British Plane shot down by US missiles - Page 2

molly bloom · March 23, 2003, 22:14

Clearly American technology has progressed from the days of the U.S.S. Vincennes, and the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet. Now, they can lock on to allied craft, and shoot them down too.

Vorsprung durch technik.

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 22:15

Gee you're so funny molly.

molly bloom · March 23, 2003, 22:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Gee you're so funny molly.

I bow to your rapier wit, Teddy.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 23, 2003, 22:18

i'm not the one supporting the invasion of another country based on reasons which can be put in context with lots of other countries. you are the one being a hypocrite by supporting a war on one country, but not on another who have commited the same wrongs. on top of that, you speak cheap words which you have no idea about.

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 22:19

Oh and you do?

Tell us then wise Oracle!

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 22:20

double

ravagon · March 23, 2003, 22:22

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom
Clearly American technology has progressed from the days of the U.S.S. Vincennes, and the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet.

In light of recent events any Iranian (or other) "civilian" aircraft stupid enough to fly anywhere near a battlegroup in wartime could well be taken down.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 23, 2003, 22:23

you talking to me ted? because if you want me to answer, then you have to at least make sense.

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 22:28

You don't got anything.

That's why you can't answer. You're an idiot.

I gave my condolenses to the guy(s) that got shot down and you climbed on your [little] high horse, projected, and tried to seize some moral ground that only you can claim.

You tell others they don't know about sacrifice when you yourself don't know jack about it either.

A cop died once. I give my condolenses. I've never been a cop. So I guess by your logic that makes my opinion in that situation crap, huh tough guy?!

Not. No go back under your little bridge.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 23, 2003, 22:37

Quote:

I gave my condolenses to the guy(s) that got shot down and you climbed on your [little] high horse, projected, and tried to seize some moral ground that only you can claim.

Yep, I'm climbing on the same horse that you pro warriors use. I guess when I use it, its little, but when you do, it justifies everything.
Hyprocrite

Quote:

You tell others they don't know about sacrifice when you yourself don't know jack about it either.

Which is why I didn't say anything about making sacrifices.

Quote:

A cop died once. I give my condolenses. I've never been a cop. So I guess by your logic that makes my opinion in that situation crap, huh tough guy?!

Easy for you to 'give your condolenses.' At least you didn't talk about all the sacrifices that he had to make to keep you safe. Maybe you are getting dumber as you age. I never said that you had to be a soldier to have an opinion about that situation. I said you shouldn't talk about 'sacrifices' you arent there.

Quote:

Not. Now go back under your little bridge.

Arn't you a little old to be believing in fairy tales?

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 23:03

Your whole argument is all based on projection. You're making assumptions about what I think but you have no clue, do you? You're just throwing preconceived notions around and attributing them to me.

We call that setting up a strawman.

Way to go.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 23, 2003, 23:08

your post is what I call 'ignoring the argument because you lost and you don't have a clue how to fight back so you go off on a tangent'

maybe you should change your beliefs if you cant defend them

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 23:11

You don't even KNOW what my beliefs are!

I'm glad you can attribute all those beliefs to me from a post that says, "Sorry Brits."

You are a mind reader!

Lawrence of Arabia · March 23, 2003, 23:17

again, way off the topic of talking about sacrifices when you dont have a clue. keep on spinning the bs to keep everyone away from the real subject at hand. now its flying so thick, i can barely see through it.

and btw, just because you cant argue your point against someone else, it doesnt make them an oracle or a mind reader.

Ted Striker · March 23, 2003, 23:22

Oh so you DO have a clue about those sacrifices? Tell us then!

And again, the point is that you can appreciate the sacrifice that someone else is making. That's the way the world works. We all work together.

By the way, do you go to funerals and plant anti-war signs? Cause that's what you are doing here.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 23, 2003, 23:28

I never said I had a clue. can you show me where I said that I knew about sacrifices?
So why are you making these things up? Is it because you are used to doing that because there is no other way to support your pro war platform? Must be.

And about the last bit, I only do it on Apolyton.

molly bloom · March 24, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon

In light of recent events any Iranian (or other) "civilian" aircraft stupid enough to fly anywhere near a battlegroup in wartime could well be taken down.

The U.S.S. Vincennes was within Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian airbus. The airbus was travelling at 380 knots, at a height of 12 000 feet and climbing. It had taken off from Bandar Abbas airport, and was en route to Dubai- a twice weekly regular flight.

ravagon · March 24, 2003, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom

The U.S.S. Vincennes was within Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian airbus. The airbus was travelling at 380 knots, at a height of 12 000 feet and climbing. It had taken off from Bandar Abbas airport, and was en route to Dubai- a twice weekly regular flight.

The Vincennes wandered into Iranian waters while engaged with Iranian gunboats. The Iranian government, with full knowledge of continuing "incidents" provoked by its navy didn't cancel/postpone or divert the flight.
These both constituted a major component of the shoot-down (The other being the discrepancy between the aircraft profile coming from different sections of the ship - this being the element the US was responsible for).