Iran Not to Forgive Perpetrators of Attack on Iran Air Flight 655

[Big Tank]

May these American Satanic forces rot everywhere.

 

[Fafnir]

That was a tragic accident....but this:

was not. There are much indications that the PanAm terrorist attack was planned and done by Iran.

So then according to you the british and the american governments deliberately conspired to frame the libyans ,oh and of course to allow iran to get away with the whole thing scot free,right?
I think your tinfoil hats slipping a bit m8

Who is this guy?

A mass murderer who was receiving the tanks of a grateful nation for a job well done.
Quite,quite sickening.

 

[VCheng]

How about demanding a compensation fee from US?

USA has paid Iran $61.8 million as compensation.

 

[Stag112]

USA and Iran did reach a settlement in ICJ over the matter. They paid an ex gratia amount to Iran.

The settlement also included an apology. US President of the time Raegan also expressed regret.

Iranians must be angry at what the US did. The US was definitely at fault, to what extent is a POV.

For all practical purposes another closed chapter in the sordid history of humans.

 

[AmirPatriot]

The settlement also included an apolog

I don't recall that.

 

[Stag112]

I don't recall that.

They expressed deep regret. Agreed not the same as an apology. But they admitted their mistake and paid compensation.

An apology would mean a deliberate act on their part. They have maintained it was a mistake and not a deliberate act. I wonder did Israel apologise for USS liberty attack or just expressed regret? I couldn't find the actual wording.

 

[Hack-Hook]

They expressed deep regret. Agreed not the same as an apology. But they admitted their mistake and paid compensation.

An apology would mean a deliberate act on their part. They have maintained it was a mistake and not a deliberate act. I wonder did Israel apologise for USS liberty attack or just expressed regret? I couldn't find the actual wording.

the Aegis records showed that the plane always transmitted the civilian codes according the Vincenss SPY-1 Radar , always increasing the altitude , flying very slow to be a fighter , was in international flight corridor .
even the coverup guy Fogarty admit the information on the system of the guy who said that the plane is diving always show it increased its altitude never shown increase in speed also all the records of vinscense shows no deviation of the flight path, the airplane never had any radar to direct it on vinscense as pretext of launching any missile
simply there was no way it could be mistaken for a military one

also the ROE of USNavy at the time stated that "Positive Identification of an aircraft is mandatory before declaring the aircraft hostile and engaging it , the sole exception to this rule is an aircraft either demonstrating an hostile intent or committing a hostile act (IO Exhibit 131,USCINCCENT 232220z, May 8 Par 5A)"

also that day no merchant asked any help so there was no bases for vinscense to be at the area and it being there is something strange

 

[AmirPatriot]

They expressed deep regret

In the world of politics, an apology and an expression of regret are completely different things.

An apology is well, the standard definition of apology. It is an acknowledgement that the perpetrator is sorry for what has happened, and that what has happened was morally wrong. It usually signals that the perpetrator really has regretted what has happened, geopolitically of course.

An "expression of regret" is just another way to say that you don't actually care, but you have to say something to save your global image.

The US is a superpower. Even if its military vessel is in the territory of another vessel, and then proceeds to shoot down a civilian airliner killing all onboard... it doesn't matter. They don't care what the facts are. They are the superpower and they don't give a shit, they will do whatever they like and get away with it, without even an apology. This is the level of evil that Iran is dealing with.

 

[Penguin]

America gave Medal of honor to commander of this genocide.
Americans enter Iranian water and shot down Iranian civil air plane with 290 passenger in Iranian air space and we couldn't do any **** that is shame on us
American even didn't apologize for their act and blood of Iranian

The Medal of Honor is the United States of America's highest and most prestigious personal military decoration that may be awarded to recognize U.S. military service members who distinguished themselves by acts of valor. The medal is normally awarded by the President of the United States in the name of the U.S. Congress. There are three versions of the medal, one for the Army, one for the Navy, and one for the Air Force.[6] Personnel of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard receive the Navy version. U.S. awards, including the Medal of Honor, do not have post-nominal titles, and while there is no official abbreviation, the most common abbreviations are "MOH" and "MH". The Medal of Honor is the oldest continuously issued combat decoration of the United States armed forces.

In 1990, Capt. Rogers (of the USS Vincennes) was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.

The Legion of Merit (LOM) is a military award of the United States Armed Forces that is given for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. The decoration is issued to members of the seven uniformed services of the United States as well as to military and political figures of foreign governments.
The Legion of Merit (Commander degree) is one of only two United States military decorations to be issued as a neck order (the other being the Medal of Honor) and the only United States military decoration which may be issued in award degrees (much like an order of chivalry or certain Orders of Merit).

