Did Iran shoot down their own F-14?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
the pilot faked the crash and his death as a way to secretly flee the country.




posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

mbkennel
If Osama bin Laden's group had been flying military aircraft in an attack against exactly the same targets there would have been a huge response, obviously.


Their equivalent would be hijacked passenger planes, unless you wanted them to buy fighter aircraft on the black market or something? You don't think 'the terrorist' would prefer to have trained pilots and fighter/bombers as well or do you really believe that they are being funded by government entities that could or would make that possible?

Why did both the Russian and Israeli intelligence service give very specific warnings about such activities being in the works for the weeks around 9-11; perhaps that had something to do with the defense establishments scheduled drills being planned for the first half of September?

Either way it's ridiculous to blame your self declared enemies for fighting in ways that does not suit your organizational strengths. I think the Iranians at least understands that even thought the Israeli's could win a direct/obvious confrontation they would never fight that way unless caught unawares.



And attacking the Pentagon, and potentially the Capitol certainly counts as "national security infrastructure under actual threat".


Not really... The pentagon was never in serious danger from a a single conventional aircraft or the conventional bombs it was likely to carry and nothing important is decided in the white house; a great way to seriously antagonize the organizations and few people who get presidents elected but not much more than that. Issues are certainly deliberated there and they might discuss how they want to carry out the corporate capitalist agenda but the globalist agenda would go on without a white house and the people in it.

I think you are still confusing the stated goals of the national security apparatus with the actual goals ( making the USA safe vs making the world safe for corporate capitalism) and the puppets in the white house and pentagon with the people who decide what they will do and to whom they will do it.


There wasn't a huge military response because the terrorists infiltrated some of the thousands of civilian flights every day, and historically hijackers had not previously engaged in suicidal military attacks with the aircraft but were interested in media-attention to political messages.


Yes no one knows anything about kamikaze type tactics... Are you not familiar with the history of warfare or am i misunderstanding you here? Where did the air marshals go? Budget cuts to fund foreign wars? The problem with all of this is that non of it really IS unexpected and if the airlines/insurers were not willing to carry the cost the government should have. There is no reason on earth why there should not be two armed men on every flight while the US government spends billions on defense.



There's too much juvenile anti-USA hate to parallel juvenile pro-USA jingoism.


The difference being that the oft juvenile ranting of the one side is justified while the ranting of the oft juvenile other group might only be translated to German&displaced to the late 1930's ( sorry!) to fit on what could have been a Hitler youth forum. In fact i believe they were better educated as the goal there was at least partly to create a 'superior race' while the goal with the US citizens is merely to use them while they are available.

I do not think anyone is served by lowering the tone of discussion but given the baseness of the assumption inherent in the talk and the belief, of large group of US citizens, that they can and should partake in controlling the world trough force of arms i am not sure what can be done. Perhaps i should focus my energy on arguing for US education reform so that we should not have to spend our time arguing with misinformed jingoist? How would i go about that given the knowledge that that that is in fact one of the aims of the US education system; that the people being created by it is meant to think and act this way? Hell education systems the world over is pretty much geared to serve the aims of local industry and societal/cultural norms so i do sometimes wonder why i get angry at people who are acting no worse or better than can be expected given their conditioning...

Anyways i hope there is some therapeutic value in typing this out instead of just mulling in over in my mind.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Why are people ripping Iran for shooting down a friendly?

It's not like the US armed forces haven't done similar.

Get real people. Accidents happen.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
or was it a F-14 drone flown by Isrealis? I would think one way to surprise an enemy is to fly under their targets colors to provide confusion ....

just a thought ....
edit on 7-11-2013 by fnpmitchreturns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Frankly, not much can be done about 1970's U.S. policy of blocking Soviet expansion by any and all means. even overthrowing 'democratically elected gov'ts like Iran.

Side point: when is the last time you've been confident that a middle east, "democratically elected" gov't was, in fact, an honest and fair election? personally I have yet to see one. So I see no reason to give Iran that status anymore than Egypt or the rest, for that matter.

It seems like that mantra has been over-used, from my understanding of the "politics" of the region.

The Soviets and the need to control mid-east oil, for that matter, isn't what it used to be, to say the least.

The U.S. was FAR behind, both in time and action, the British and the Euros in both Egypt and Libya, and that suggests that the U.S. is either tired of it all/has less interest in the region.

I see no "pipeline' deals with Afghanistan, no cheap oil contract with the Iraqis. none of the old mantra/template that so many have sworn was the motive.

Perhaps, just once, it's as simple as it seems. the Domino Effect of nukes has got to stop. tough luck for Iran that it starts with them.

It will be stopped...one way or the other....



