General Two US military bases in Iraq attacked

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
The entire handling by both the Iranian and Canadian/ American governments. Iran immediately came up with a story that the plane just crashed "These things happen." Canada, Ukraine and anyone else with people on the plane offer help and are told to fuck off, "We'll sort it out we have the black boxes." Then the story started to unfurl "America says it was likely shot down." At which point Iran said it was "physically impossible for that to have happened." Trudeau then has a press conference where he says it was shot down "perhaps accidentally"< Note the very deliberate wording. Shortly after Iran wipes the crash site before anyone can see it and then says "Oh, the black boxes are damaged." If what I heard was correct as of noon yesterday (local time) the Supreme Leader was still denying any foul play whatsoever. Yesterday afternoon the Pompeo has a press conference and confirm what JT said again using the very specific wording of "It might have been shot down by mistake." Then all of a sudden The Supreme Leader says "Oh, I just found out we did fuck up, sorry." It seems a lot more like he was going to deny it forever until he thought "I can say this is an accident? Yeah, I'll do that." If anyone here thinks for a second that a guy who is referred to as the "Supreme Leader" finds things out like this 5 days after they happen, I've got some nice ocean front property in Saskatchewan to sell them.

The reason why the wording by the U.S. and Canadian governments is so important is that if you thought it was probably an accident (which I did until yesterday) When you had a press conference you'd say "Intelligence says the plane was shot down and it was likely an accident." Not "It might have been an accident." That kind of wording is reserved for things that probably didn't happen, not things that probably did. Couple that with the extremely cagey behavior of the Iranians, even by Iranian standards, and you have a situtation where it looks like a civilian liner was intentionally shot down. People are also kind of pretending that Iran might not have known what was in their own airspace at the time they launched a missile strike. That in itself is kind of absurd.



That to me is the only shred of doubt is I don't know why you'd do it. The only tenuous link I can make is that it was a Ukrainian airline. I don't doubt the Russians would like the the Ukraine to get involved with one of their allies who they could then support or possibly invade themselves.
Great post. Indeed, it's messy as fuck. I have no idea what actually happened, but when things like this are so messy, narratives flip-flopping and changing by the day, evidence scrubbed, right in the middle of a massive geo-poilitcal conflict where the 2 sides are ALREADY involved in assassinations, attacks, and threats of war... I'd say its fair to say that NONE of it should be considered credible or reliable. Seriously how can you trust any statements from anyone at this point? The chances that something else entirely happened, and that what we are seeing are the 2 sides scrambling on how they hope to frame whatever the fuck happened for the public I think is high.

Bottom line we don't know shit, and all we can do is BELIEVE one report or another if we choose to.

I think the truth will be much clearer down the road when we see the aftermath and result of all this. For now I think what actually happened is likely so far under the bullshit we probably won't be able to find it for a while, if ever.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
@conor mcgregor nut hugger so you think the truth is simple and obvious, clearly to be found?
Plane was shot down
We know which missiles were used
We know where the missile was launched from roughly

We know there was an attempted cover-up

We know there's now an admission of guilt, comically within half a day of wiping the site, suggesting some very scattered planning here. Either movements back and forth from the top or left and right hand competing and finally on the same page.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
Plane was shot down
We know which missiles were used
We know where the missile was launched from roughly

We know there was an attempted cover-up

We know there's now an admission of guilt, comically within half a day of wiping the site, suggesting some very scattered planning here. Either movements back and forth from the top or left and right hand competing and finally on the same page.
Fair post.

One question I haven't seen an answer for yet; was the plane flying outside normal passenger flight routes? Were they in a no-fly zone? Have they given a reason yet why that plane was flagged or what they mistook it for?

I am aware my skepticism about these sort of things runs deeper than most... Hopefully you are right, just a simple mistake lets move on... I just think in times of war its good to be aware that a fuckload of lies and coverups are likely all over the place. There was so much bullshit re; 9/11 and WMDs and OBL etc etc etc shit ran so deep man after that I don't care what narrative the MSM weaves I still think at least some degree of skepticism is always warranted. I don't think war is ever clear and neat, there is always context behind and beyond what we can see.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
One question I haven't seen an answer for yet; was the plane flying outside normal passenger flight routes? Were they in a no-fly zone?
The Bellingcat crowdsource says no.
Just taking off in the usual fashion.


