Printable View
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/l...hnk/index.html
Conspiracy theories and tragedy notwithstanding, this is a bad look for Boeing. Both 737 NG and max may also have a major wiring issue. The airline I fly with most often uses Boeing planes, I think from those generations, and I'm getting pretty nervous about flying with them now.
At this point, it's 50/50 whether the plane went down due to an accident or something else. Need to see more evidence.
It would be ridiculous odds that during a time of very heightened Iranian air defense alert that this plane just happened to malfunction.
Sadly coincidences do happen and Boeing don't have a great track record at the minute. Plus Tehran is nowhere near the military actions of that night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Though it happening in Iran may provide enough smoke to help Boeing avoid exposure in the court of public opinion.
Boeing's reputation is saved, possibility of huge PR crisis for Iran rising:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51055219
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena...ranian-suburb/
Obv needs much more corroboration.
Planes explodes, happens spontaniously. :P
Here is another one: (~same)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html
Iran kills 1500 protesters
Have 50+ people die in a funeral
Shoots down civilian aircraft with 150+ people
That country is a basket case.
Pretty fucking negligent not to ground civilian flights in their airspace while their air defences are in hair trigger mode.
Yeah, what kind of shithole does thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
For shoot-downs with 100+ casualties, the list in descending chronological order from before today is Russian-oriented separatists in the Ukraine, Abkhazi separatists in Georgia (technically this was multiple smaller planes attacked but it was a concerted effort over four days), the US Navy, the Soviet Air Force, and the Israeli Air Force. The Russians tried for a double with KAL 902, but most of the passengers and crew survived that crash-landing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Arguably the Russians got the double in Ukraine.
Tragic :-/
Obviously someone f*ed up.
Says alot about Irans infrastructure and tactical abilities (they obviously suck).
And WTF flies over this area soon after a rocket attack?!
Iran admitted shooting down the airliner.
That's new.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51077897Quote:
The UK ambassador to Iran was arrested during anti-government protests in Tehran after officials admitted shooting down a passenger plane.
Rob Macaire was held for three hours, in what the UK described as a "flagrant violation of international law".
It is understood he was attending a vigil for those who died in the crash, which turned into a protest.
He left to make his way back to the UK embassy, but was arrested as he stopped at a barber shop for a haircut.
Who the fuck attends, in their capacity as UK ambassador, a vigil for the dead/protest against the Iranian government in the middle of Tehran during a time of crisis and just randomly stops in for a haircut on the way back to the embassy? That's just weird, that is.
What is it with liberals bending over backwards to try to blame anyone other than Iran. How about asking what kind of country arrests people for getting a fucking haircut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm not sure that's really true. The US Navy shot down a civilian airliner in the 80s, as have the Russians, Israelis, Bulgarians (!), Cubans, Ukrainians (not just the separatists), and more. Sometimes it's a case of mistaken identity (as in the case of the USN and the recent Iranian shootdown), sometimes it's a case of a plane straying into restricted airspace and not responding to orders. It's not super uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by rille
Yes, there were a lot of failures that had to occur for this to happen, but the IRGC is not uniquely incompetent. Their handling of the optics in the aftermath was supremely incompetent, however.
A good question might be why regular commercial flights were going to Iran at all in the context of the extremely high likelihood of some sort of military attack in the wake of Soleimani's killing. But as to that specific timing, I'm not even sure if civil aviation authorities in Iran knew that the IRGC had launched a strike, let alone that Iranian air defenses were on high alert. Absent a wholesale recalibration of risk tolerance on the part of airlines, I think it's not necessarily clear that the airliners (or civil aviation authorities) were really being all that foolhardy.Quote:
And WTF flies over this area soon after a rocket attack?!
In this part of the world it is not considered that weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Oh, do be quiet. I wasn't blaming him, just making an observation that that's a bit of a random time to get a haircut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Say, what is with conservatives being so obsessed with their pre-conceived ideas about liberals liking Americas enemies that they keep coming back to it, even in the most tenuously connected circumstances? Is it because you all have, like, 6 ideas between you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...an-we-thought/
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/...soleimani.html
The worst part is that they're just the dumbest conspirators.
He shouldn't have said that part out loud, but it's not exactly exceptional to have a president's foreign policy decision be "influenced" by political considerations. I think it's also safe to say that a Rubio presidency might have actually been more disastrous than a Trump presidency.
Short of Rubio opening the gates to Hades I'm not sure how that's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
An occupation of Venezuela and Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Further it's a bit disingenuous to try and get upset for THAT reason when if he'd chosen to take a less drastic option because he didn't want to rock the political boat domestically we'd think of it as a rare and welcome bit of wisdom and restraint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think the revelations in the first article are more concerning, but the reports in the second article are more embarrassing - for suggesting that a corrupt crook is justified in his belief that he can buy his jurors, alternatively that individual legislators can blackmail the president - personally - into making specific, very significant foreign policy decisions.
Impeachment isn't a typical trial its purely 100% political. Otherwise all those petitions and people/ads asking people to contact their congress critter to vote for impeachment or "hold Trump accountable" would be potentially on the hook for bribery and jury tampering. But they aren't since it is a political process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Did anyone catch anything about the Supreme Leader expressing regrets? I felt like they were trying to not really accept responsibility by letting the President take care of it.
This is a half-truth. Impeachment is a political process and, to a large extent, a political remedy, but it also has a legal purpose - esp. in this situation, where the President has asserted immunity from both investigation and prosecution. The standard against which a president's alleged misconduct must be measured, in an impeachment trial, is a legal standard. Were this not the case, you would expect the impeachment of every single president to have governed while Congress was led by the opposing party; instead, you see the House impeaching or attempting to impeach only those presidents who arguably violated the constitutional standard against which their misconduct was measured. Impeachment trials do not have the character of a purely political process; there is at least a semblance of adherence to apolitical principles/standards (eg. articulation of the standards of evidence one has used, a separate oath affirming commitment to doing impartial justice under the Constitution and federal statutes, etc). At most you can say that impeachment is a hybrid process, but, again, partly with a legal purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I agree except for the Congress led by the opposing party part - because the supermajority threshold required by the Senate means mere control isn't sufficient - plus the line of succession meaning that the President is replaced by the Veep from his own party typically would also mean its not the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Politics and law can mix. The idea they're completely separate is a modern fallacy.
Anything not written into the law cannot be implied. What I mean is that the constitution gives the power to the senate to try the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. "
Meaning that whatever happens in a normal court room has no bearing in what goes on in the Senate trail. The traditional court procedural processes do not apply. The senate can choose by flipping a coin if the super majority agreed to it.
Lewk, Aimless and Rand are right -- impeachment isn't 100% political (as you claimed) but a hybrid mix of politics & law. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over any presidential impeachment trial. It might be a symbolic role but it still matters constitutionally. :bored:
Talk about thread drift...