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

StellarX

ATSWATCHER
This IS what actually happened on 9/11 Stell: www.youtube.com...


Anyone who claims to know what actually happened on 9-11 should in my opinion be ignored; being confused ( despite much effort to be less so) is a much more appropriate state of mind and i don't expect to be relieved of feeling that way any year soon... I will let you know what i think if i ever get to watch more 9-11 'documentaries'...

Stellar


I REALLY think you should watch it, AND the other video's of people interviewing her, I assure you, you will TRULY be impressed with her presintation, and she'll open your mind to things that the "other" 9/11 truth exposers" didn't talk about.

BTW how've you been doing I sent you a P.M., I haven't talked with you scince 08?
edit on 7-11-2013 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

nwtrucker
Side point: when is the last time you've been confident that a middle east, "democratically elected" gov't was, in fact, an honest and fair election? personally I have yet to see one.


Golda Meir won fair and square.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

StellarX

mbkennel
If Osama bin Laden's group had been flying military aircraft in an attack against exactly the same targets there would have been a huge response, obviously.


Their equivalent would be hijacked passenger planes, unless you wanted them to buy fighter aircraft on the black market or something? You don't think 'the terrorist' would prefer to have trained pilots and fighter/bombers as well or do you really believe that they are being funded by government entities that could or would make that possible?


You miss my point. You are asserting that the US authorities knowingly let terrorists engage in mass murder in their own country, including partial destruction of the US military headquarters. You suggested the lack of immediate military response as evidence.

I don't believe so at all, and the lack of immediate military response was the obvious one that they weren't aware of the military dimensions of the attack until it was completed and they don't have orders or policy to fire on civilian commercial aircraft in their own country.



Why did both the Russian and Israeli intelligence service give very specific warnings about such activities being in the works for the weeks around 9-11; perhaps that had something to do with the defense establishments scheduled drills being planned for the first half of September?


Probably not.


Either way it's ridiculous to blame your self declared enemies for fighting in ways that does not suit your organizational strengths.


I think it's ridiculous to blame US authorities for acquiescing intentionally to murder of their own countrymen. It's not ridiculous to blame them for taking advantage of the situation to advance pre-existing political aims. Reason being that there is no evidence for the first and there is evidnece for the second.





And attacking the Pentagon, and potentially the Capitol certainly counts as "national security infrastructure under actual threat".


Not really... The pentagon was never in serious danger from a a single conventional aircraft or the conventional bombs it was likely to carry


What counts as 'serious danger' ? I seem to remember not just danger but actual damage.


and nothing important is decided in the white house;


fascinating


a great way to seriously antagonize the organizations and few people who get presidents elected but not much more than that. Issues are certainly deliberated there and they might discuss how they want to carry out the corporate capitalist agenda but the globalist agenda would go on without a white house and the people in it.

I think you are still confusing the stated goals of the national security apparatus with the actual goals ( making the USA safe vs making the world safe for corporate capitalism) and the puppets in the white house and pentagon with the people who decide what they will do and to whom they will do it.


There wasn't a huge military response because the terrorists infiltrated some of the thousands of civilian flights every day, and historically hijackers had not previously engaged in suicidal military attacks with the aircraft but were interested in media-attention to political messages.


Yes no one knows anything about kamikaze type tactics... Are you not familiar with the history of warfare or am i misunderstanding you here?


Kamikaze planes were military manufactured aircraft crewed by military pilots attacking military targets.



There did the air marshals go? Budget cuts to fund foreign wars? The problem with all of this is that non of it really IS unexpected and if the airlines/insurers were not willing to carry the cost the government should have. There is no reason on earth why there should not be two armed men on every flight while the US government spends billions on defense.



There's too much juvenile anti-USA hate to parallel juvenile pro-USA jingoism.


The difference being that the oft juvenile ranting of the one side is justified while the ranting of the oft juvenile other group might only be translated to German&displaced to the late 1930's ( sorry!) to fit on what could have been a Hitler youth forum.


Do you believe that any of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney knew specifically with high confidence that foreign terrorists would hijack civilian aircraft to make lethal attacks against civilian and military targets, and that it was the considered and intentional policy of the US to let them happen for the purpose of advancing globalist corporate capitalism?

yes or no.

That's what I seemed to interpret from what you said.
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   

nwtrucker
Frankly, not much can be done about 1970's U.S. policy of blocking Soviet expansion by any and all means. even overthrowing 'democratically elected gov'ts like Iran.

Side point: when is the last time you've been confident that a middle east, "democratically elected" gov't was, in fact, an honest and fair election? personally I have yet to see one. So I see no reason to give Iran that status anymore than Egypt or the rest, for that matter.