Have they given a reason yet why that plane was flagged or what they mistook it for?

Iran Just said that on the radar it triggered defense systems. They haven't given more detail.

Hopefully you are right, just a simple mistake lets move on.
I haven't promoted that. Just that there's lots that we do know and lots more that we will know. That's all I'm really getting at.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
The Bellingcat crowdsource says no.
Just taking off in the usual fashion.





Iran Just said that on the radar it triggered defense systems. They haven't given more detail.



I haven't promoted that. Just that there's lots that we do know and lots more that we will know. That's all I'm really getting at.
I appreciate your rational perspective, and thanks for sharing what you've found so far

But tell me honestly - do the first 2 answers in your post seem credible? Just taking off in usual fashion? 'Just triggered' defence systems? In a time of escalated tensions and possible war, we're just supposed to believe that these 2 weird anomalies just happened by freak coincidence even though these things basically never happen, and it's totally unrelated at all to the other crazy tensions? That is the narrative being offered at the moment, no?

Believe what you like, I guess
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
I appreciate your rational perspective

But tell me honestly - do the first 2 answers in your post seem credible? Just taking off in usual fashion? 'Just triggered' defence systems? In a time of escalated tensions and possible war, we're just supposed to believe that these 2 weird anomalies just happened by coincidence, even though these things basically never happen?

Believe what you like, I guess

I do think that the plane was taking off in the usual fashion because that seems most obvious and common and there are third-party sources saying so.


I ran shooting it down in that target could be because they're idiots. Or worse there could be malfeasance.

I usually suspect people are idiots.
One time a US aircraft didn't turn on its transponder flew back home base and got shot down by our own air defenses.

I don't know anything about Iranian air defenses. How much is automated and how much is manpower. It's really hard to say but I will tell you the military is not some sophisticated machine. It's a system of systems that moves forward fallible every step of the way but the system is designed to overcome this errors. It is not designed to prevent all errors.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
I do think that the plane was taking off in the usual fashion because that seems most obvious and common and there are third-party sources saying so.


I ran shooting it down in that target could be because they're idiots. Or worse there could be malfeasance.

I usually suspect people are idiots.
One time a US aircraft didn't turn on its transponder flew back home base and got shot down by our own air defenses.

I don't know anything about Iranian air defenses. How much is automated and how much is manpower. It's really hard to say but I will tell you the military is not some sophisticated machine. It's a system of systems that moves forward fallible every step of the way but the system is designed to overcome this errors. It is not designed to prevent all errors.
they're using Tor SAMs, which does have an 'automatic' mode. It scans for radar signatures and shoots at anything which doesn't have a "Friendly" transponder. Most likely, they mistakenly brought it online in "auto" and smoked the first plane that entered their cordon. Why the SAM didn't detect the commercial transponder is a whole other can of worms.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
Passenger planes getting shot down after being mistaken for enemy fighter jets is nothing new.

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 - Wikipedia

It's the most rational conclusion we can draw until we have evidence that proves otherwise.
ok that’s 2 examples in a 30+ year timespan, neither without their own share of reasonable skepticism. Any more?

you know how many planes fly every day and don’t get shot down? Over 30 years that number becomes astronomical. You are suggesting that what is basically a 1/billion odds is ‘the most rational conclusion’?

it’s more likely for me to get hit by lightning multiple times I would guess
 
M

member 3289

Guest
ok that’s 2 examples in a 30+ year timespan, neither without their own share of reasonable skepticism. Any more?

you know how many planes fly every day and don’t get shot down? Over 30 years that number becomes astronomical. You are suggesting that what is basically a 1/billion odds is the most rational conclusion?

it’s more likely for me to get hit by lightning multiple times I would guess
Ok m8
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
91,095
ok that’s 2 examples in a 30+ year timespan, neither without their own share of reasonable skepticism. Any more?

you know how many planes fly every day and don’t get shot down? Over 30 years that number becomes astronomical. You are suggesting that what is basically a 1/billion odds is the most rational conclusion?

it’s more likely for me to get hit by lightning multiple times I would guess

It doesn't really matter that their passenger jets being mislabeled.

