Russophile The Iran Air A-300 was over international waters with a load of Hajj pilgrims overflying a combat zone without IFF when the Vincennes shot it down in 1988.
It wasn't flying Hajj pilgrims. That would be an unscheduled charter flight to Saudi Arabia. IR655 was on a scheduled flight to the UAE from Bandar Abbas. This is a well travelled route -- described as a milk run -- it typically is full of Iranians who work in the UAE and who need to leave the UAE on a semi-regular basis to abide by visa rules. Foreigners working in the UAE also use these Iranian flights from time to time. Although these days, Kish Island seems to be the milk run of choice -- spend a few days on the beaches, etc.
Edit:not saying you are incorrect, but I really do hope that my taxmoney didn't go to pay off the Iranians, who I don't believe have ever offered any compensation to the Americans they held hostage for a year and a half. The Iranians simply don't deserve it, nor an appology from the US. It was a war zone, and that is that.
Firstly, the US never offered any compensation to the Iranians who they helped to murder for over 25 years. (Not directly murdered, but indirectly by supporting, funding and arming SAVAK).
Secondly, it was a war zone. It was the Iran-Iraq War. I never realised that it was the Iran-Iraq/USA war. Yes, Iran was attacking oil tankers which were destined Kuwait, for onward shipment to Iraq. Semi-legitimate targets in a war. Particularly as Iraq had the most to answer for in regards to attacking civilian maritime shipping (they also attacked one of the US Navy ships, said it was a mistake -- the incident was then used by the US to blame Iran for escalating the conflict, even though Iran had nothing to do with it).
Russiophile, you want to back up that comment that the US payed out to the Iranians.
Don't need to back it up
It was paid, and the figures I gave is what was paid in 1996. Check your own Senate and State Department websites. I am sure it is all on there. The US even claimed that Iran refused offers of 'humanitarian compensation' -- obviously it was a pittance, because even $61.8 million is a pittance in comparison to $2 billion by Libya
3. Yes, Russophile, your comments concerning the A-300 were inflammatroy ,and had nothing to do with the thread.
Were they inflammatory? Yeah? Well good. Because they have everything to do with the thread. A foreign naval vessel inside the territorial waters of another nation, without permission or knowledge, is just asking for trouble.
You were trying to simultaneously deflect potential negative attention from the Iranians and justify the hostile actions of a government that has long called for the destruction of the US, UK, and every other western state.
This is brilliant stuff right here!! I don't recall Iran ever calling for the destruction of the UK. Whilst they might not have close ties, there are still ties there. Iranian ties with the rest of the Southern world is very cordial and quite close. The only southern country with a problem with Iran is the US.
Your further comment concerning Lockerbie/PA103 is actually reprehensible, as it seems to justify the actions taken by Libyans who were supposedly taking revenge for the Tripoli bombing which were our answer to terror bombings in Berlin traced to Libyans.
Where exactly did I justify Libya taking down PA103 as payback? I said IRAN. Just in case, here it is again. I-R-A-N. There was overwhelming evidence that Syria attacked PA103 on behalf of the Iranians, in retaliation for IR655.
I believe that Libya was made the scapegoat, because at the time they were more of an international pariah than was Iran.
I also believe that Libya accepted the responsibility because it was much cheaper to take the heat, pay out a few billion, and then get sanctions lifted. A couple of billion dollars is a good price to pay when there is more money to be made -- how many billions did Libya lose whilst UN sanctions were placed on them?
Tell us, do you condone terrorism? No facile answers that say nothing here, or counteraccuse. Are you saying there is an excuse or legitimization in your eyes for terror?
I don't condone terrorism. This includes flying aircraft into buildings, troops acting against civilian populations, blowing up civilian buses, firing missiles into refugee camps, demolishing civilian housing and property, nations illegally (and immorally) invading other nations, taking hostages in theatres, etc, etc, etc. Can you say likewise?
So how come those that are complaing about the way the US is handling it's terrorist prisoners, are silent about the way inhumane way the Iranians are treating the Brits they are holding?
Hmmm. Let's see.
There is no comparison. Looks to me that the Iranians are treating the Brits very well.
Latest reports are that the Brits will likely be released after an investigation which will tell the Iranians exactly what they were doing in Iranian waters. If nothing untoward comes out of the investigation they will be released. The Brits were reported to be armed with light and heavy weapons, detailed area maps, GPS equipment and other things. This can be explained with 'training Iraqi police', but it is also possible that they could be SAS troops (or other) working inside Iran for more sinister purposes. Everything is a possibility, and the Iranians have a right to find out.