Talk:Iran Air Flight 655/Archive 1

Biased statement

I need a source for this claim made by K1, specially the suicide mission part: The US never admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, never apologized, and furthermore, blamed the Iranians for it, as according to the US account of this tragedy, the Iranian commercial jetliner "appeared to be on a suicide mission". Roozbeh 14:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plus, as far as I remember from Puerto Rican newspapers, President Reagan DID send an apology, to the stuff of "this is a senseless tragedy and the American people extend our condolences to all of Iran" or something like that. Antonio Politically INcorrect...so who cares? Martin

and this is why puerto rican papers and magazines should just stick to salsa and merengue and stay out of politics. not only did usa never apologize, the reagan administration never even admitted the slightest gilt in the whole tragedy. in fact george shcultz, then Secretary of State, said openly and shamelessly [i am paraphrasing here, as i can't remember the quote verbatim] "the responisibility for this incident is fully with the iranian side who were not responding to our numerous queries ...." -- an ourageous lie. as if that wasn't shameful enough, a US federal court rejected the legitimacy of lawsuits and compensation efforts for the families of the victims, on the grounds that this was part of a "war situation" and therefore US law disqualifies such claims on that basis!! now you would think this is unspeakable shamelessness? it gets even worse. they allowed law suits to be filed by families of "non-iranian" victims of that flight because their respective countries were not participants in a war that relates to this case. and for your information, later on, will rogers, the commander of that ship, was decorated for his bravery and dedication to his country!! some brave man. --K1 08:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think --K1 should mellow his tone. I am somewhat surprised that you have to take all contradiction / different opinion as a personal attack. Refdoc 21:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just came to this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-statements.html. It may help to find what US government really said. I'll read it later. Roozbeh 17:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have read it. Basically the US president expressed his regret about the loss of life, but maintained throughout that the action in itself was justified and a regrettable outcome of a bad situation precipitated by Iranian offensive action onto lawful civilian ship traffic. The collection though is not complete. I think the most important missing bit appears to be the outcome of the military investigation of the matter and any subsequent apologies (or lack of the same). Significant though might also be the miniscuel excerpt of the ICJ judgement, which seems to deny the legality of American intervention. A further extremely interesting side issue - though not related to the matter at hand is the barefaced lie re bilateral chemical weapons' use... Refdoc 21:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other source [[1]], apparently a newsweek article, largely saying here was a trigger happy captain who was completely careless in his action and a subsequent cover up by the navy, but is the article somewhere available in its original rather than on someone's home page ? Refdoc 21:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I found the following :

"Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988 Authors: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON DC

Abstract: The downing of civilian Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July was a tragic and regrettable accident and, as is so often the case in a combat environment, there were a number of contributing factors. It is important to put the events of that day in the local context. The U.S. Government committed naval forces to the convoying of American flag tankers in the spring of 1987. From the onset, the Administration emphasized that while our forces could achieve this mission, it would involve risks and uncertainties. This prediction was borne out by several incidents, e.g., the indiscriminate laying of Iranian mines, the Bridgeton explosion, the STARK tragedy, the SAMUEL B. ROBERTS striking a mine, the capture of the Iran Ajar, Iranian firing on U.S. helos, and the incidents of April 18 when Iranian ships and aircraft attempted to damage U.S. units. Throughout this period and especially in the wake of the above events, the Government of Iran issued inflammatory statements threatening retaliation against American personnel and interests. Reinforcing the high level of tension, both Baghdad and Teheran have continued to attack unarmed merchant ships, the former with aircraft and the latter with small boats, ships and aircraft. Iranian assaults have been largely concentrated in the southern gulf and on occasion have taken place in the presence of foreign warships. (kr)" [[2]] and discussion of teh whole thing including the partial releases in 1988 and 1993 at [[3]]

