3rd of July 1988 !!

buzz

Bench Warmer
May 21, 2003
1,639
0
Ohio
#21
Niloufar said:
what are u talking about?!I shared the loss of one of our relatives in this flight,and said may all politicians(specially US govt who ordered such an action) to be burned in hell..

but I guess these things doesnt matter to u, untill u prove your point,does it?!:rolleyes:

Good point!!! That incident would not have happend if Islamic Republic would have ended the war at 1982-1983!!!
 

Niloufar

Football Legend
Oct 19, 2002
29,626
23
#22
R_E_Z_A said:
Saddam was a criminal so is US government the difference is that US government has the power of media which they can control the way they want, they always appear as victims, unfortunately even to some of our own hamvatans.
Exactly. and thats why majority of Iranians know Western politicians are no friends of 'Iranian people'. and those who think otherwise are very isolated among public.
Majority of politicians have been criminals one way or another. whether it was Reagan in Iran's passenger plane case, Saddam, Germany, US and even IR in Iran-Iraq war.
There is no black & white in politics. All of them are guilty, just some r less guilty(depending on their power).
 

R_E_Z_A

IPL Player
Jan 16, 2004
2,916
0
#23
buzz said:
Good point!!! That incident would not have happend if Islamic Republic would have ended the war at 1982-1983!!!
Yes end the war on 1982 so that Saddam rebuilds and attacks again. Saddam attacked Kuwait, got kicked out of it in 1991 by the most powerful army in the world and in 1994 he massed his troops again on the border to attack!! he kept building missiles and kept killing Kurds and did what he could to continue his dreadful plans. What makes you think the war would have ended on our terms and Saddam would have not gathered his forces a few years later and attacked again? Is this unlikley knowing the character of Saddam?
 

Bache Tehroon

Elite Member
Oct 16, 2002
39,533
1,513
DarvAze DoolAb
www.iransportspress.com
#24
R_E_Z_A said:
Yes end the war on 1982 so that Saddam rebuilds and attacks again. Saddam attacked Kuwait, got kicked out of it in 1991 by the most powerful army in the world and in 1994 he massed his troops again on the border to attack!! he kept building missiles and kept killing Kurds and did what he could to continue his dreadful plans. What makes you think the war would have ended on our terms and Saddam would have not gathered his forces a few years later and attacked again? Is this unlikley knowing the character of Saddam?
So how does that make I.R different than Bush who attacked Iraq based on the naive saying "if we don't get him today, he'll get us tomorrow"?!
 

buzz

Bench Warmer
May 21, 2003
1,639
0
Ohio
#25
R_E_Z_A said:
Yes end the war on 1982 so that Saddam rebuilds and attacks again. Saddam attacked Kuwait, got kicked out of it in 1991 by the most powerful army in the world and in 1994 he massed his troops again on the border to attack!! he kept building missiles and kept killing Kurds and did what he could to continue his dreadful plans. What makes you think the war would have ended on our terms and Saddam would have not gathered his forces a few years later and attacked again? Is this unlikley knowing the character of Saddam?

You are guessing!!! You are judging based on your guess to whether Iranian soldiers should live or die. When Islamic Republic decided to commit genocide against the Iranians they did not consider the lives of its soldiers and people. That war was used to kill Iranian young people, to avoid another revolution....So how is that different from Reagan and Bush? Iran had massive amount of casualties based on your guess. Prolonging that war for even one second meant multiple death on our side..And the end result??? A loss for Iranian people, and a win for Islamic Republic.

Lets assume your guess was correct!!! The moslem arabs still invaded their neighbors. They still had the most powerful army in middle east. lol
 
Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#26
Iran should have ended the war in 1982-83. It was a cover for the religious government to destroy the opposition and become a religious dictatorship. That process is used in many places around the world to destroy the opposition.

There was absolutely no other reason not to end the war at the time.

It was all a game and a million of Iranians paid for it. Even, lets assume it was not a game and Khomeinie actually would take over Iraq, what would you think would have happend? Looking at Kuwait you can take a guess.
 
Mar 19, 2005
113
0
#27
sorry to say this guys, but 3rd july 88 is one of the reasons why, what happened in 9/11 "baram mohem nabood."

Just imagine what would happen if Iran does something like this now....shoot down an american airline plane.....

