-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Iran admits to shooting down Ukrainian airliner
- Thread starter FriskyCanuck
- Start date
That doesn't surprise me.
From your straight up making untrue statements in a past thread regarding moderation of language used when crticizing Isreal, to gaslighting people in this thread who do not see the situation as 100% on Iran and no one else, how the hell are you still a mod?! Especially after the moderation team got called out on their shortcomings not long ago...
the only way to solve this is to have a poll to determine the culpability of the soleimani assassination
You are provoking multiple members of this community. Is this seriously how ResetEra's moderators want to run things here? Cause if so, I'm out.
To be fair, this thread has done a pretty good job of stirring shit on its own, poll or no
Answering questions with answers you don't like does not qualify as provocation.
It's Iran's fault because they literally did it and then tried to lie about it. It's America's fault that they created a scenario where this could happen. And no one should be going to war over it.
Also the Soleimani takes are rhetorical and pointless. Saying a military general is no angel because he kills people adds nothing. The part no one will bring up is that all these American adversaries wouldn't be ending any American military (that's the word that's conveniently omitted) lives if America wasn't out there fighting proxy wars to maintain its stranglehold on large sections on the world.
Also the Soleimani takes are rhetorical and pointless. Saying a military general is no angel because he kills people adds nothing. The part no one will bring up is that all these American adversaries wouldn't be ending any American military (that's the word that's conveniently omitted) lives if America wasn't out there fighting proxy wars to maintain its stranglehold on large sections on the world.
A "threat" which almost nobody believes to have been credible, btw. That cannot be overstated.
Yea why did I hit ignore this thread is a trip.
Incoming lock Btw
Pretty terrible timing for them. Whatever good will they had working in their favor is now pretty much evaporated and it's pretty clear they only admitted it because they realized they couldn't cover it up any longer.
Calling Soleimani just a military general really doesn't convey who this man was or the crimes he committed, inside and outside of Iran.
That he stands in opposition to the US doesn't make him a sympathetic figure. I really just don't understand the need to paint him in any way besides the man he was.
But this conversation has clearly run its course, at least from my end.
Can we just respect both points of view? I think Iran is 100% responsible. They panicked and shot the damn plane. Didn't follow protocol of shutting down airspace when they were anticipating American missiles. Blame Trump for tearing jpoca and stirring shit but this could have been avoidable if Iran knew what it was doing. I just can't get myself to defend iran after they killed protestors and covered it up. They tried to cover this as well but it was too late so they are apologizing. Disgusting regime.
No one has made him out to be a sympathetic figure in this thread whatsoever.
It doesn't give the right to an international country assassinating him! This is how wars are started!!
The job of a moderator is to keep a discussion under control, not provoke its community.
If we're going to say assassinating people who comitted war crimes is a ok then I have a list of US figures that might interest Iran including such names as Oliver North.
It's difficult to posit a scenario in which this could be any more Iran's fault.
Trying to pass off any blame for this fuck up is defending Iran's fuck up.
There is no ambiguity in this scenario. It can't be explained by increased tensions caused by Trump, because all of those possibilities are excluded by the situation. No military should have policies and procedures in place that could allow this to happen.
It's the single biggest military fuck up regarding commercial airlines in modern history.
The plane took of from Iran's International Airport.
It was shot down shortly after take off.
It was shot down in Iran airspace.
How does a military fuck up this badly?
Put the plane in Iraq airspace, put it near the border, have it be an incoming flight, change virtually any circumstance and you might be able to point to increased tensions being a cause. But given what we know, there is no reason to accidentally identify this commercial flight as a possible target.
As stupid as it was for Trump to target and kill Soleimani and as much of a walking disaster Trump is, i'm not going to even attempt to defend Iran in what is indefensible.
I don't think people are defending the Iranian government so much as criticizing a framework that is often used to justify American imperialism and intervention. Iran definitely takes the lion's share of the blame for the hit, in my mind, for sure. But American intelligence - such as it is - deciding Soleimani was a threat to be purged led to a hostile situation. They would have to be naive or stupid to believe Iran wouldn't retaliate. They might have taken that risk into account but they still did it.
I mean Soleimani was pretty much a bad guy. What I mean with my post that I guess I should have worded better, is that calls for accountability usually means 'the US can and should bomb anyone anywhere, because they're a threat'. But as they say, every sitting US president has been a war criminal. I'm not saying they should be droning them or something. But if Americans love their accountability of bad guys, how come not even a lawsuit have been filed against them in the International Court.
Yes you did. You said ''the US acted because he killed Americans', implying that you're okay with the US government organizing extrajudicial killings.
Exactly.