The Legion of Merit is sixth in the order of precedence of U.S. military awards and is worn after the Defense Superior Service Medal and before the Distinguished Flying Cross.[4] In contemporary use in the U.S. Armed Forces, the Legion of Merit is typically awarded to Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force general officers and colonels, and Navy and Coast Guard flag officers and captains occupying senior command or very senior staff positions in their respective services.

While each service has its own order of precedence, the following general rules typically apply to all services:

1. U.S. military personal decorations
2. U.S. military unit awards
3. U.S. non-military personal decorations (in order of receipt; if from the same agency, the applicable agency precedence listing should be consulted)
4. U.S. non-military unit awards
5. U.S. military campaign and service medals
6. U.S. military service and training awards (ribbon-only awards)
7. U.S. Merchant Marine awards and non-military service awards
8. Foreign military personal decorations
9. Foreign military unit awards
10. International decorations & service medals (e.g., United Nations, NATO, etc.)
11. Foreign military service awards
12. Marksmanship awards (Air Force, Navy & Coast Guard)
13. State awards of the National Guard (Army & Air Force only)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor#Navy.2C_Marine.2C_and_Coast_Guard_Medal_of_Honor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award...orces#Active_United_States_medals_and_ribbons

In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident, together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner. In total, 290 civilians on board were killed, 38 being non-Iranians and 66 being children. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time.

The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives, but never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on a separate occasion, speaking to a group of Republican ethnic leaders (7 Aug 1988) said: "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian air liner, has been attributed as such.
Bush used the phrase frequently during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shoot-down and as early as January 1988.
The incident overshadowed Iran–United States relations for many years. The former CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack wrote: "The shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655 was an accident, but that is not how it was seen in Tehran." Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 five months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Aftermath

Iran accepted this settlement. End of story.

 

[Penguin]

In the world of politics, an apology and an expression of regret are completely different things.

An apology is well, the standard definition of apology. It is an acknowledgement that the perpetrator is sorry for what has happened, and that what has happened was morally wrong. It usually signals that the perpetrator really has regretted what has happened, geopolitically of course.

An "expression of regret" is just another way to say that you don't actually care, but you have to say something to save your global image.

The US is a superpower. Even if its military vessel is in the territory of another vessel, and then proceeds to shoot down a civilian airliner killing all onboard... it doesn't matter. They don't care what the facts are. They are the superpower and they don't give a shit, they will do whatever they like and get away with it, without even an apology. This is the level of evil that Iran is dealing with.

By comparison: Flight KAL007
In the Cold War context of Operation RYAN, the Strategic Defence Initiative, Pershing II missile deployment in Europe, and the upcoming Exercise Able Archer, the Soviet Government perceived the incident with the South Korean airliner to be a portent of war. The Soviet hierarchy took the official line that KAL Flight 007 was on a spy mission, as it "flew deep into Soviet territory for several hundred kilometres, without responding to signals and disobeying the orders of interceptor fighter planes". They claimed its purpose was to probe the air defences of highly sensitive Soviet military sites in the Kamchatka Peninsula and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet government expressed regret over the loss of life, but offered no apology and did not respond to demands for compensation. Instead, the Soviet Union blamed the CIA for this "criminal, provocative act".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Aftermath

You can also look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation

the Aegis records showed that the plane always transmitted the civilian codes according the Vincenss SPY-1 Radar , always increasing the altitude , flying very slow to be a fighter , was in international flight corridor .
even the coverup guy Fogarty admit the information on the system of the guy who said that the plane is diving always show it increased its altitude never shown increase in speed also all the records of vinscense shows no deviation of the flight path, the airplane never had any radar to direct it on vinscense as pretext of launching any missile
simply there was no way it could be mistaken for a military one

also the ROE of USNavy at the time stated that "Positive Identification of an aircraft is mandatory before declaring the aircraft hostile and engaging it , the sole exception to this rule is an aircraft either demonstrating an hostile intent or committing a hostile act (IO Exhibit 131,USCINCCENT 232220z, May 8 Par 5A)"

also that day no merchant asked any help so there was no bases for vinscense to be at the area and it being there is something strange

You have acces to Aegis records?
If no, where do these records come from then?
Answer: the US navy investigation.
So, what coverup?

This is a good article on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/18/opinion/witness-to-iran-flight-655.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

As for you last two lines, "also that day no merchant asked any help so there was no bases for vinscense to be at the area and it being there is something strange". this is no secret at all:

On 3 July 1988, Vincennes, under the command of Captain Will Rogers III, was on patrol when it was reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guard gun boats had attacked a Pakistani merchant vessel. Vincennes deployed one of her organic helicopters to investigate. Shortly thereafter Rogers ordered his ship to move off station 50 miles (80 km) to the north. The destroyer flotilla commander ordered Vincennes to return to her original station. Vincennes's helicopter had followed the Revolutionary Guard gunboats into Iranian waters, and while maintaining contact with the boats, came under gunfire from the Iranians.

