion is that it is possible Iran attacked those ships, and it is also possible someone is trying to make it look like Iran attacked those ships. Some people may find the notion scary that their benevolent overlords aren't actually all that benevolent so find it easier to go with what they're told.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,170
Location
Northern England
Come on now. Would you like a real world example of how the US would respond?

What are your thoughts on the overthrow of Mossadegh who was democratically elected? All because he nationalised Iran's oil.

It's not right to compare a countries actions 70 years ago to today. Otherwise we'd have to look at Germany in a very different light.
As I say I genuinely don't know how they'd respond and I provided numerous examples showing times where airliners of allies have been shot down without a military response by the US.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2009
Posts
2,549
Location
Dallas, Texas
Come on now. Would you like a real world example of how the US would respond?

What are your thoughts on the overthrow of Mossadegh who was democratically elected? All because he nationalised Iran's oil.

Are you aware that Iranian oil had been under control of the British and that after Mossadegh nationalised Iran's oil (because the British refused to properly share with Iran) that it was the British that instigated Mossadegh's overthrow (out of revenge for him stopping the British from pillaging Iran's oil)? Britain approached the Americans for help, but the British instigated and were full partners in the overthrow. Of course, the overthrow was successful, and Britain continued its economic rape of Iran for a while longer.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,372
Location
On the Amiga500
Yes, my conclusion is that it is possible Iran attacked those ships, and it is also possible someone is trying to make it look like Iran attacked those ships. Some people may find the notion scary that their benevolent overlords aren't actually all that benevolent so find it easier to go with what they're told.
Any possibility is a possibility, it could have been Martians. But please answer this question, who is the most likely culprit?
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
7,928
Location
Leeds
Any possibility is a possibility, it could have been Martians. But please answer this question, who is the most likely culprit?

I'm not saying it could be Martians or something outrageous, I'm saying it was either Iran, or an Israeli/American operation designed to make them look guilty. I don't think one is more likely than the other as I have no evidence except an old boat full of people sailing next to a freighter, which could be anyone.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
9,420
Any possibility is a possibility, it could have been Martians. But please answer this question, who is the most likely culprit?
GV6wf3x.gif
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,372
Location
On the Amiga500
I'm not saying it could be Martians or something outrageous, I'm saying it was either Iran, or an Israeli/American operation designed to make them look guilty. I don't think one is more likely than the other as I have no evidence except an old boat full of people sailing next to a freighter, which could be anyone.

You'd have thought that if it was a false flag operation, so close to the Iranian shore, that Iran itself would provide evidence to suggest so. Instead, it's the US providing evidence on the contrary.

Furthermore, what does the US gain from this particular FF? Its not like they need an excuse to impose sanctions and further bully Iran all they want. An elaborate FF pantomime of mining some tankers isn't going to suddenly stir up a war, assuming that's what you believe the US desire. Surely, if the US was so omnipotent and able of conducting these FF ops, they'd do one that really got the international community spun up, baying for Iranian blood?.... 9/11 style.... Right? LOL!
 
Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,328
Location
London
You'd have thought that if it was a false flag operation, so close to the Iranian shore, that Iran itself would provide evidence to suggest so. Instead, it's the US providing evidence on the contrary.

Furthermore, what does the US gain from this particular FF? Its not like they need an excuse to impose sanctions and further bully Iran all they want. An elaborate FF pantomime of mining some tankers isn't going to suddenly stir up a war, assuming that's what you believe the US desire. Surely, if the US was so omnipotent and able of conducting these FF ops, they'd do one that really got the international community spun up, baying for Iranian blood?.... 9/11 style.... Right? LOL!

I imagine the Saudis and Israelis are applying some pressure to act. Both are allies and have plenty of reasons for the West to start a fresh campaign.

Why would Iran attack a Japanese vessel on the day a Japanese representative visits for the first time in decades?

The economy is crippled. It's trying its best to reach out and make new trade deals. These deals would undermine any sanctions.

So the US and its allies have every motive. Why would Iran want any war? It can barely feed its people. Iran has absolutely no motive.

The UK and US population is jaded by the Iraq war. Ultimately, the government needs the people's backing before any further invasions. Do you think Joe Public has the time to decipher a 2 second video? Instead he or she is going to see "Iran bad" come up on the front page of the BBC on a weekly or monthly basis. That's enough to skew an opinion.

So if It doesn't lead to anything. An intended outcome is achieved.

Still waiting for a video to show where the boat came from. As you said the US has eyes all over that area.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
You'd have thought that if it was a false flag operation, so close to the Iranian shore, that Iran itself would provide evidence to suggest so. Instead, it's the US providing evidence on the contrary.

Proving a negative is traditionally a difficult problem. Maybe they should publish some photos without any boats in them. Just water, you know? They could title it "Revolutionary Guard Not Planting Mines".

Furthermore, what does the US gain from this particular FF? Its not like they need an excuse to impose sanctions and further bully Iran all they want. An elaborate FF pantomime of mining some tankers isn't going to suddenly stir up a war, assuming that's what you believe the US desire. Surely, if the US was so omnipotent and able of conducting these FF ops, they'd do one that really got the international community spun up, baying for Iranian blood?.... 9/11 style.... Right? LOL!

Well one suggestion has been that it's the Saudis. They have the capability and I think they'd love to see the US go to war with Iran. Israel is also a possibility. There's also the possibility it's not intended to provoke a war but to simply scare off others from trading with Iran (like Japan). But you're missing a larger point - it doesn't have to be to the benefit of the USA as a whole. The Iraq war wasn't. It just has to be to the benefit of factions within the US. Heck, according to some people today, US intelligence services have actually been refusing to share information with the President, apparently.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,372
Location
On the Amiga500
Proving a negative is traditionally a difficult problem. Maybe they should publish some photos without any boats in them. Just water, you know? They could title it "Revolutionary Guard Not Planting Mines".
.
If a ship was under attack just off its shores and they weren't responsible, I'm astounded Iran did not react by putting surveillance assets over the top of it to investigate what was happening.

, according to some people today, US intelligence services have actually been refusing to share information with the President, apparently.

Well that would be unsurprising. Interestingly, Jeremy Corbyn would struggle to acquire a DV and have the necessary access to certain aspects of information were he to become PM. Funny huh?
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
If a ship was under attack just off its shores and they weren't responsible, I'm astounded Iran did not react by putting surveillance assets over the top of it to investigate what was happening.

Pretty much the expected reply. Which then leads directly to if it's so easy to conclusively show what happened that what didn't can be discounted as a possibility - how come the US haven't offered more proof? Can't say lack of proof from Iran is evidence they didn't and lack of proof from the US is evidence Iran did.
 
Top