The captain of Iran's airbus has a son who is 24. i'm not his friend but i see him in uni and know him az raheh door.he hanst yet got over what happened in 3rd july.
 

Sultan

Bench Warmer
Apr 7, 2004
586
0
#29
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/kal007-iranair655.html

KAL 007 and Iran Air 655: Comparing the Coverage

The day after a Soviet interceptor plane blew up a Korean passenger jet, the first sentence of a New York Times editorial (9/2/83) was unequivocal: "There is no conceivable excuse for any nation shooting down a harmless airliner." Headlined "Murder in the Air", the editorial asserted that "no circumstance whatever justifies attacking an innocent plane."

Confronted with the sudden reality of a similar action by the U.S. government, the New York Times inverted every standard invoked with righteous indignation five years earlier. Editorials condemning the KAL shootdown were filled with phrases like "wanton killing," "reckless aerial murder" and "no conceivable excuse." But when Iran Air's flight 655 was blown out of the sky on July 3, excuses were more than conceivable -- they were profuse.

Two days after the Iranian passenger jet went down in flames killing 290 people, the Times (7/5/88) editorialized that "while horrifying, it was nonetheless an accident." The editorial concluded, "The onus for avoiding such accidents in the future rests on civilian aircraft: avoid combat zones, fly high, acknowledge warnings."

A similar pattern pervaded electronic media coverage. In the aftermath of the KAL incident, America's airwaves routinely carried journalistic denunciations. CBS anchor Dan Rather, for example, called it a "barbaric act." No such adjectives were heard from America's TV commentators when discussing the U.S. shootdown of a civilian jet.

As soon as the Iranian Airbus crashed into the Persian Gulf, the Reagan administration set out to discourage what should have been obvious comparisons between the Soviet Union's tragic mistake and our tragic mistake. The New York Times and other media uncritically quoted the President's July 4 resurrection of his administration's timeworn deceit: "Remember the KAL, a group of Soviet fighter planes went up, identified the plane for what it was and then proceeded to shoot it down. There's no comparison."

Virtually ignored was a key finding of Seymour Hersh's 1986 book The Target Is Destroyed -- that the Reagan administration knew within days of the KALshootdown that the Soviets had believed it to be a military aircraft on a spy mission. Soviet commanders had no idea that they were tracking a plane with civilians on board. The Times had acknowledged this long after the fact in an editorial, "The Lie That Wasn't Shot Down" (1/18/88); yet when Reagan lied again, the failed again to shoot it down.

Instead, Times correspondent R.W. Apple, Jr. weighed in (7/5/88) with an analysis headlined, "Military Errors: The Snafu as History". In his lead, Apple observed that "the destruction of an Iranian airliner...came as a sharp reminder of the pervasive role of error in military history." The piece drew many parallels to the Iran jetliner's tragic end -- citing examples from the American Revolution, World War II and Vietnam -- while ignoring the most obvious analogy. About the KAL 007 shootdown, Apple said not a word.

If anything, the recent tragedy was less defensible than the KAL disaster. The Iran Air jet went down in broad daylight, well within its approved commercial airline course over international waters, without ever having strayed into any unauthorized air space. In contrast, the Korean plane flew way off course, deep into Soviet territory above sensitive military installations, in the dead of night.

But, as with Washington's policy-makers, the mass media was intent on debunking relevant comparisons rather than exploring them. The government's public relations spin quickly became the mass media's: A tragic mishap had occurred in the Persian Gulf, amid puzzling behavior of the passenger jet. Blaming the victim was standard fare, as reporters focused on the plight of U.S.S. Vincennes commander Capt. Will Rodgers III, whose picture appeared on tabloid covers (7/5/88) with bold headlines -- h|q" -->"Captain's Anguish"Newsday and "Captain's Agony" (New York Post).

At the same time, U.S. journalists asserted that the Iranian government was eager to exploit its new propaganda advantage. Correspondent Tom Fenton informed viewers of the CBS Evening News (7/6/88) that Iran was intent on making sure the event would not slip from the world's front pages; colleague Bert Quint followed up minutes later with a similar theme.