The helicopter crew reported that they had come under fire and with that report, Rogers turned his ship around and, with the frigate Elmer Montgomery, moved to intercept the gunboats. By doing so, Vincennes crossed into Iranian waters herself. As the US ships approached, the Iranian gunboats maneuvered, in what Rogers claimed was a threatening fashion. Rogers requested permission to fire and permission was granted by command, without knowing that Vincennes had crossed into Iranian waters. Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery commenced fire upon the gunboats at 9:43 a.m., scoring several hits on the gunboats, sinking two and damaging another.

While Vincennes was firing on the Iranian gunboats, confusion reigned aboard the ship as the tracking of aircraft in the area had become muddled, between Vincennes and other U.S. ships, and on Vincennes itself. Crucially, Vincennes misidentified an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. The Iran Air Flight 655 was climbing at the time, and her IFF transponder was on the Mode III civilian code rather than on the purely military Mode II, as recorded by Vincennes's own shipboard Aegis Combat System. Vincennes fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down the Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace in the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board

The Iranian government has maintained that Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft. Iran Air Flight IR655 flew every day out of Bandar Abbas—a civil as well as military airport—on a scheduled passenger flight to Dubai using established air lanes. The Italian navy and another U.S. warship, the frigate Sides, confirmed that the plane was climbing—not diving to attack—at the time of the missile strike. The U.S. radio warnings were only broadcast on 121.5 MHz, not air traffic control frequencies and mistakenly identified the altitude and position of the plane, so the Airbus crew, if they were monitoring "guard," could have misinterpreted the warnings as referring to another aircraft. Captain David Carlson of Sides later said that the destruction of the airliner "marked the horrifying climax to Rogers' aggressiveness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)#Iran_Air_Flight_655

 

[Arminkh]

By comparison: Flight KAL007
In the Cold War context of Operation RYAN, the Strategic Defence Initiative, Pershing II missile deployment in Europe, and the upcoming Exercise Able Archer, the Soviet Government perceived the incident with the South Korean airliner to be a portent of war. The Soviet hierarchy took the official line that KAL Flight 007 was on a spy mission, as it "flew deep into Soviet territory for several hundred kilometres, without responding to signals and disobeying the orders of interceptor fighter planes". They claimed its purpose was to probe the air defences of highly sensitive Soviet military sites in the Kamchatka Peninsula and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet government expressed regret over the loss of life, but offered no apology and did not respond to demands for compensation. Instead, the Soviet Union blamed the CIA for this "criminal, provocative act".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Aftermath

You can also look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation


You have acces to Aegis records?
If no, where do these records come from then?
Answer: the US navy investigation.
So, what coverup?

This is a good article on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/18/opinion/witness-to-iran-flight-655.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

As for you last two lines, "also that day no merchant asked any help so there was no bases for vinscense to be at the area and it being there is something strange". this is no secret at all:

On 3 July 1988, Vincennes, under the command of Captain Will Rogers III, was on patrol when it was reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guard gun boats had attacked a Pakistani merchant vessel. Vincennes deployed one of her organic helicopters to investigate. Shortly thereafter Rogers ordered his ship to move off station 50 miles (80 km) to the north. The destroyer flotilla commander ordered Vincennes to return to her original station. Vincennes's helicopter had followed the Revolutionary Guard gunboats into Iranian waters, and while maintaining contact with the boats, came under gunfire from the Iranians.

The helicopter crew reported that they had come under fire and with that report, Rogers turned his ship around and, with the frigate Elmer Montgomery, moved to intercept the gunboats. By doing so, Vincennes crossed into Iranian waters herself. As the US ships approached, the Iranian gunboats maneuvered, in what Rogers claimed was a threatening fashion. Rogers requested permission to fire and permission was granted by command, without knowing that Vincennes had crossed into Iranian waters. Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery commenced fire upon the gunboats at 9:43 a.m., scoring several hits on the gunboats, sinking two and damaging another.