Bad shoots happen all the time in today's modern world where you don't see the target With your own eyes most of the time. Old dog fights are gone. You're a blip and a signature on a screen

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia

The odds of something going wrong increase astronomically when you're in the middle of operations..
You can't compare peacetime planes flying in peacetime airspace.

Maybe they did shoot it down on purpose. Maybe their links to Russia have a master plan involving the ukrainians. That's the only geopolitics involved here that I can figure out. And then that doesn't make any sense because you would then have a much more sophisticated cover-up.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
Of course. I posted 2 of the more noteworthy examples (one being a recent example and the other being related to US-Iran conflict).

List of airliner shootdown incidents - Wikipedia
Thanks, interesting link.

Still... do the math. Research how many commercial flights PER DAY there are. I've found stats quoting OVER 100,000 flights PER DAY on average. Multiply by 365, multiply by the 30+ YEARS your link quoted, you start to get 10-digit numbers.

The odds of this happening by pure accident are literally 1/BILLIONS. But we are expected to believe this is a credible explanation because known liars told us so.

This is also assuming that every one of the incidents on that list are just accidents, and zero political warfare influences were involved.



I'm not saying its totally impossible. MAYBE it was just an accident. I'm just calling out that its not entirely responsible to just believe this explanation at face value and say its 'the most rational explanation', when the mathematical odds are screaming the opposite.
 
Last edited:
M

member 3289

Guest
Thanks, interesting link.

Still... do the math. Research how many commercial flights PER DAY there are. I've found stats quoting OVER 100,000 flights PER DAY on average. Multiply by 365, multiply by the 30+ YEARS your link quoted, you start to get 10-digit numbers.

The odds of this happening by pure accident are still crazy astronomical. But we are expected to believe because known liars told us so.


I'm not saying its totally impossible. MAYBE it was just an accident. I'm just calling out that its not entirely responsible to just believe this explanation at face value and say its 'the most rational explanation', when the mathematical odds are screaming the opposite.
As Splinty @Splinty said

The odds of something going wrong increase astronomically when you're in the middle of operations..
You can't compare peacetime planes flying in peacetime airspace.
If the world's airspace was largely conflict-heavy rather than largely peaceful like it is now, the rate of shootdown incidents would be exponentialized.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
As Splinty @Splinty said



If the world's airspace was largely conflict-heavy rather than largely peaceful like it is now, the rate of shootdown incidents would be exponentialized.
That's true. I'd still be curious to do the math, what really are the odds of such an 'error'.

POSSIBLE vs PROBABLE ?


View: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1013088775973556224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-175868406035002861.ampproject.net%2F1912180046560%2Fframe.html
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
Plane was shot down
We know which missiles were used
We know where the missile was launched from roughly

We know there was an attempted cover-up

We know there's now an admission of guilt, comically within half a day of wiping the site, suggesting some very scattered planning here. Either movements back and forth from the top or left and right hand competing and finally on the same page.
Ok, I'm gonna be a jerk one more time :D just to play devil's advocate;

Do you really KNOW the plane was shot down? Or have you just been TOLD by known liars?

Do you really KNOW for sure if ANY of the supposed KNOWN facts in your post are confidently and reliably true/proven, or have you just been TOLD by known liars?

I understand that skepticism can be taken way too far, admit I often do take it too far, and honestly appreciate your rationality to balance me out. I just think its really crazy to NOT be super skeptical at this point and to not assume there is much context being left out and bullshit being slung in political PR warfare. To just believe the MSM narrative of the day because they all tell you so matter-of-factly, historically to me doesn't mean jack shit. I've seen too many stories woven about these things that turned out to be total bullshit.

The majority of the civilized world came together on the 'same page' before for lots of things historically that turned out to be false.
Consensus in the media does not = proof imo

We are on the edge of WAR - to think this incident is completely unrelated, and to chalk it up to just a 'freak accident' I think is simply terribly naive at this point.

I'm out. Will do more research.

