Iran Fires On US Drone

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Beavers
 


Except that our instrument of war was in international airspace where it had every right to be. What if it had been an RC-135, or a C-17? Or even worse, an A320, or 737? They had every right to fly a Predator in international airspace, wherever they wanted to, without it being shot at.


Iran has the right to shoot down any damn thing they feel is targetting them. Stop playing the innocent yank and start opening your eyes. The US doesn't act innocently, that drone was being flown there to pick a fight and you damn well know it.

I fully expect your next reply to be one of apology for your misguided comment.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by davcwebb
 


Reading a post at the WaPo, it now appears the drone was fired on 16 miles off the Iranian coast. Iran's territorial waters extend 12 miles out. Also take note that a US drone was downed last year 140 miles into Iranian territory. It's entirely possible that this drone was on its way back out of Iran. Moreover, I didn't see a lot of criticism by the ATS members who are complaining that Iran fired on this drone, criticizing the US for sending aerial drones deep into Iranian airspace, thereby violating Iranian territory. As usual, DOUBLE STANDARD by US military apologists/defenders.

What also is very telling about these "news" reports, which are essentially stenography sessions of undisclosed Pentagon sources, is that the US news agencies haven't bothered to ask the Iranian government what its story is. If the reporters had, and Iranians declined to say, this would have been reported. So, once again, a very one-sided story reported by US "news" media, essentially taking dictation from Pentagon sources, and not bothering to get the point of view of the Iranian government.

Also keep in mind that the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airliner, full of passengers, right off the coast of Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war. So evidently it's ok for the US military to shoot down Iranian civilian airliners IN IRANIAN AIRSPACE, over Iranian territorial waters, but Iran is not allowed to fire upon unmanned aerial drones in nearby international airspace. If this isn't an extreme double standard, then I don't know what is. Moreover, since the US shoots down civilian Iranian airliners, doesn't it possibly make sense that Iran does fear US aggression against it and wants to build any weapon system that could deter the bullying and bellicose US, which has a record of being a serial invader/aggressor and attacker of countries in the region?

My thoughts and prayers go out to the US drone and the drone pilot involved in this sordid and egregious case of aviation aggression by Iran.
edit on 9-11-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 

I like that analogy, it sounds more like the military I served for 10 years in intelligence, but what would I know, maybe I'm just a bit tainted from what I've seen.

Drone coming back from Iran, Frogfoot pursues, fires, is called back because of airspace issue..... plausible.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by davcwebb
 


Reading a post at the WaPo, it now appears the drone was fired on 16 miles off the Iranian coast. Iran's territorial waters extend 12 miles out. Also take note that a US drone was downed last year 140 miles into Iranian territory. It's entirely possible that this drone was on its way back out of Iran. Moreover, I didn't see a lot of criticism by the ATS members who are complaining that Iran fired on this drone, criticizing the US for sending aerial drones deep into Iranian airspace, thereby violating Iranian territory. As usual, DOUBLE STANDARD by US military apologists/defenders.

What also is very telling about these "news" reports, which are essentially stenography sessions of undisclosed Pentagon sources, is that the US news agencies haven't bothered to ask the Iranian government what its story is. If the reporters had, and Iranians declined to say, this would have been reported. So, once again, a very one-sided story reported by US "news" media, essentially taking dictation from Pentagon sources, and not bothering to get the point of view of the Iranian government.


I like to thing of US news broadcasts as children's television. Nothing of any value, but enough to keep the US population happy. That's why there are lots of explosions and big flashy letters and graphics, as opposed to truth, value and content.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 



Im not for another war, but for the love of all things living, someone needs to step up to the plate.


What's stopping you? Go fight Iran.

It's sad that you're willing to murder people because they shot at a remote control plane. Clearly human life doesn't mean much to you.

Neo-cons are such vile creatures.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocklobster1

Originally posted by Auricom


Sorry, but the Iranians had every right to shoot this down. As does the US and every sovereign nation.




they didnt shoot anything down.
it helps to actually read the article and the thread


The poster you are responding to didn't say Iran shot the drone down, but rather that It had the right to shoot it down. So you are making specious claims in order to disparage the first poster. You might try reading comments carefully before replying to them.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by davcwebb
 


Aw well! If they keep this up the terrorist Iranian regime that calls themselves a government will get theirs!.

International waters? Hmmm Iranian cowardice in the extreme that is no way representative of the population as a whole.

maybe the terrorist Iranian GOVERNMENT (and their phony and cowardly Ayatollah) sympathisers on ATS will see this for what it really is! But then again most will dismiss this with some form of apologist BS because their heads are that firmly planted in the sand. You know these Iranian leaders would kill you in a second if they had the chance! Who knows, They will probably wrongly blame Israel or Mossad for this!

Yet these people open mock people as "sheeple" Bahahahahah losers!
edit on 9-11-2012 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)


If firing at an unmanned drone over international waters (that happen to be just 4 miles from Iranian air space) is cowardly, then what is actually shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner full of passengers over Iranian territorial waters? -- American

Iran Air Flight 655



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Now you nicely tried to spin the facts.
DRONES are WAR machines, NOT commercial airliners, and as such are subjects to consider it as a legitimate targets. You don't send drones on a mission to say hello to other part.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by davcwebb
 


Aw well! If they keep this up the terrorist Iranian regime that calls themselves a government will get theirs!.