While Vincennes was firing on the Iranian gunboats, confusion reigned aboard the ship as the tracking of aircraft in the area had become muddled, between Vincennes and other U.S. ships, and on Vincennes itself. Crucially, Vincennes misidentified an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. The Iran Air Flight 655 was climbing at the time, and her IFF transponder was on the Mode III civilian code rather than on the purely military Mode II, as recorded by Vincennes's own shipboard Aegis Combat System. Vincennes fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down the Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace in the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board

The Iranian government has maintained that Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft. Iran Air Flight IR655 flew every day out of Bandar Abbas—a civil as well as military airport—on a scheduled passenger flight to Dubai using established air lanes. The Italian navy and another U.S. warship, the frigate Sides, confirmed that the plane was climbing—not diving to attack—at the time of the missile strike. The U.S. radio warnings were only broadcast on 121.5 MHz, not air traffic control frequencies and mistakenly identified the altitude and position of the plane, so the Airbus crew, if they were monitoring "guard," could have misinterpreted the warnings as referring to another aircraft. Captain David Carlson of Sides later said that the destruction of the airliner "marked the horrifying climax to Rogers' aggressiveness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)#Iran_Air_Flight_655

You know, sometimes it seems to me you feel like just starting a quarrel for the sake of a quarrel. How can the case of an airplane that has violated the air space of a nation be similar to the case of Iran's airliner that was flying over Persian Gulf?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? They were compensated? End of story? It is not about the compensation or settlement. It is about the fact that a country, thousands of km away, gives itself the right to bring its destroyers in an area that it has no business in and then shoot down a passenger airplane that was flying from a third country to another third country and then not apologize, because it can.

Now if you think all that is ok, then keep it to yourself please.

Instead, let me know some nice locations to visit in Amsterdam for a family trip with kids. Good restaurants is appreciated too. Please send me a private message if you will.

 

[AmirPatriot]

By comparison: Flight KAL007
In the Cold War context of Operation RYAN, the Strategic Defence Initiative, Pershing II missile deployment in Europe, and the upcoming Exercise Able Archer, the Soviet Government perceived the incident with the South Korean airliner to be a portent of war. The Soviet hierarchy took the official line that KAL Flight 007 was on a spy mission, as it "flew deep into Soviet territory for several hundred kilometres, without responding to signals and disobeying the orders of interceptor fighter planes". They claimed its purpose was to probe the air defences of highly sensitive Soviet military sites in the Kamchatka Peninsula and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet government expressed regret over the loss of life, but offered no apology and did not respond to demands for compensation. Instead, the Soviet Union blamed the CIA for this "criminal, provocative act".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Aftermath

You can also look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation

Um... okay?

Not wishing to be rude Penguin, but I don't see your point. I'm not about to defend the USSR for them shooting down a civilian airliner, I'm condemning the US for doing it. The USSR was not mentioned.

Though if you insist:

 

[mohsen]

The ‘Forgotten’ US Shootdown Of Iranian Airliner Flight 655
The US shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 receives only rare mentions in the US mainstream media despite being a key incident in the history of the US’s relations with Iran that serves as critical context for understanding how Iranians today view the US government.
By Jeremy R. Hammond | July 5, 2017

An Iran Air pilot mourns over the casket of his wife, Mina Motevaly, a crew member of Iran Air Flight 655 that was shot down over the Persian Gulf by the U.S. naval ship USS Vincennes, in Tehran, Iran, July 7, 1988. (AP/Mohammad Sayyad)

On the rare occasions the US mainstream media refer to the US shootdown of an Iranian airliner in 1988, they sustain the myth it was simply a “mistake”.

Today marks twenty-nine years since the shootdown by the USS Vincennes of Iran Air flight 655, which killed all of the plane’s 290 civilian passengers. This shootdown of a civilian airliner by a US naval ship occurred on July 3, 1988, toward the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

This incident is, of course, something that the people of Iran well remember. Americans who rely on the US mainstream media, on the other hand, would have to be forgiven for never having heard about it.


Furthermore, in the rare instances when the media do mention it, to this day they tend to maintain official US government falsehoods about what occurred and otherwise omit relevant details that would inform Americans about what really happened.

The lack of mention of the incident or, when it is mentioned, the deceptive reporting about what occurred illustrates an institutionalized bias in the media. The consequence is that Americans seeking to understand US-Iran relations today fail to grasp a key historical event that has helped to define that relationship.



How the Mainstream Media Report the US Shootdown of Flight 655
If one does a quick Google search for relevant keywords specific to the shootdown, only a handful of US mainstream media reports turn up on first-page results.

Max Fisher in the Washington Post wrote a piece about it several years ago, appropriately titled “The Forgotten story of Iran Air Flight 655”. For context, Fisher asserted that “the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf.” As explanation for how the Vincennes “mistook the lumbering Airbus A300 civilian airliner for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet”, Fisher suggested it was “perhaps” due to “the heat of battle” or “perhaps because the flight allegedly did not identify itself.”

