USN oiler fires on Indian fishing vessel

[gunnut]

Would you equate the Mumbai shooters with Indian soldiers who accidentally shot civilians in a warzone?

[TopHatter]

Results are the same in the end, does not matter regarding the means.

Uhhh...yeah, that is quite possibly the most ignorant claim I've heard in long time.

Would you equate the Mumbai shooters with Indian soldiers who accidentally shot civilians in a warzone?

According to his formula, yes.

[Blademaster]

Uhhh...yeah, that is quite possibly the most ignorant claim I've heard in long time.

Just going by the standards that US have laid down against other countries.

According to his formula, yes.

Not so. the firing of the missile was no mistake. It was gross negligence and more over, he was rewarded for it. Do you see Indian soldiers being rewarded for accidentally shooting civilians in a war zone?

[Blademaster]

Do you equate terrorist action, deliberately targetting civilians outside a warzone, with that of an accident by uniformed military inside a warzone?

The captain had plenty of proof to rely on that it was an airliner not a military target and he either deliberately or grossly negligently ignored the proof.

[TopHatter]

Just going by the standards that US have laid down against other countries.

Your post said nothing about standards or anything else. It was a definite statement of your own opinion.

Not so. the firing of the missile was no mistake.

Correct, the firing of the missile was no mistake. It was the target identification that was in error.
Utterly unlike your example of Pan Am Flight 103.

It was gross negligence and more over, he was rewarded for it.

According to the events of that day, I don't think that gross negligence is an accurate description...and once again, absolutely zero credibility in comparing it to Pan Am 103.

Do you see Indian soldiers being rewarded for accidentally shooting civilians in a war zone?

By your standard, that doesn't matter one way or another. The end result is still the same: Dead civilians.

[TopHatter]

The captain had plenty of proof to rely on that it was an airliner not a military target and he either deliberately or grossly negligently ignored the proof.

Did he? And the time to digest that information?

I don't agree for one minute with Captain Rogers decision to engage what was reported to him as a Iranian fighter. But claiming that he had "plenty of proof" in the context of the event is stretching just a bit far.

And anyway what do you care? As far as your concerned the only thing that matters is that USS Vincennes shot down an airliner, case closed.

[gunnut]

Results are the same in the end, does not matter regarding the means.

End result is the same. You didn't care about intentions, negligence, or means. Therefore, any Indian soldier who harms a civilian regardless of circumstances is a terrorist.

[YellowFever]

Those of the crew of the Vincennes whose recklessness cost the lives of 290 innocent people should have been dealt with, with the USN's internal disciplinary measures (court-martialled if needed). Most of them were given medals IIRC, including Captain Rogers.

Those were End Of Tour medals as opposed to being awarded for that particular act.

In any case, what I think the consequences should have been is beside the point. My intention was to merely point out that TopHatter's comment about "no consequences" isn't necessarily true. Assuming of course that he was being sarcastic when he said this

Noted.

[dundonrl]

put yourself as the captain of a warship, close to Iran during an active war (Iran Iraq war/Tanker war) and also engaging enemy boats with your man guns.. (boghammers) and have an aircraft that takes off from a military airfield and appears to be squaking the codes of an enemy aircraft.. WHAT would you do.. would you allow that aircraft to get close and launch a missile at your ship, or would you take it out with your own missiles before it becomes a threat..

Captain Rogers was in that situation, and took the action to destroy the incoming aircraft, and I think that most CO's would have done the same thing, I hope that the CO of the warships that I was on, in the Persian Gulf would have done the same thing.

[diablo49]

Not so. the firing of the missile was no mistake. It was gross negligence and more over, he was rewarded for it.

Is there a source for this award for shooting down a civilian airliner?

I've actually seen this elsewhere and this ended up referring to the campaign ribbons awarded, which is for the campaign they were involved in, not for any specific act.

[lemontree]

Gents,
Before we go on a tangent and start comparing. Let us understand the procedure followed by sentries or military guards on duty.
An approaching person will be asked for identification three times and if the person fails to identify himself to the sentry, the sentry will open fire.

I do not know what happened between the fishing boat and the US naval ship, but this is the process followed. Either the fishing boat did not understand the warnings or the US ship did not communicate properly. But if one sees a small boat speeding at you, and your nation is the traget of the jihadis of the world, then you would open fire.

No body wants to intentionally kill civilians, errors of judgement happen. The charge for that in our army is "waging war against a friendly country", there is a military diciplinary process for this also, and the punishment depends upon the nature of the incident.

Comparing deliberate terrorist acts with military errors of judgement is unfair and not done.

[Doktor]

What are we taking about here, IR655 or the 2012 naval incident?

If someone wants to blame Captain Rogers, he shot Iranian plane over Iranian waters from within Iranian waters, without being in a de jure war with Iran.

However, US paid compensation (twice), expressed regrets (but not appology) and had bad PR for the incident. The case is closed since 1996 even for the Iranians.

Can we move on to 2012 now?

[YellowFever]

put yourself as the captain of a warship, close to Iran during an active war (Iran Iraq war/Tanker war) and also engaging enemy boats with your man guns.. (boghammers) and have an aircraft that takes off from a military airfield and appears to be squaking the codes of an enemy aircraft.. WHAT would you do.. would you allow that aircraft to get close and launch a missile at your ship, or would you take it out with your own missiles before it becomes a threat..

Captain Rogers was in that situation, and took the action to destroy the incoming aircraft, and I think that most CO's would have done the same thing, I hope that the CO of the warships that I was on, in the Persian Gulf would have done the same thing.

In all honesty, Rogers was playing the Cowboy in that role. Numerous reports suggest that Rogers was just itching for some action and the Captain of the USS Sides did accuse Rogers of being overly aggressive leading up to that incident. The "plenty of proof" that it was an airliner statement is bullshit and not worth addressing but there were idiotic moves on both side.

My belief is that the only reason why Rogers wasn't court-martialed was that it would have given the Iranians a political victory. There's a reason why he was retired without being promoted soon afterwards.

Gents,
Before we go on a tangent and start comparing. Let us understand the procedure followed by sentries or military guards on duty.
An approaching person will be asked for identification three times and if the person fails to identify himself to the sentry, the sentry will open fire.

I do not know what happened between the fishing boat and the US naval ship, but this is the process followed. Either the fishing boat did not understand the warnings or the US ship did not communicate properly. But if one sees a small boat speeding at you, and your nation is the traget of the jihadis of the world, then you would open fire.

No body wants to intentionally kill civilians, errors of judgement happen. The charge for that in our army is "waging war against a friendly country", there is a military diciplinary process for this also, and the punishment depends upon the nature of the incident.

Comparing deliberate terrorist acts with military errors of judgement is unfair and not done.

As stated before, a failure of communication.

However, unlike the Tanker War incident, there should/will (hopefully) be an honest investigation and if the captain of the oiler is found negligent, most likely he will be court-martialed or retired immediately.

[tankie]

Ah well , that's my next fishing trip bolloxed , I'm liable to get shot down before i get there :slap:

[Chogy]

When Pan Am 103 went down, there was probably dancing, laughter, and much joy back at the Terrorist bat-cave.

When the oiler crew found out there was death and casualty on an Indian fishing vessel, I strongly suspect there was sadness and mourning, plus introspection. Could it have been avoided?

All this means nothing? Intentions are meaningless? Hang 'em high?