Well if it malfunctioned near the border, then creeped into the airspace, then landed 150 miles in...that's not far-fetched.
I think we need to revisit this and comment on it:
Anyway my 2 cents on the rest:
I think we were spying on them. I could very well be wrong, but as it so happens in the world, the CIA spies on just about everyone (likely including our allies). Just as everyone spies on the US. Just the way it goes. This wasn't a drone carrying bombs which makes a big difference as far as 'acts of war' go. The Iranian gov't probably got it and went, "Sweet we finally got one." If we found spies in the US the naive and ignorant public would be up in arms but our gov't would probably go, "Yeah what else is new?"
Holy fuck. You're trolling right?Uzique wrote:
iran hasn't done anything wrong here, shifty, nor have they done anything wrong or aggressive towards america since, well, forever.
Anyway my 2 cents on the rest:
I think we were spying on them. I could very well be wrong, but as it so happens in the world, the CIA spies on just about everyone (likely including our allies). Just as everyone spies on the US. Just the way it goes. This wasn't a drone carrying bombs which makes a big difference as far as 'acts of war' go. The Iranian gov't probably got it and went, "Sweet we finally got one." If we found spies in the US the naive and ignorant public would be up in arms but our gov't would probably go, "Yeah what else is new?"
wow fantastic understanding of history there by quoting the iran hostage crisis as a reason to still fear iran being a (nuclear) threat to the us.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
dick cheney wants to start a war over a robot
Tu Stultus Es
Bender would approve.eleven bravo wrote:
dick cheney wants to start a war over a robot
As much as I find US excuses for the drone hilarious, I find it even more so that a Brit would be criticizing another country for its spying habits.Uzique wrote:
uum how obtuse are you being? you think the drone malfunctioned and then... flew into iranian airspace, by accident? rofl. you guys were clearly spying on iranian facilities when the bird glided to the ground. you were in the wrong-- espionage. spying. breaking international law and infringing on sovereign rights. stop being such a mong.
When these things go lost link--if they don't follow a pre-programmed return to base flight path--how exactly would one go about getting it to do what you want it to, eh? RAIMIUS pointed out that other types have done something similar and had to be shot down by our own aircraft. This one is designed not to be seen, so who knows if we were even able to find it to do that before it went into Iranian airspace? Interesting take on geography you have, btw...Iran being NE of Afghanistan. NE, due west...what's the diff?Uzique wrote:
uum how obtuse are you being? you think the drone malfunctioned and then... flew into iranian airspace, by accident? rofl. you guys were clearly spying on iranian facilities when the bird glided to the ground. you were in the wrong-- espionage. spying. breaking international law and infringing on sovereign rights. stop being such a mong.FEOS wrote:
If it truly was a malfunction that sent it over Iran, then America isn't in the wrong at all. I'm not convinced that to be the case, but that case has been made, and hasn't been disproven.
This was an unarmed drone...completely different than the ones that those in the ME hate. And most would argue that 1979, backing anti-US terrorists since and especially backing insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would constitute "doing anything wrong or aggressive towards america since, well, forever".
Don't disagree that there is no need to bomb anyone over this. But a couple of your points just didn't make sense, 'zique.
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
bean sprouts?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
mung bean sprouts
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
man just post a picture of a mongolian playing football with a goats head while riding a horse.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
m3thod wrote:
man just post a picture of a mongolian playing football with a goats head while riding a horse.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
lol international law. means fucking dick really.
btw since the ICC is voluntary and US is not part of the ICC... this shit means dick really. US can always extend an investigation for a year since they are a P5 of the Security Council.
It counts as a military invasion of sovereignty, just as if the Chinese sailed a nuclear sub up the Hudson for a laugh.FEOS wrote:
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
Sending your military forces into someone elses sovereign territory is a fairly serious act, I would have thought you would have known this.
That various powers turn a blind eye to each other doesn't mean Iran has to.
Fuck Israel
Even if no international laws had been broken, it wont justify the act. Imagine China sending half of it's military to US soil. They wouldn't start shooting, they wouldnt occupy cities, they would just silently wait under the starry skies, and when the US tried to ask what the f is up they would just shrug their shoulders and say:FEOS wrote:
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
"Sorry bro, we didnt break any international law, so its all good. Besides we just wanted to go to spy on russia, but that idiot Juang read the map wrong and we got here by accident."
That wouldnt make much sense, right?
(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
Even if no international laws had been broken, it wont justify the act. Imagine China sending half of it's military to US soil. They wouldn't start shooting, they wouldnt occupy cities, they would just silently wait under the starry skies, and when the US tried to ask what the f is up they would just shrug their shoulders and say:FEOS wrote:
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
"Sorry bro, we didnt break any international law, so its all good. Besides we just wanted to go to spy on russia, but that idiot Juang read the map wrong and we got here by accident."
That wouldnt make much sense, right?
Yeah. That's exactly the same scenario.
FFS.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Again, if it were intentional, you have a point. Nobody knows if I was intentional or not. There are enough examples on both sides of the argument for either case to be plausible.Dilbert_X wrote:
It counts as a military invasion of sovereignty, just as if the Chinese sailed a nuclear sub up the Hudson for a laugh.FEOS wrote:
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
Sending your military forces into someone elses sovereign territory is a fairly serious act, I would have thought you would have known this.
That various powers turn a blind eye to each other doesn't mean Iran has to.