The crew of the USS Vincennes is shown as they stand at attention, July 3, 1988. (AP/Greg English)

The Washington Examiner a couple years ago ran a piece with the headline “Iran says 1988 airliner shootdown is why U.S. can’t be trusted”. The author, Charles Hoskinson, stated simply that “An investigation revealed that the cruiser’s crew mistook the airliner for an attacking F-14 fighter jet while involved in a confrontation with Iranian gunboats.”

Fred Kaplan in Slate noted in a 2014 piece that the incident “is almost completely forgotten” (at least in the US). His article was appropriately subtitled “The time the United States blew up a passenger plane—and covered it up.” As a journalist who had reported on the incident at the time and challenged the US government’s official story, Kaplan noted that “American officials told various lies” intended to blame the Iranians for the tragedy.

The government had claimed that the Vincennes was in international waters at the time, that the plane was flying “outside of the prescribed commercial air route” and descending at the “high speed” of 450 knots directly toward the Vincennes, and that the plane’s transponder was squawking a code over a military channel.

In truth, the Vincennes was in Iran’s territorial waters, the plane was ascending through 12,000 feet at 380 knots within the established commercial air route, and its transponder was squawking the plane’s identity over a civilian channel.

Like Fisher and Hoskinson, however, Kaplan nevertheless maintained the US government’s narrative that “the Iranian Airbus A300 wandered into a naval skirmish” and on that basis characterized it as a “horrible mistake”.

These are the only three examples from within the past decade that appeared in initial search results for various relevant keywords at the time of this writing. It’s also helpful to see how America’s “newspaper of record”, the New York Times, has reported it over the years, by searching its online archives.

Doing various related keyword searches at the New York Times website turns up a smattering of articles. Without going further back, a November 1988 piece acknowledged that, contrary to the US government’s claims, “Flight 655 was behaving normally for a commercial jet”. The Times nevertheless maintained the government’s official line that “Iranian [air traffic] tower officials clearly are guilty of not listening to the dozens of radio warnings broadcast by the Navy and ordering the airliner to change course”.

The following month, the Times revealed that this attempt to blame the Iranians was also untruthful. As the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) determined in an investigation of the incident, seven of the eleven warnings issued by the Americans “were transmitted on a military channel that was inaccessible to the airliner crew.” The other four were transmitted on the international civil aviation distress frequency. Of these, only one, transmitted by the USS Sides “39 seconds before the Vincennes fired, was of sufficient clarity that it might have been ‘instantly recognizable’ to the airliner as being directed at it.”

The Times nevertheless sustained the US government’s narrative that Iran was at least partly to blame by “allowing an airliner to fly into the area at the time when warships were involved in an intense battle with Iranian gunboats.”

People looking for family members walk amid bodies of victims from Iran Air Flight 655 in a morgue in Bandar Abbas, July 4, 1988, a day after the USS Vincennes shot the passenger jet down over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 passengers and crew members, including 66 children. (AP/Mohammad Sayyad)

In May 1989, Iran sued the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the shootdown. The Times ran a piece in July about how the US was trying to settle the matter by offering to compensate victims’ families with up to $250,000. The only details of the attack the Times offered readers was to relay the claim from a senior State Department official that “the Vincennes was defending itself against what it believed was a ‘coordinated attack’”.

Another Times article that August reported that Iran’s case was proceeding at the ICJ. For context, the Times simply parroted the government’s official line that, “At the time, the Vincennes was part of a group of American warships protecting neutral shipping in the [Persian] Gulf during the war between Iraq and Iran.”

(The ICJ case was dropped in 1996 when the US and Iran reached a settlement in which the US “expressed deep regret” and agreed to pay $61.8 million to the victims’ families.)

In 1992, a Times article reported on the further unraveling of the US government’s official account. It noted that, contrary to the government’s claims, Flight 655 was ascending and flying within the commercial air corridor. Vice President George H. W. Bush had told the UN that the shootdown occurred “in the midst of a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels against a neutral vessel and subsequently against the Vincennes.” In fact, as government officials were now admitting, the Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time. Furthermore, an investigative report for ABC’s Nightline determined that it was not the Iranian ships that started the naval skirmish, but the US Navy’s.

The US government maintained that, while the Vincennes was admittedly within Iran’s territorial waters, it was the Iranian ships who initiated hostilities. However, even the commander of the USS Sides, Captain David Carlson, whose ship was in the same American convoy, had stated three years prior that the actions of the Vincennes under the command of Captain Will Rogers were “consistently aggressive.”

The Times also noted that neither Captain Rogers nor any other officers or crew of the Vincennes were disciplined.