Sorely lacking from the outset was any semblance of soul-searching about the holier-than-Moscow Soviet-bashing that followed the KAL accident. The last thing that White House officials wanted was any such national self-examination. But we might have hoped for more independence from the U.S. media, which allowed their proclaimed precepts to spin 180 degrees in an instant, while discarding basic insights like the one expressed in a New York Times editorial six days after KAL 007 exploded (9/7/83): "To proclaim a 'right' to shoot down suspicious planes does not make it right to do so."

Reported by Norman Solomon.
 

shahinc

Legionnaire
May 8, 2005
6,745
1
#31
Sultan Jan, but there were also other US news agency and program that clearly puts the blame on US for this accident. Old-Faraz posted a link which clearly shows how they changed their story and ....

As much as I am oppose the I.R. regime, I think US was defenitly in fault by this tragedy and this was no accident.
 

Sultan

Bench Warmer
Apr 7, 2004
586
0
#32
shahinc said:
Sultan Jan, but there were also other US news agency and program that clearly puts the blame on US for this accident. Old-Faraz posted a link which clearly shows how they changed their story and ....

As much as I am oppose the I.R. regime, I think US was defenitly in fault by this tragedy and this was no accident.

I wasn't passing judgement. Just wanted to share with yout he links.

I've read about this accident and while I completely blame the US for this, my hats of to the journalists who exposed the Navy and showed the blame was on them.

The fact is unfortunately, the West believes it is far more worthy of living than anyone else. So a plane full of Iranian's is nothing to them, while a blame full of American's is news of course. Can you imagine if Iran had shot down a US plane what would have happened?

The History Channel has a program on this incident called something like 7 minutes that shocked the Navy. It clearly demonstrates that this was no accident the way the US wanted it to be.

Now one last thing which you'll find interesting. BBC has a 'Today In History' section. Here are two links:

July 3rd:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/default.stm

September 1st:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/default.stm

Isn't it interesting that the USSR's "accident" is so clearly displayed while the American "accident" is so clearly missing on July 3rd?

With respect.
-Sultan
 

buzz

Bench Warmer
May 21, 2003
1,639
0
Ohio
#33
Sultan said:
I wasn't passing judgement. Just wanted to share with yout he links.



The fact is unfortunately, the West believes it is far more worthy of living than anyone else. So a plane full of Iranian's is nothing to them, while a blame full of American's is news of course. Can you imagine if Iran had shot down a US plane what would have happened?


-Sultan
Is that really a fact and if it is, why is west's attention is important? Beside that, which one is really worse: Your statement (lack of interenst toward other nations lives) verses the lack of interest/worthiness of people's lives from Islamic Republic for Iranian people? Islamic Republic pushed to extend the war, Right? How many death of innocent and military did that cause?
 

buzz

Bench Warmer
May 21, 2003
1,639
0
Ohio
#34
shahinc said:
Sultan Jan, but there were also other US news agency and program that clearly puts the blame on US for this accident. Old-Faraz posted a link which clearly shows how they changed their story and ....

As much as I am oppose the I.R. regime, I think US was defenitly in fault by this tragedy and this was no accident.
I think you are referring to this one:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html
 

Farzadoo

Bench Warmer
Oct 22, 2002
2,154
0
Washington DC
#35
Folks when are we going to realize that the Islamic Republic and the United States government are in cohorts with each other and their roots are the same. IR is a puppet. This revolution was a scam and the only people paying for it are the Iranian people.

Rooheh hameyeh hamvatanani keh jooneshoono as dast dadan roshan. Gooreh pedareh harchi politician Amricayee va harchi mullah va mullah parasteh irooni. Gooreh pedareh harchi shah parasteh dictator. Marg bar MKO bisharaf. Faghat zendeh bad mardom bigonah Iran. If there is a god, then the guilty will pay for their crimes eventually.
 

Sultan

Bench Warmer
Apr 7, 2004
586
0
#36
buzz said:
Is that really a fact and if it is, why is west's attention is important? Beside that, which one is really worse: Your statement (lack of interenst toward other nations lives) verses the lack of interest/worthiness of people's lives from Islamic Republic for Iranian people? Islamic Republic pushed to extend the war, Right? How many death of innocent and military did that cause?
Whatttttt? You need to restate this paragraph 'cause I'm confused. What exactly are you saying? Sorry but I didn't understand your point.