I will try and edit the article, tell me what you think. I have added a few further sources, but I have finally cut K1's assertion of "suicide mission". This accusation (Iran having sent a civilian airliner on suicide mission) - while being made by some American journalists and military personnel has as far as I could find never been part of an official explanation. So I think it shoudl not remain here.Refdoc 22:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As everything else is adequately covered by sources I believe the dispute notice can be taken down. If no argument to the opposite appears I will remove it in 48 hrs. Refdoc 09:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If a journalist put it in print and multiple people made the claim, then the suicide mission claim is worth mentioning, whether or not debunked (one of WP's valuable roles is to shed light on the facts behind conspiracy theories). If you delete it, then people will be trying to reinsert it for the next ten years - better to head them off with an appropriately NPOV version. Stan 13:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, so how would you formulate this? Refdoc 14:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something like "According to Joe Blow of Newsrag Daily, who cited several anonymous military officials, the plane was on a suicide mission.", then add any evidence he might have included. The only verifiable fact may be that Joe Blow made the claim, so we carefully attribute it to him, not to ourselves. Also, I would only bother with the whole thing if Newsrag Daily was sufficiently reputable and/or well-known as to merit its own article. Stan 16:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This sounds good, only that there is no Joe Blow yet known. User:K1 needs to come up with some reference then, I guess... Refdoc 17:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I attempted to do some NPOV work. In addition, there were some grammatical and style errors that needed to be cleaned up. -Joseph (Talk) 04:58, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

It wasn't really NPOV it was to put the impression on the reader that Americans had no intention on shooting and were forced to do so. It's not proved yet.--Pouya 19:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely makes it more NPOV. Or something. I will review your changes more closely in the next day or so. Why is it that everything you deleted consisted of counterarguments or clarifications to allegations? -Joseph (Talk) 20:01, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

"after-action situation" in "Vincennes had been battling Iranian Navy gunboats, which placed her in an after-action situation of being in Iranian territorial waters." means that Americans had no way to avoid violating Iranian territorial waters which is obviously not a counterargument.

"erred unintentionally" in "Differences can be drawn in the fact that (by all known accounts) the U.S. Navy erred unintentionally during a tense and time-critical situation, while the VVS acted deliberately in light of obviously contradictory evidence, and with sufficient time to verify the nature of the target." doesn't imply a counterargument. The same can be claimed by Russian sources that in Korean case they erred unintentionally. Also those accounts you mention regarding the situation of the staff of Vincennes is solely based on reports provided by Americans and this better be explicitly mentioned in the sentence, though I prefer not to make a comparison between these two cases and just let readers check that case through "See also" section.

"The situation will likely be a point of contention for some time, as it is difficult to assess the results of combat actions when not directly involved. The fact that Vincennes and other U.S. Navy vessels had been at full alert immediately prior complicated the situation." is a personal evaluation of the situation and there is no need for it in a wikipedia article. --Pouya 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I largely agree with Pouya. There is no point in re-hashing one POV at the bottom as a final conclusion. The lack of intenionality is debated, many do not see this as an unfortunate mistake but as quite deliberate action. So the conclusion can not be "reconciliation" to the US government POV.

Apart from this - the article is afr too short to justify all these different headlines. I therefore remove them again. The article reads fluently enough. Refdoc 00:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is still POV. And the actions and comments by Refdoc and Pouya are further indicative of this. Any attempt at even insinuating that the incident was not intentional has garnered swift reversion by one of the two of them. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:45, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

The facts are presented from different POV's. US governments official stance is explicitly mentioned:

According to US government accounts, Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane....

So if we add a sentence, with no official source, that the attack was intentional (or unintentional) we are making a POV claim. So let it be just a collection of known facts, not personal attitudes. --Pouya 20:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For User: N328KF: Exactly where is the article just now POV ? We list the various versions, link them to known sources and avoid giving our own conclusion. Mine are clear, but I keep them on the talk pages.You try to push yours onto the article. Not good. What shall I say? Maybe "Zip up. Your POV is showing!" ??...Refdoc 22:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any attempt at even insinuating that the incident was not intentional ... Exactly , insinuating is the word marking surreptious introduction of a POV... Refdoc

Another reference

I added a link to Tragedy over the Persian Gulf to external links. I think this reference can also be taken into account while resolving this NPOV dispute.