There are only scarce mentions of the incident by the Times since. Columnist Roger Cohen in an August 2009 piece referred in passing to “the mistaken 1988 shooting-down of Iran Air Flight 655, in which 290 people perished”. A 2015 article mentioned it, stating that the Vincennes was “patrolling the Strait [of Hormuz]” and that its crew “apparently mistook the plane for an Iranian F-14 fighter.” The most recent mention that turned up was from February 2 of this year, in an article that states simply that “Iran called the attack deliberate and the United States called it a mistake.”

The above is not an exhaustive list, but these examples illustrate that, on the rare occasions when the US mainstream media do mention the incident, to this day they sustain the US government’s narrative that this killing of 290 civilians was simply a “mistake” for which no one should be held criminally responsible.

So how well does this narrative hold up?



The Facts about the US Shootdown of Flight 655
After the Vincennes shot down Flight 655, as Fred Kaplan noted in his Slate piece, Vice President George H. W. Bush responded by saying, “I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are.”

The facts were that the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes, under the command of Captain Will Rogers III, had entered Iran’s territorial waters and opened fire on and sank two Iranian gunboats posing no threat to the American vessels. (Aboard another Iranian boat the Vincennes was passing by at the same moment Rogers gave the order to open fire, the crew was seen relaxing topside, as captured by the camera of US Navy journalists.)

Mourners carry coffins through the streets of Tehran during a mass funeral for the victims aboard Iran Air Flight 655, which was shot down by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf, July 7, 1988. (AP Photo)

At the time, as a Navy investigation later acknowledged, the Vincennes detected a plane ascending “on a normal commercial air flight plan profile” and squawking a transponder signal identifying itself as a commercial aircraft.

Aboard the Sides, with identical radar information as received aboard the Vincennes, Captain Carlson determined the plane was a “non-threat”.

Aboard the Vincennes, Lieutenant William Montford warned Captain Rogers that the plane was “possible COMAIR”, but Rogers nevertheless ostensibly convinced himself that his ship was under attack from an F-14 fighter plane and minutes later ordered it shot down.

(Incidentally, the US had sold F-14s to Iran in the early 1970s while it was under the thumb of Washington’s strongman, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was put in power after a CIA-orchestrated coup in 1953 overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government by deposing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh for having nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Shah was in turn overthrown during Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.)

Well aware that his action might kill civilians, Rogers ordered his gunner to open fire on the plane, shooting it out of the sky.

The Navy’s self-investigation attributed the discrepancy between the known facts and Rogers’ actions to “scenario fulfillment”. Rogers had made “an unconscious attempt to make available evidence fit a preconceived scenario.”

In other words, even though the information the officers and crew aboard the Vincennes were receiving indicated that the plane was ascending along a commercial flight path and squawking its identify as a civilian airliner, Rogers imagined it to be an F-14 fighter jet coming down out of the sky to attack his ship.

US government officials evidently also suffered from “scenario fulfillment” as they proceeded to make claims about what had happened bearing no relationship to reality.

President Ronald Reagan claimed that the killing of 290 civilians was justified as “a proper defensive action”.

Never one to apologize, Vice President Bush, while campaigning for the presidency, called it “just an unhappy incident” and reassured Americans that “life goes on.”

As he was scheduled to speak before the UN Security Council about the incident, Bush said, “I can’t wait to get up there and defend the policy of the United States government” by presenting “the free world’s case” for why 290 mostly Iranian civilians were dead.

Speaking before the Security Council, Bush blamed Iran for allowing a civilian airliner to go about its business carrying passengers to Dubai at a time when an American warship was “engaged in battle”.

He declined to explain how the pilot, Captain Mohsen Rezaian, or the air traffic controllers at the airport in Bandar Abbas, where Flight 655 had taken off, could possibly have known that a US warship with an imaginative captain on board was in Iran’s territorial waters firing at anything that moved.

Bush lied to the Council that the Vincennes had “acted in self-defense” against “a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels” on the American ship when it “came to the aid” of an “innocent ship in distress.”

Also not wont to question the actions of the US government, the New York Times in an editorial published July 5, 1988, urged Americans via their headline to put themselves “In Captain Rogers’s Shoes”.

Sympathizing with the killer, the Times editors described the shootdown as “horrifying”, but “nonetheless an accident.” It was “hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it.” Captain Rogers “had little choice” but to open fire, they opined, assuming the US government’s account “turns out even approximately correct”.

Of course, the official account turned out to be pretty much the opposite of the truth in virtually every aspect, but the Times was, as ever, not over-eager to seriously question the government’s claims.

Thus, the editors maintained the deception that the Vincennes was “in a combat zone” and “engaged in action against Iranian gunboats making high-speed runs against it.”

The editors also relayed as fact that the radar operators aboard the Vincennes had “reported an aircraft heading toward the ship and descending.” Furthermore, they “apparently had indications, which the Navy refuses to discuss, that the plane was a powerful F-14 jet.”