Based on the evidence available, I find the "UAV went stupid" route to be the most plausible, and the "Iranian uber-haxor electronic ambush" to be the least likely. That being the case, it wouldn't be an "invasion of sovereignty", but just a lesser case of the Hanan Island incident.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Uhhhhh I don't see how that's relevant. There is kind of a difference here.(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
Even if no international laws had been broken, it wont justify the act. Imagine China sending half of it's military to US soil. They wouldn't start shooting, they wouldnt occupy cities, they would just silently wait under the starry skies, and when the US tried to ask what the f is up they would just shrug their shoulders and say:FEOS wrote:
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
"Sorry bro, we didnt break any international law, so its all good. Besides we just wanted to go to spy on russia, but that idiot Juang read the map wrong and we got here by accident."
That wouldnt make much sense, right?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yes of course, the US was using a super-invisible stealth UAV to spy on the Taliban - who have no more sophisticated detection equipment than a pair of binoculars and no more sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons than light machine guns.intentional or not
Why would a plain low-tech Predator or Global Hawk not be adequate for the job.
No-one is fooled FEOS, its hilarious you guys think anyone is.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-15 04:27:58)
Fuck Israel
It's not new, they have been flying in the region for a while, for precisely that purpose.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, the US was using a super-invisible stealth UAV to spy on the Taliban - who have no more sophisticated detection equipment than a pair of binoculars and no more sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons than light machine guns.intentional or not
Why would a plain low-tech Predator or Global Hawk not be adequate for the job.
No-one is fooled FEOS, its hilarious you guys think anyone is.
You have a jet powered aircraft flying without control in a straight line, at 50,000ft. It's going to cover some distance even if its engines stopped at the point control was lost.Uzique wrote:
there was a very strong wind
you sound like a ventriloquist doing a white house press conference actFEOS wrote:
When these things go lost link--if they don't follow a pre-programmed return to base flight path--how exactly would one go about getting it to do what you want it to, eh? RAIMIUS pointed out that other types have done something similar and had to be shot down by our own aircraft. This one is designed not to be seen, so who knows if we were even able to find it to do that before it went into Iranian airspace? Interesting take on geography you have, btw...Iran being NE of Afghanistan. NE, due west...what's the diff?Uzique wrote:
uum how obtuse are you being? you think the drone malfunctioned and then... flew into iranian airspace, by accident? rofl. you guys were clearly spying on iranian facilities when the bird glided to the ground. you were in the wrong-- espionage. spying. breaking international law and infringing on sovereign rights. stop being such a mong.FEOS wrote:
If it truly was a malfunction that sent it over Iran, then America isn't in the wrong at all. I'm not convinced that to be the case, but that case has been made, and hasn't been disproven.
This was an unarmed drone...completely different than the ones that those in the ME hate. And most would argue that 1979, backing anti-US terrorists since and especially backing insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would constitute "doing anything wrong or aggressive towards america since, well, forever".
Don't disagree that there is no need to bomb anyone over this. But a couple of your points just didn't make sense, 'zique.
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
btw i was talking about iran's geography relative to iraq. perhaps my mistake. i don't know where they take off from or normally fly missions over. i don't care. it's a minor point that has nothing to do with my argument.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-15 08:34:55)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
what's the difference? iran are evul moslem arabs and thus should be monitored by the good and great white western powers? if iran or china were flying drones over london or washington, or over any of our key infrastructure sites, we'd get pretty narked and worried too. but we're allowed to fly spy planes over iranian nuclear power plants because they're muslims, right, which means they want to climb into your bed at night, rape your wife, then kill your whole family and everything you stand for?Spark wrote:
Uhhhhh I don't see how that's relevant. There is kind of a difference here.(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
Even if no international laws had been broken, it wont justify the act. Imagine China sending half of it's military to US soil. They wouldn't start shooting, they wouldnt occupy cities, they would just silently wait under the starry skies, and when the US tried to ask what the f is up they would just shrug their shoulders and say:FEOS wrote:
What international law was broken, exactly? An unmanned aircraft accidentally, uncontrollably flew into Iranian airspace (as far as anyone knows). Even if it was intentional, what law was broken? Think they're going to haul the flight crew up in front of the ICC on some charge? Iranian law might have been broken, but international law? I doubt it.
"Sorry bro, we didnt break any international law, so its all good. Besides we just wanted to go to spy on russia, but that idiot Juang read the map wrong and we got here by accident."
That wouldnt make much sense, right?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you have a jet powered aircraft flying in control in a direction determined by an intelligence agency, supposedly out of view and detection rate at 50,000ft. the aircraft loses control and crashes in the territory being spied upon.M.O.A.B wrote:
You have a jet powered aircraft flying without control in a straight line, at 50,000ft. It's going to cover some distance even if its engines stopped at the point control was lost.Uzique wrote:
there was a very strong wind
choose a more likely scenario, fanboy.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-15 08:34:14)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
China does spy on other countries. Iran backs militant groups. China hacks into whatever networks it can. Russia still has spies running around Europe and the U.S, just like we've still got spies running around the ME and Asia.
The wider world is also concerned about what Iran is doing in regard to nuclear technology, not just the U.S.
Also, calling an Iranian an Arab is the last thing you want to do.
Try harder.
The wider world is also concerned about what Iran is doing in regard to nuclear technology, not just the U.S.
Also, calling an Iranian an Arab is the last thing you want to do.
The main nuclear facility is Bushehr, on the west coast, 600-800 miles from the northeast Afghan-Iran border. Quite a distance, and if it were flying inside Iran, it would have gone much further than 150 miles from that height.Uzique wrote:
you have a jet powered aircraft flying in control in a direction determined by an intelligence agency, supposedly out of view and detection rate at 50,000ft. the aircraft loses control and crashes in the territory being spied upon.M.O.A.B wrote:
You have a jet powered aircraft flying without control in a straight line, at 50,000ft. It's going to cover some distance even if its engines stopped at the point control was lost.Uzique wrote:
there was a very strong wind
choose a more likely scenario, fanboy.
Try harder.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2011-12-15 08:41:47)