The SU ( and then the USSR) made some attempts at expansion up to the second world war era but after that my personal belief is that it can, as compared to USA/NATO/Europe, be described as quite legitimate self defense measures against western trade and general imperial dominance. As for what i think about middle eastern elections few of them have nukes&aircraft carriers and presidents ( twice selected as in Bush's case) who claims that god told them to do this or that. As you point out it is practically impossible to expect truly democratic elections ( presuming some reasonable absence of feigned or real impending disasters to distort the outcome) in such instability and blatant multi-national manipulation i too are wary of calling anything that; if we can not have even generally representative democratic outcomes in the United States so it stands to reason it might also be difficult elsewhere.

Once they have actual democratically elected presidents and the military/economic power to affect their region i will obviously pay them the same attention as i do the US national security regime.


It seems like that mantra has been over-used, from my understanding of the "politics" of the region.
The Soviets and the need to control mid-east oil, for that matter, isn't what it used to be, to say the least.


Certainly not and since it was not in my reading the main motive force behind the US presence ( or the previous British and other imperial interest) in the region it stands to reason that the absence of the soviet threat and actual democracy in the region will not change the US national security/corporate interest there.


The U.S. was FAR behind, both in time and action, the British and the Euros in both Egypt and Libya, and that suggests that the U.S. is either tired of it all/has less interest in the region.

I see no "pipeline' deals with Afghanistan, no cheap oil contract with the Iraqis. none of the old mantra/template that so many have sworn was the motive.


Which makes sense in the context i provided.... The motive powers behind the Reagan's, Bush's and Clinton would certainly allow them to build their oil pipelines there ( and perhaps thus gain extra traction in their specific republican/democratic faction) and they could then use it as superficial economic or security justification but as it now seems clear the same military investment in deep drilling and like areas may have yielded as much or more oil on the US mainland. It stands to reason that the real motive force is global corporate access to these regions and since they only need access to ultimately gain monopoly ( by leverage of global assets) there is no real 'rush' as much as there is a need to ensure that countries are not allowed to set independent economic paths that may bar access to their markets in the medium term. Since they are not sure how long their access to the pretty massive resources of the US armed forces/state will last they have obviously been hard at work, while the good times last, to change the world in their image in the post WWII era.


Perhaps, just once, it's as simple as it seems. the Domino Effect of nukes has got to stop. tough luck for Iran that it starts with them.

It will be stopped...one way or the other....


But it really is not about nukes.... It would not matter if ALL countries had nukes or earth destroying weapons as long as the wealthy corporate interest in the world felt they had equal access to all markets of the world. As long as they could exploit everyone equally/as much as they can stand they seem to feel secure in the knowing that they will somehow be able to ride out whatever storms the massive growing inequality in the world must ultimately result in...

Stellar



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

mbkennel
You miss my point. You are asserting that the US authorities knowingly let terrorists engage in mass murder in their own country, including partial destruction of the US military headquarters.


Partial destruction of the pentagon? What i am asserting is that the US government had the same level of information about the likely consequences of their actions on 9-11 as they did about the likely consequences about their invasions of Iraq&Afghanistan. They knew Iraq had no WOMD and that the Taliban could be induced to give up OBL and other accused with the proper bribes&guarantees ( the Taliban were willing to give him up before the war if evidence could be presented that he was responsible and were willing to give him up again in exchange for a end to hostilities once started ) thus saving hundreds of thousands of wounded and dead American citizens and a few million Iraqi and Afghan lives. The US national security state does not seem to care about the lives of it's citizens beyond how they can be made to serve corporate or state interests.


You suggested the lack of immediate military response as evidence.
I don't believe so at all, and the lack of immediate military response was the obvious one that they weren't aware of the military dimensions of the attack until it was completed and they don't have orders or policy to fire on civilian commercial aircraft in their own country.


The facts are quite different as indicated by the Norad spokesman at the time who claimed that they "routinely intercept aircraft"; as far as my knowledge goes the FAA must alert Norad and then provides tracking information to intercept aircraft when ANY plane misses a 'fix point' along their filed flight plan. Basically any plane who deviates from it's flight plan can expect to have a fighter escort after 10-15 minutes and hijacking with the intent of flying into buildings is thus rendered pretty ridiculous; unless you know that things will be different on the day. Having said that maybe the hijackers didn't know any of these things being as know out drinking and conducting themselves in generally unexpected ways.


Probably not.


Well it would be quite a great deal to expect most uninformed or misinformed people to believe but since you have no reason to be either could you elaborate?


I think it's ridiculous to blame US authorities for acquiescing intentionally to murder of their own countrymen. It's not ridiculous to blame them for taking advantage of the situation to advance pre-existing political aims. Reason being that there is no evidence for the first and there is evidnece for the second.