Unimaginatively, the Times editors failed to conceive of the most obvious reason why the Navy would refuse to discuss that claim: because there were no such indications.

The furthest the Times would go to question the official narrative was to state that it was “not yet clear why sophisticated radar did not distinguish between an F-14 and a much larger Airbus.”

The lie the Times was upholding then—as to this day—was that the ship’s sophisticated radar had indicated it was something other than a civilian airliner.

After axiomatically accepting this lie, the editors immediately urged their readers to “put yourself in Captain Rogers’s shoes”. They proceeded to assert that the “evidence” suggested “an imminent attack” by the plane on the Vincennes.

Note that the word “evidence” in this context is being used euphemistically by the Times’ editorial board to mean claims by US government officials that were directly contradicted by the actual evidence available to them.

The Times proceeded to state that, if the US government’s account was at least “largely correct”, then we could safely conclude that the Iran Air pilot was to blame “for failing to acknowledge the ship’s warnings and flying outside the civilian corridor. Iran, too, may bear responsibility for failing to warn civilian planes away from the combat zone of an action it had initiated.”

They concluded that “the onus for avoiding such accidents in the future” fell not on the captains of American warships operating in the territorial waters of other countries, but “on civilian aircraft” flying in their own airspace.

The takeaway lesson presented by the Times was that civilian aircraft should just “avoid combat zones, fly high, [and] acknowledge warnings.”

Finally, the editorial concluded that ultimate blame lay with the government of Iran, with the “accident” instructing the world that it was time for Tehran “to bring an end to its futile eight-year war with Iraq.”

Of course, as the Times editors were perfectly well aware, it was Iraq who started the war, which dragged on for eight long years in large part due to the fact that the US was backing the aggressor.

Far from being held accountable for the mass murder of 290 civilians, Captain Rogers was later presented with the Legion of Merit award “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service” during his time as commanding officer when the shootdown occurred.

Rogers’ weapons and combat systems officer at the time, Lieutenant Commander Scott E. Lustig, received two commendation medals and was praised for “heroic achievement” for his conduct during the incident.

The entire crew of the Vincennes received combat action ribbons.



Conclusion
The US shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 receives only rare mentions in the US mainstream media despite being a key incident in the history of the US’s relations with Iran that serves as critical context for understanding how Iranians today view the US government.

When it is mentioned, the media’s tendency is to characterize the mass killing as an honest “mistake”, resulting from an action any other country’s navy would have taken if put in the same position. Although it has long been known that the US government’s account of the incident was a pack of lies, the US media to this day characterize it as though the resulting death of civilians was just an unfortunate consequence of war.

When Max Fisher wrote in in the Washington Post in 2013 that “the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf”, it is hard to fathom that he was unaware that the US warship was in Iranian waters; and yet he declined to relay that critical piece of information to his readers.

It is equally hard to fathom that he was unaware it was the Vincennes that initiated hostilities; yet this fact, too, he omitted.

Fisher also unquestioningly parroted the US government’s claim that the Vincennes’ crew “mistook” the plane for an F-14, which he attributed either to “the heat of battle” or the plane’s failure to identify itself.

It may be true that, as the naval investigation determined, Captain Rogers imagined it to be an F-14. Yet, as Lieutenant Colonel David Evans wrote in the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings Magazine in August 1993, the information received by the American ships from the plane’s transponder unambiguously identified it as an ascending commercial aircraft.

“Both Captain Rogers and Captain Carlson,” Evans noted in his essay, “had this information.”

It is no less hard to fathom how Fisher could have been unaware of the fact that Flight 655 had been squawking its identify as a civilian aircraft, something even the most precursory research into the incident would have revealed to him.

It is therefore difficult to escape the conclusion that Max Fisher’s purpose in writing was not to educate Americans about what happened, but to sustain the central myth that the shootdown was merely an unfortunate accident of the kind that happens in the fog of war.

He was, in other words, dutifully serving his role as a propagandist.

Charles Hoskinson in his 2015 Washington Examiner piece was hardly more forthcoming.

Fred Kaplan was far more forthcoming in his Slate piece from three years ago; yet even in the face of his own contrary evidence, he still preserved the central myth that the shootdown was merely a “mistake” resulting from Iran Air Flight 655 having “wandered into a naval skirmish”.

This is the same false narrative that America’s “newspaper of record” maintains on those rare occasions when the incident receives a passing mention.

The real story, in sum, is as follows:

Twenty-nine years ago, on July 3, 1988, US warships entered Iranian waters and initiated hostilities with Iranian vessels.