A moderator is also a poster, and can engage in debate on thread-related topics the same as anyone. Discussing this is what we're all here for, is it not? They have, as far I saw, articulated their opinion in a calm and composer manner.
What? That's adding a ton of meaning to that statement that simply isn't there. I have only ever said that the assassination was a stupid, overly provocative act.
This seems like a pretty complicated issue and I'm not sure thinking of this in a binary way is the best way to go about it.
If a moderator is to be able to participate in discussions and post things I (and others here) fundamentally can't agree on, it would be nice if the Ignore function could be used against them (barring Threadmarks, etc). Unless they speak on the behalf of the entire team, which I sure as hell hope not.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
The track originated inside Iran. Presumably -- even (especially) in high-tension scenarios -- the Iranian military, as well as the elements that manage its national airspace system, would recognize that. Even if a malfunction occurred and the aircraft in question went NORDO or jerked in such a manner that put its heading on an IRGC target...
... Iran knew what track it was: civilian airliner, UKR flagged, number of souls onboard, originating within Iran with an outbound destination.
This is 100% Iran's fault. Full stop. It's negligence more than anything else. What it suggests to me is that there weren't sufficient protocols in place to establish a proper engagement authority for that kind of aircraft.
You'd think that firing on a civilian airliner -- with Iranian citizens! -- would require approval from the highest levels in the Iranian chain of command. That didn't appear to happen. This suggests to me that either: (1) robust protocols, such as those developed in the U.S. after 9/11, didn't exist; or (2) someone tragically jumped the gun, and that decision had to be informed by a lack of chatter on whatever communications system existed that managed their national airspace.
The track originated inside Iran. Presumably -- even (especially) in high-tension scenarios -- the Iranian military, as well as the elements that manage its national airspace system, would recognize that. Even if a malfunction occurred and the aircraft in question went NORDO or jerked in such a manner that put its heading on an IRGC target...
... Iran knew what track it was: civilian airliner, UKR flagged, number of souls onboard, originating within Iran with an outbound destination.
This is 100% Iran's fault. Full stop. It's negligence more than anything else. What it suggests to me is that there weren't sufficient protocols in place to establish a proper engagement authority for that kind of aircraft.
You'd think that firing on a civilian airliner -- with Iranian citizens! -- would require approval from the highest levels in the Iranian chain of command. That didn't appear to happen. This suggests to me that either: (1) robust protocols, such as those developed in the U.S. after 9/11, didn't exist; or (2) someone tragically jumped the gun, and that decision had to be informed by a lack of chatter on whatever communications system existed that managed their national airspace.
Last edited:
No, they don't. They only look that way if you think the act of killing Soleimani can only be judged on the value of Soleimani as a person, and not the inherent wrongness of the act and the damage it caused in response.
The man was a monster, both inside and outside Iran. Killing him was dumb. Both statements are true.
Guess it isn't a problem if they assassinate one of the U.S.'s members of congress then, huh? C'mon.
There's no doubt he was responsible for some dark shit. But the apparent threat that is being used as an excuse for his assassination in this scenario is very clearly lies. And So when someone in this thread says that the US was "responding to a threat" (not you specifically, but it has been mentioned a few times here and in other threads) as an excuse for this extrajudicial killing, it really raises my eyebrows.
I didn't say that and I didn't do that. It's also super weird seeing you pull that out of nowhere given how many times you've had to say the following:
Saying that the US shares the blame is not the same as absolving Iran or defending them.
Iran and the US are both at fault here. The blood is on both their hands.
What defines a monster? Someone that you heard on the news was a "bad guy"? It seems like we're going to need some criteria before we use language that dehumanizes people on 'the other side' because dehumanization is often the first step in laying the groundwork for a war or some other atrocity.
Conflicting reports. Some say it turned around only afterwards, others day before.
I think most likely it was afterwards.
36% equally culpable? Insane. Trump escalated the events but this isn't some cartoonish scene of a stand-off and someone getting jumpy because the clock strikes. Iran aren't new to this and this wasn't some misfire in amongst a bombing run from the US.
Last edited:
How is the US at fault here at all?
You can't 'both sides' this.
Did you read my post at all?
Probably not.
I have no idea what happened with this forum. My only hope is that people did not take that poll seriously.
But based on posts in here... probably not.
Why would Iran even send the plane off when they were anticipating an air strike? How could they not tell the difference between an airliner and an F16?
Like, do the people think this is Trump's fault not realize it was a plane leaving Iran's capital city? It wasn't entering Iran. It had just left their airport. This isn't some, "Holy shit, missiles are here and there and America is flying overhead" type scenario. It's literally a passenger plane that just left their airport. How anyone can blame the USA or Trump is mind boggling. Disgusting too.
They're incompetent? But then again their incompetence is part to blame with Trump!!!!!!!