Trump says hard to believe Iranian shooting of U.S. drone was intentional

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

Iran's going to pull out all the stops now to get to breakout. Once they demo a mushroom cloud on one of their many deserts the US will have to sue to negotiate.

 

Because both Riyadh and Tel Aviv are a couple of minutes away on the back of a mid-range missile. And Iran already has those.

 

And the CIA will be opening every Fedex package from Pyongyang to Teheran in the near future because NK surely won't mind a 2nd front to open against the US. Kim must be getting tired of all his foreign trips ending with him sitting across the table from a tall morbidly obese Yank.

 

 

 

I think Bolton is going to Israel soon to give the Israelis the green light should they feel the need. Trump was smart not to do it before the G20. China needs that oil, it's a chip in the stack.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I think Bolton is going to Israel soon to give the Israelis the green light should they feel the need. Trump was smart not to do it before the G20. China needs that oil, it's a chip in the stack.

Why on earth would Bolton or anyone else in the trump administration need to travel to Israel to 'green light' an attack on Iran?

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, Chazar said:

But the Iranians didnt have a choice???? and  will be stuck with their religious claptrap forever.

Sounds just like the Americans.

Do you know about half of all Americans think god created the world about 6000 years ago?

That's not a joke, they really believe that.

So much about "their religious claptrap".

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So apparently there's no way that a person from queens can ever be held accountable for factuality of their speech? As for it being ridiculous to think Trump is ignorant, this is a guy who threatened to go to the Supreme Court to stop impeachment. Someone who thinks China is paying for tariffs. Over issues big and small, Trump consistently gives evidence of his massive degree of ignorance. 

You think Trumps ignrorant, and we get that. How about adhering to standards such as the topic at hand?

[bristolboy]

Just now, Cryingdick said:

You think Trumps ignrorant, and we get that. How about adhering to standards such as the topic at hand?

Because someone claimed that it was ridiculous to think that Trump could be ignorant of so basic a fact. I was just invoking some evidence to show that it's not ridiculous at all.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Because someone claimed that it was ridiculous to think that Trump could be ignorant of so basic a fact. I was just invoking some evidence to show that it's not ridiculous at all.

Okay. So can we get back on the topic?

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Okay. So can we get back on the topic?

If you have a quarrel about my post being off topic (if in fact it was), then complain to riclag, who raised the issue in the first place.

[Cryingdick]

Trump has self-restraint and goes into the G20  meeting unscathed.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If you have a quarrel about my post being off topic (if in fact it was), then complain to riclag, who raised the issue in the first place.

 

It's just what you do. You always go to another issue and play it off. It's simply your MO. It may or may not have a certain amount of appeal here on TV but it fails in the real world.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Cryingdick

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Trump has self-restraint and goes into the G20  meeting unscathed.

Weren't you just now complaining about off topic posts, like the G20 would be?

Unscathed? He is the one that caused this mess, he is badly scarred.

[bristolboy]

32 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It's just what you do. You always go to another issue and play it off. It's simply your MO. It may or may not have a certain amount of appeal here on TV but it fails in the real world.

I think you're projecting. You are the person who constistently posts predictions of Trump's victory in all manner of threads that have nothing to do with elections at all.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, brokenbone said:

if memory serve USA never offered compensation

after they shot down an iranian airliner 655 with 290 civilians

including 66 children, none survived

 

7 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

They did. In 1996. About 100mil.

 

 

Quote

In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident,^[36] together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.^[13] US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner. In total, 290 civilians on board were killed, 38 being non-Iranians and 66 being children. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it was close to the value of a used A300 at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Aftermath

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Srikcir said:

• Lt. General Joseph Guastella, Commander of US Air Forces Central Command, called Iran's claim "categorically false," adding that "the aircraft was over the Strait of Hormuz, and fell into international waters."

It's meaningless of where the drone crashed. Being over the Strait of Hormuz is also meaningless as the Strait reaches the Iranian shores. This statement sounds more like a politically crafted one where some facts are used to distort the truth.

 

• The Pentagon released a map showing exactly where they say the aircraft was shot down.

Drone routes are tracked on a PC screen. Unless the "map" was a screenshot, it's debatable where a "map" indicates where the drone was struck that might not be the same as where is was "shot down."

 

I would also question the use of a drone in the first place if all it's doing is allegedly flying in international airspace. The U.S. has hundreds of manned aircraft capable of doing so as well as ships to spy on the Iranian coastline without entering Iranian sovereign territory. Use of a drone so close to Iran when tensions are high looks more like a "sacrificial lamb" being used to trigger a direct hostile Iranian response. 

 

Drone routs are not "tracked on a PC screen". That's just a presentation mode. The data can be extracted and presented in many other ways. The view, or screen available to controller would include further data, which may be classified or irrelevant. Did the Iranians publicly share precise data from their own systems?

 

You may question the use of the drone, and assert other platform could fill the same role. That, however, doesn't make it so. Different systems, different capabilities.

 

As for the conspiracy theory bit, all well and good - but somehow doubt the USA would have used the top of the line drone for such ploy, running the risk tech will fall into Iranian hands.

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, wayned said:

As I said before both the Iranians and Trump could be right.  The drone could have been 9 miles off the coast when Iran detedtedit and fired the missle.  Once the missile was fired the US detected the missile launch and the drone wasturned hard left with maximum power applied.  It only had to travel 3 miles to be in international airspace.  At 500 miles per hour that takes about 20 seconds.  The missile had to travel 20 miles.  So when the drone was actually shot down it could have been in international airspace.  But it's curious that Iran seems to have recovered pieces of the drone and have them on display, why doesn't the us Have pieces on display or was it actually in Iranian airspace when it was shot down and the wreckage is in Iranian waters.