Appreciate the thread and everyone bringing links and thoughts, whatever perspective you may have. There is much info to still go through and much at stake :(
 
Last edited:

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
No idea what you're on about since you're trying some truther equivalency in here too. You're always trying to twist my words into something extra and then sprinkle in a little bit of gotcha.

No one said the crash site would tell you anything more than what they've admitted. The admission is brand new.Just that wiping the site and admitting it was incongruous. They wasted their cover-up effort.

All I suggested that was possible it was sloppy as shit and in the immediate aftermath of the plane being downed some branch of government may have been looking to rapidly clean up before The State department portion of government got data and gave an admission. All I suggested was that incongruous actions might have had sloppy multiple people working on it in different portions of government. Nothing I said has anything to do about shooting it down differently just a statement of observation of the waste of the attempted cover-up.

Otherwise yes, as you said, it could be much more nefarious. They shot it down, immediately knew they shot it down, reported that to the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah directly ordered the cleanup. data points start coming in they realize that can't get away with it in the Ayatollah changes course.
Haha. Relax, guy. I interpreted your 'cover up at one level and admit at another' to mean you were suggesting that the admission was a limited hangout and the 'wiping' was to cover up something beyond what they admitted.

The 'wiping' I thought you meant was akin to what truthers claimed were US cover ups of missile strikes on the Pentagon and that Virginian field rather than planes (which was insane) because the government took all the plane debris. Thus the 'wiping' in this case was beyond wiping the missile strike evidence they just admitted.

Apparently I misinterpreted and it seems we are in agreement.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Ok, I'm gonna be a jerk one more time :D just to play devil's advocate;

Do you really KNOW the plane was shot down? Or have you just been TOLD by known liars?

Do you really KNOW for sure if ANY of the supposed KNOWN facts in your post are confidently and reliably true/proven, or have you just been TOLD by known liars?

I understand that skepticism can be taken way too far, admit I often do take it too far, and honestly appreciate your rationality to balance me out. I just think its really crazy to NOT be super skeptical at this point and to not assume there is much context being left out and bullshit being slung in political PR warfare. To just believe the MSM narrative of the day because they all tell you so matter-of-factly, historically to me doesn't mean jack shit. I've seen too many stories woven about these things that turned out to be total bullshit.

The majority of the civilized world came together on the 'same page' before for lots of things historically that turned out to be false.
Consensus in the media does not = proof imo

We are on the edge of WAR - to think this incident is completely unrelated, and to chalk it up to just a 'freak accident' I think is simply terribly naive at this point.

I'm out. Will do more research.

Appreciate the thread and everyone bringing links and thoughts, whatever perspective you may have. There is much info to still go through and much at stake :(
i know what a plane getting hit by a SAM sounds like, and I've heard jet engines blow up.

I heard a SAM hitting a large aircraft.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
Sheepdog @CreativeClassMauler is going to have a stroke when he logs back in.

What makes you think that? also what benefit could there be to shoot it down on purpose?
Unless we are talking about the potential for a psychopath rogue commander, which is what the Vincennes captain (who shot down the Iranian airliner) was accused of being, which I guess is plausible but extremely unlikely, it's not worth taking seriously.

What, they're going to carefully calibrate their missile strikes on American bases, and reportedly warn the Iraqis in advance (knowing the Iraqis will then warn the US), to avoid casualties but then they are going to shoot down a Ukrainian airliner comprised mostly of ethnic Iranians, thus causing an absolute geopolitical nightmare for themselves and undermine their international support?

Sounds legit.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,074
Unless we are talking about the potential for a psychopath rogue commander, which is what the Vincennes captain (who shot down the Iranian airliner) was accused of being, which I guess is plausible but extremely unlikely, it's not worth taking seriously.

What, they're going to carefully calibrate their missile strikes on American bases, and reportedly warn the Iraqis in advance (knowing the Iraqis will then warn the US), to avoid casualties but then they are going to shoot down a Ukrainian airliner comprised mostly of ethnic Iranians, thus causing an absolute geopolitical nightmare for themselves and undermine their international support?

Sounds legit.
Strawman scenario

there are so many possibilities.

Rambo John J @The Boatman FTW for posting just one.