The consoles of the radar operators aboard the USS Vincennes at the time unambiguously showed an aircraft ascending within a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace, with the plane’s transponder signaling its identity as a commercial aircraft.

Captain Rogers nevertheless ordered his gunner to open fire on the plane, shooting it out of the sky and killing the 290 civilians on board.

Subsequently, rather than being held accountable for committing a war crime, Rogers and his entire crew received awards for their actions.

Like Captain Rogers, the mainstream media establishment seems to suffer from institutional “scenario fulfillment”, in which this action did not constitute a war crime or, at best, an act of international terrorism.

In the case of the media, the preconceived notion is that the US is an exceptional nation whose government is sometimes capable of “mistakes”, but only ever acts out of benevolent intent.

It is an assumption that, while deemed axiomatic by the mainstream media establishment, is no less self-delusional than Captain Rogers’ imaginary scenario of this “forgotten” episode in US-Iran relations.

This article was adapted largely from material presented on pages 349-350 of the author’s book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. See the book’s references for additional resources.

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independentolitical analyst, publisher, and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, where this editorial first appeared.

 

[SubWater]

The Medal of Honor is the United States of America's highest and most prestigious personal military decoration that may be awarded to recognize U.S. military service members who distinguished themselves by acts of valor. The medal is normally awarded by the President of the United States in the name of the U.S. Congress. There are three versions of the medal, one for the Army, one for the Navy, and one for the Air Force.[6] Personnel of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard receive the Navy version. U.S. awards, including the Medal of Honor, do not have post-nominal titles, and while there is no official abbreviation, the most common abbreviations are "MOH" and "MH". The Medal of Honor is the oldest continuously issued combat decoration of the United States armed forces.

In 1990, Capt. Rogers (of the USS Vincennes) was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.

The Legion of Merit (LOM) is a military award of the United States Armed Forces that is given for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. The decoration is issued to members of the seven uniformed services of the United States as well as to military and political figures of foreign governments.
The Legion of Merit (Commander degree) is one of only two United States military decorations to be issued as a neck order (the other being the Medal of Honor) and the only United States military decoration which may be issued in award degrees (much like an order of chivalry or certain Orders of Merit).

The Legion of Merit is sixth in the order of precedence of U.S. military awards and is worn after the Defense Superior Service Medal and before the Distinguished Flying Cross.[4] In contemporary use in the U.S. Armed Forces, the Legion of Merit is typically awarded to Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force general officers and colonels, and Navy and Coast Guard flag officers and captains occupying senior command or very senior staff positions in their respective services.

While each service has its own order of precedence, the following general rules typically apply to all services:

1. U.S. military personal decorations
2. U.S. military unit awards
3. U.S. non-military personal decorations (in order of receipt; if from the same agency, the applicable agency precedence listing should be consulted)
4. U.S. non-military unit awards
5. U.S. military campaign and service medals
6. U.S. military service and training awards (ribbon-only awards)
7. U.S. Merchant Marine awards and non-military service awards
8. Foreign military personal decorations
9. Foreign military unit awards
10. International decorations & service medals (e.g., United Nations, NATO, etc.)
11. Foreign military service awards
12. Marksmanship awards (Air Force, Navy & Coast Guard)
13. State awards of the National Guard (Army & Air Force only)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor#Navy.2C_Marine.2C_and_Coast_Guard_Medal_of_Honor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award...orces#Active_United_States_medals_and_ribbons

In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident, together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner. In total, 290 civilians on board were killed, 38 being non-Iranians and 66 being children. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time.

The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives, but never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on a separate occasion, speaking to a group of Republican ethnic leaders (7 Aug 1988) said: "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian air liner, has been attributed as such.
Bush used the phrase frequently during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shoot-down and as early as January 1988.
The incident overshadowed Iran–United States relations for many years. The former CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack wrote: "The shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655 was an accident, but that is not how it was seen in Tehran." Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 five months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Aftermath

Iran accepted this settlement. End of story.

Always is hard for me to understand you Europeans.

In Iran, most of the people believe that Americans did this to support Saddam, push Iran to accept United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 as well as send message to people of Iran that you are not safe more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_598

you should be at that time and then judge every side intention.
as you said Iran was in direct war in Persian gulf with foreign powers not just America, Iran also hit soviet warship before and was in war with them in Afghanistan too.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/world/soviet-ship-attacked-by-iran-in-gulf-us-says.html

I think Americans want to finish Iran-Iraq war to push Iran toward east against soviet.

anyway Americans wanted to end war and they got it.

 

[Muhammed45]

The civilian casualty of American swines' attack on a civilian flight

Iranian, Emirati, Indian, Pakistani, Yugoslavian and Italian.

USA's army is a bigger version of ISISrael.