As i described earlier the usage of agent orange, depleted uranium armor and shells for tanks, the use of untested vaccines before the first invasion of Iraq and the like strongly suggests that the US national security establishment does not feel the same way about it's servicemen, which it at least in theory at least should, than you do. Since it is a hard thing for most people to accept that their governments might use and abuse their services i do not blame you but given that you are on this forum i do expect you to eventually see as much. Starting a war there when there is no threat to domestic security ( actually even when there is but that hardly matters when it comes to US actions ) is murder by default and why it is the pre-eminent war crime as well.



What counts as 'serious danger' ? I seem to remember not just danger but actual damage.


The pentagon is structured and armored in such a way that a large majority of whoever is inside will survive even the close detonation of a tactical or small ( 200-500 KT ) nuclear weapon) so that is what i mean with 'no serious danger'. If there was ANY warning of attack no one would have died in the pentagon.


fascinating


Glad you find it so and i am always happy to eleborate on why that must be so to even begin to explain why the world works the way we can observe it too.


Kamikaze planes were military manufactured aircraft crewed by military pilots attacking military targets.


And since 'the terrorist' have no state backers of consequence ( which is in some ways surprising to me) they can not build those planes. The main reason the Japanese and later Germans had to rely on military manufacturing&design is because no other type of aircraft had much of a chance to reach the intended targets whereas the 'terrorist' targets were in fact best reached by the type of planes employed.; it would have been ridiculous to attempt to steal military jets from military airfields for the simple reason that they were very small.... It would be like suggesting the Japanese build large 4 engine bomber aircraft so they would be able to do more damage when they hit aircraft carriers which at their speeds they probably never would have...

This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous anyways and both you and i know that the US government knew that such attacks were not only possible but the simplest and most direct method to attack us infrastructure.


Do you believe that any of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney knew specifically with high confidence that foreign terrorists would hijack civilian aircraft to make lethal attacks against civilian and military targets, and that it was the considered and intentional policy of the US to let them happen for the purpose of advancing globalist corporate capitalism?
yes or no.


I guess i shall try to qualify and then answer:

1: I dont believe that any of them had to know or knew but i believe they had sufficient information to know of the possiblitiy of 'terrorist' doing it in that time frame and could have been involved if it was staged by US forces to get their foreign plans started.

2: As for the globalist agenda this can be made to fit but it could also have been more of a nationalist diversion from such plans.. The 'evidence' ( determining what should serve and so forth ) can be problematic in it's own right and depending on who really did know what and when you can follow the trail in many directions.

Essentially i believe them all capable of killing American citizens in cold blood ( that is what starting a war boils down too) if they determined that it would serve their concept of country/nation best. Either way i think the attack was allowed to succeed by complicity somewhere in the US defense establishment the only question being if it was organized from the top down, for reasons stated, or from the middle up as some kind of economic or military coup by foreign or domestic military or intelligence organizations; i don't think it was organized in Afghanistan by OBL or carried out by muslim extremist as the FBI does not think so and i have not yet found a reason to disagree with them on it.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

StellarX
The facts are quite different as indicated by the Norad spokesman at the time who claimed that they "routinely intercept aircraft"; as far as my knowledge goes the FAA must alert Norad and then provides tracking information to intercept aircraft when ANY plane misses a 'fix point' along their filed flight plan. Basically any plane who deviates from it's flight plan can expect to have a fighter escort after 10-15 minutes and hijacking with the intent of flying into buildings is thus rendered pretty ridiculous; unless you know that things will be different on the day. Having said that maybe the hijackers didn't know any of these things being as know out drinking and conducting themselves in generally unexpected ways.


Wrong. Aircraft routinely miss navigation points and aren't intercepted. The only "automatic intercept" is when they enter the ADIZ zone and either don't have clearance, or aren't in communications with the right people, or they enter a restricted airspace zone. Every other time the FAA has to request that NORAD launch.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Zaphod58
Wrong.


Not sure that i am 'wrong' but i guess i could have phrased it differently or elaborated...


Aircraft routinely miss navigation points and aren't intercepted. The only "automatic intercept" is when they enter the ADIZ zone and either don't have clearance, or aren't in communications with the right people, or they enter a restricted airspace zone. Every other time the FAA has to request that NORAD launch.


Yes. What i should have stated is that under most circumstances , other than such as you describe, the FAA must contact NORAD when flights go off course and NORAD will then make the decision to scramble from this or that base after requesting/filing flight plans for the interceptions; the military must normally file flights plans just line everyone else.

Thanks for correcting me

Stellar
edit on 13-11-2013 by StellarX because: (no reason given)





 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join