> Still, kind of difficult to believe the US only had two incidents of that nature.
Why’s that difficult to believe?
Why’s that difficult to believe?
> Why’s that difficult to believe?
Because of stories like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/us-airstrikes-civilian...
> Without warning, an American F-15E attack jet… dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd, swallowing it in a shuddering blast. As the smoke cleared, a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.
> The site of the bombing was bulldozed; the unit that conducted the strike vindicated itself; key evidence was buried; military logs were altered; and investigations were stalled and subverted. Although the Pentagon's independent inspector general managed to launch a probe, "the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike."
The last paragraph is some Karimov's Uzbekistan level shit.
If you’re going to say “we don’t trust them” or something you’d have to then go and find all sorts of unaccounted for airliners that disappeared without cause and just decide to, without evidence, claim the U.S. secretly shot them down and is covering it up. It’s just a big conspiracy goose hunt. Oh and while you’re at it, we can toss in that airliners that crashed were just secret US cover-ups of shooting them down maliciously too because they “scrubbed the logs”.
> you’d have to then go and find all sorts of unaccounted for airliners that disappeared without cause
Wrong. Open the list above and see the soviet cases. None of those were unaccounted. They just crashed "of natural causes".
I think it's because the people doing what you're describing are doing it to a war zone and not commercial airliners? Are drone pilots shooting down commercial airliners now? I'm confused.
And if you take issue with calling the area a war zone no big deal, let's just call it a defined geographic area. It's beside the point.
> Wrong. Open the list above and see the soviet cases. None of those were unaccounted. They just crashed "of natural causes".
Ok. Can you list some civilian airliners that the US shot down and is covering? I'd love to know more about that. As far as I know the U.S. isn't shooting down airliners and covering it up but hey maybe you have some really good evidence or sources.
We are also talking about a military that does not only have a recent string of burrowing civilian casulties, like in Afghanistan or Syria, but has been doing so in plenty of other conflicts.
So yes, it's a bit difficult to believe that in decades of war the US ever only shot down two wrong planes, most likely that wikipedia list simply ain't anywhere to complete, like most of them.
> So yes, it's a bit difficult to believe that in decades of war the US ever only shot down two wrong planes, most likely that wikipedia list simply ain't anywhere to complete, like most of them.
I think your starting with what you want to believe is true and then walking back from that to find evidence to fit a narrative. There’s no reason to think that because the U.S. has willingly or unwillingly killed people in, say, an Afghan village that they’d be likely to misidentify commercial aircraft which have technology that positively identifies the aircraft. And in one case I recall with Iran it was a tense situation and you can at least give some amount of plausible deniability to the US military. They did pay out to the victims too IIRC, certainly not something that Russia or others have done.
As you mentioned, the U.S. has a global military presence. That means that encountering commercial aircraft all over the world would be a common occurrence and positive identification of those aircraft comes from U.S. led or contributed technologies and processes for making sure that they aren’t misidentified. So I’m not really sure it’s difficult to believe that the U.S. just doesn’t make many mistakes here, whereas in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria the situation is not comparable, error-prone, and quite complicated.
Said tense situation was the result of the USS Vincennes sailing into Iranian territorial waters, while the Iran-Iraq war was waging. It wasn't something that was just randomly forced onto them.
Which has way more parallels to MH17 than most Americans would be comfortable admitting.
Vincennes had entered Iranian territory after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits. [1]
Totally random how the US ship found itself in Iranian waters. Like a complete roll of the dice even!
And before you say something about defending the U.S. or w/e. No. I'm defending honest and civil discussion, and asserting that there is nuance in the world. I don't know if you have the same intentions based on your comments, especially as you leave out seemingly important details to fit a narrative you want to portray.
"Why was the US ship near Iranian waters" -> because it can be.
"Why did the US ship enter Iranian waters if the speedboat shot from Iranian waters" -> Same reason you'd ignore a border if someone was shooting at you from across it and claiming you can't cross the border.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, provide it or quit this speculative bullshit.
Because English Wikipedia is the most conclusive and authoritative collection of such incidents?
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, provide it or quit this speculative bullshit.
So we know about two instances, one of them very well established, the other one being a "maybe", yet a third one would suddenly be "extraordinary"? In what context exactly?