International waters? Hmmm Iranian cowardice in the extreme that is no way representative of the population as a whole.

maybe the terrorist Iranian GOVERNMENT (and their phony and cowardly Ayatollah) sympathisers on ATS will see this for what it really is! But then again most will dismiss this with some form of apologist BS because their heads are that firmly planted in the sand. You know these Iranian leaders would kill you in a second if they had the chance! Who knows, They will probably wrongly blame Israel or Mossad for this!

Yet these people open mock people as "sheeple" Bahahahahah losers!
edit on 9-11-2012 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)


If firing at an unmanned drone over international waters (that happen to be just 4 miles from Iranian air space) is cowardly, then what is actually shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner full of passengers over Iranian territorial waters? -- American

Iran Air Flight 655


Collateral damage. The US's biggest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia has been ruled as the worlds most oppressive dictatorship for decades, but because they cowtow to the White house, they have nothing to worry about, they can carry on with their public beheadings and draconian laws against females, their brutal crushing of any religion other than the state sanctioned Islam, execution by stoning and other acts against humanity without a single fear in the world that the US will "liberate" them.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wasteoftime
 

"Colateral damage" is the most disgusting phrase ever built, fabricated to justifies numerous atrocities.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown
 


So are B-52s, KC-135s, F-15s, etc. They ALL have the right to fly in international airspace around any country, without the risk of being shot down. It makes no difference whether it is an airliner, or if it is a military flight. They all have the right to fly in international airspace.

So according to you, and according to others, we have the right to shoot down any Russian planes that fly off our coast and Russia can't stop us. And that wouldn't be an act of aggression against them.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wasteoftime

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Beavers
 


Except that our instrument of war was in international airspace where it had every right to be. What if it had been an RC-135, or a C-17? Or even worse, an A320, or 737? They had every right to fly a Predator in international airspace, wherever they wanted to, without it being shot at.


Iran has the right to shoot down any damn thing they feel is targetting them. Stop playing the innocent yank and start opening your eyes. The US doesn't act innocently, that drone was being flown there to pick a fight and you damn well know it.

I fully expect your next reply to be one of apology for your misguided comment.


Iran or any country for that matter has no right to shoot down aircraft, military or civilian in international airspace, they have every right to defend themselves if the aircraft was in their airspace, but whilst it's in international airspace no.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Yeah..go ahead and blame Iran for defending itself from an expiring evil empire...How thoughtful,mature and rational of you all!...This game of cat and mouse is got to stop before Bibi and all his delusional supporters start something which no one could finish...He is so itching for a war he might as well get one.Then i am sure a lot of Israel "friends"will turn their heads the other way in hope of seeing a new trouble free flattened ME after they turn around again.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Shooting at a remote control plane is not worth going to war over.

1. Not worth murdering hundreds of thousands civilians
2. Not worth losing US soldiers over
3. USA = Broke
4. Not worth potentially starting WWIII
5. Not worth feeding the military industrial complex



edit on 9-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by flice


American drones operated by the US airforce or army is already an act of war no matter where they are...


Yep.

The US Air Force does dry runs, on any given Sunday!








Originally posted by flice
tje iranian jet acted in defense.


You're right. I cant see them keeping these up in the Air, for too long.






Originally posted by flice
Stand down you aggressive presence in the middle east and Im sure the Iranians will not act more in selfdefense...


Ill make sure I tell our Nobel Peace Prize President that, at our next Military Briefing...........




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


And even if they had shot this one down, we wouldn't go to war. We have been losing UAVs over and near Iran for the last couple of years. Some have been shot down, some have been downed due to maintenance issues. And yet we still aren't at war. The only difference with this one is that it was in international airspace, where it had every right to be.
edit on 11/9/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


They had no right to shoot at it but people are acting like they killed somebody. It's not really a big deal.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


It depends on what they shot at it with that determines whether this was a fail or not. Gun shots aren't anything like in the movies. They are extremely hard to pull off, and there's a chance of having target fixation and flying into the target you are supposed to be shooting at. The gun has an extremely limited range, and a narrow window to hit with. Unless you have an advanced HUD that does your lead computing, for you, you're going to miss 8 times out of 10.


Add to that the fact that a Predator is a relatively small target, compared to any fighter or bomber that most pilots train to shoot down, and you have a miss.


Ooo! Great dog-fight apologetics there Zaphod. (snark)

"Weapons-aiming system, providing targeting data for ground munitions, as well as the targeting of aircraft in VMC: the Klen-PS laser rangefinder utilises a glass porthole in the aircraft's nose and is perhaps the most notable item of avionics. It provides a laser target designation capability whereby the pilot locks the designator onto a target through his gunsight allowing launch of a laser-guided missile and using the Klen-PS to guide it. Dropping a laser-guided bomb would be more difficult, however, given the porthole’s forward view. This suggests that Su-25s would use "buddy designation" i.e. one aircraft standing off a safe distance to illuminate a target while the other attacked it."

With a couple of 30mm cannons this low speed close support aircraft (which is equiped with air to air missles) should have easily been able to take out a drone.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by palg1
 


They fired the gun at it. Firing a gun from one plane at another is extremely difficult when you have a HUD that computes lead point. When you're using a ground attack plane in a mission it wasn't meant for, it's even harder. It doesn't matter if they had laser designation or not, they used the gun.

The fact that the Predator is so slow makes it harder, not easier. You have a relatively fast mover taking on a slow mover. They would have to have everything dragging (flaps, gear, etc) to get down to a speed where they could have a relatively easy gun shot at the Predator, and then you run into the problem of stalling when you try to get the gun on target.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


No, it isn't. It's not the first time it's happened, and it won't be the last. The only problem that I have with it is that it happened outside their airspace.






top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join