John Bolton must have had to stop at the pharmacy on the way home last night to buy a pack of adult diapers and have his Valium prescription refilled.  when trump ordered the airstrike he must have pissed his pants in joy but when trump terminated the mission 10 minutes before it reached it's target he most likely shit his pants!

 

The missile would travel at a much higher speed, though. And it is not a given that detection of threat by the drone's systems would be instantaneous.

 

From the pictures I've seen, most of the wreckage presented by Iran seems to be outer or body parts. These are made of relatively lightweight materials - some would even float. The more "juicy" parts and the engine would be harder to salvage. Must be some interesting times underwater in them parts.

 

Where the drone was at the time the interception was initiated, where it was struck, and where it crashed could be three different locations.

[wayned]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

Where the drone was at the time the interception was initiated, where it was struck, and where it crashed could be three different locations.

Yep, it could have been in Iran airspace when it was detected and fire upon and then booked it when they detected a missile had been fired.  Only 3 miles to international  airspace, about 20 seconds at 500 miles/hour and the missile had to travel 20 miles.  When the missile finally hit it could have been in international airspace.  Iran has parts, why doesn't the US if the wreckage is international waters? 

 

Trump's spin on when he asked about how many would be killed about 10 minutes before launch of the mission they told him 150 and that's why he cancelled the mission is total BS.  Every mission is preceded by a briefing, whether it's the President or not.  Part of that briefing is risk assessment which includes loss of life estimates including collateral damage.

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, wayned said:

Yep, it could have been in Iran airspace when it was detected and fire upon and then booked it when they detected a missile had been fired.  Only 3 miles to international  airspace, about 20 seconds at 500 miles/hour and the missile had to travel 20 miles.  When the missile finally hit it could have been in international airspace.  Iran has parts, why doesn't the US if the wreckage is international waters? 

 

Trump's spin on when he asked about how many would be killed about 10 minutes before launch of the mission they told him 150 and that's why he cancelled the mission is total BS.  Every mission is preceded by a briefing, whether it's the President or not.  Part of that briefing is risk assessment which includes loss of life estimates including collateral damage.

 

Or the drone could have been in international airspace to begin with. I don't think we've got accurate enough information to draw conclusions either way.

 

Iran could simply have reached the debris ahead of the USA, and some parts could have been carried by currents toward Iran. If the interception was planned, Iranian forces out to salvage the remains would get a head-start. Whether the debris is/was in international waters doesn't necessarily bear on the location of the drone when it was intercepted.

 

Agree with the rest of your post.

[Rimmer]

Off topic posts about Vietnam removed

[mikebike]

On 6/22/2019 at 1:40 AM, JHolmesJr said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of shady plan to goad him into starting a war....so his rivals can then throw stones at him along with the rest of their media butt buddies...

There is a shady plan, but it is not the brain-child of his rivals. Bolton and Pompeo are the shady architects of this round of middle East tensions... 45 pulling out of the nuclear agreement didn't help either...

[mikebike]

On 6/22/2019 at 2:05 AM, riclag said:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655

Ok. So it was about 62 million and was not offered up as an apology... Iran had to take the USA to court.

[bristolboy]

On 6/22/2019 at 1:40 AM, JHolmesJr said:

 

word!

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of shady plan to goad him into starting a war....so his rivals can then throw stones at him along with the rest of their media butt buddies...all the way into 2020.

 

He should pull out of all talks with Iran and keep them at an arm's length till he wins in 2020...then bring on the heavy artillery.

 

"after the election, I'll have more flexibility" (to kick some Iranian ass) ????

So he ordered this flotilla to the Persian Gulf in order to not deal with the Iranians? Genius!!

Edited June 24, 2019 by bristolboy

[Nigel Garvie]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So he ordered this flotilla to the Persian Gulf in order to not deal with the Iranians? Genius!!

This is a false flag operation through and through. The Japanese ship owners say many witnesses on board saw incoming fire, and the damage is well above the waterline, so the mine story is totally phony. USA invents pretext to go to war with country that has large oil reserves, how tiny does someone's brain have to be not to smell the same old rat here?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

This is a false flag operation through and through. The Japanese ship owners say many witnesses on board saw incoming fire, and the damage is well above the waterline, so the mine story is totally phony. USA invents pretext to go to war with country that has large oil reserves, how tiny does someone's brain have to be not to smell the same old rat here?

I'm certainly no defender of Trump. And I'm not asserting that Iran is responsible for the attack. That said, if someone wanted to send a message by lightly damaging a ship with a mine, best to place that mine above the water line. Who the sender of the message might be is anybody's guess.

[Credo]

What is hard to believe is that the President has gotten everyone into such a ridiculous situation.   There was an agreement between Iran and a number of countries, including the US.   It provided a framework for what was permissible and what wasn't.   It provided for inspections.   Leaving the agreement left the US out of the loop.   

 

He then says he was going to attack, but changed his mind after the casualty report was given to him.   That is highly unlikely to be true, nearly all scenarios are accompanied by a casualty report.   Even Pence danced around this issue and acknowledge casualty figures were given.   

So basically once again he makes a problem, blithers around a bit and tries to convince he is being decisive when in fact he is being reckless.   He showed no restraint.