Maritime Style Guide

what is this thing "Maritime Style Guide" and why should it bind us???? - I have never heard of it. Ships are things and should be treated as such , but not as persons, however sentimental navy people might look at them. So please re-insert these articles. Refdoc 18:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The name is informal. I am using it to refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#"The" before the ship's name. It is being debated to some degree, but we have started removing "the" before ship names in all the articles we cross. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:20, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

as it is this appears to be some Navy ideosyncratic thingy, but certainly not mainstream English. So I suggest the articles go in again, unles this will start a revert war... Refdoc

Mentioning the children

N328KF, I think you are once again overshooting the aim. As it is, large amounts of information are under dispute. Only paragraph 1 and 2 are about non disputed items. Whether this was a tragic accident, Iranian provocation or American carelessness - or whatever else - has no direct bearing in the huge sense of tragedy surrounding this event. The debate is secondary, the tragedy primary. SO the children - which are undisputed FAIK - should be part of the factual part - i.e. paragraph 1 or 2. By all means find a better way of formulating it, but do not remove factual information for which you do not have any use. If things were so clearly a result of carelessness or ill will by the Iranians you would have no reason to remove the kids, would you? Refdoc 17:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why should there be any specific distinction for them over the other people on the aircraft? When people refer to the Waco, Texas or Oklahoma City incidents, people don't generally highlight the children there. Nor do they in most of the incidents between Israel and Palestine. Sure, they are important, but their role in and of itself is not distinctive. A different situation could be the Bezlan situation in Russia, where children were the tactical (though not strategic) objectives. In that case, the focus was clearly on them. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:19, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

The fact (if any) that people don't generally refer to children in other incidents don't justify not mentioning it here. In the case of Israel-Pelestine clashes, in several cases number of kids are also reported. The purpose is not supporting a POV, it's just drawing a more realistic picture of the tragedy happened. That's all. Would you please provide any reason other than "...specific distinction..." or "...people don't generally highlight the children..." for removing number of kids killed in the incident? --Pouya 20:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

N238KF, whether other articles are shorter or longer - this is really not of importance. We add information, bit by bit and the encyclopedia grows. It might grow irregularly in bits, but lack of information in one end does not justify cutting it in other ends. May I also refer you to the article on the World Trade Centre, which has detailed demographics on the victims. So some felt there this was important information. Refdoc 01:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Pouya and Refdoc here. Reporting the facts is one thing. Interpreting them or assigning levels of significance to the facts is another. I remember my news channel kept showing that day care center in the federal building in OKL when it happened.--Zereshk 06:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think one way we can resolve this issue is by giving the full breakup of the fatalities: for example 154 men, 87 women, 60 children, 30 foreign nationals. That way it will be hard for someone to accuse the article of trying to "influence the reader". Any takers?--Zereshk 19:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International Court of Justice

ICJ's November 6, 2003 (Press release) vote on US Navy's presence in Iranian territorial water was about Operation Praying Mantis not IR655 incident. The only record about IR655 on ICJ's site is [4]. I'm a bit busy these days but I'll try to incorporate these sources into corresponding pages. --Pouya 20:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Operator error or poor user interface?

Software development expert Steve McConnell wrote:

Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes's Aegis system in 1988, killing 290 people. The error was initially attributed to operator error, but later some experts attributed the incident to the poor design of Aegs's user interface. (Professional Software Development, page 166)

I recall hearing something "conspiratorial" at the time, about how the passenger plane was thought to have deliberately sent a transponder signal identifying it as military. McConnell seems to contradict this theory. Uncle Ed 15:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is rather odd to change a balance found a long time ago and a separation of generally accepted stuff from the disputed by replacing it by frank POV. The quote provided might indeed be useful as evidence, but iot can go in amonsgt the various conflicting versions. The acceptance that this was an error is and remains very one sided. Refdoc 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If good sources can be found that confirms the poor user interface, I'd say that the operator error might be a direct result of this. Regarding the transponder signal, the article clearly says that it was pointed at the end of the nearby runway, where military aircraft were operating. Bjelleklang 11:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Different picture?

The first picture says it is an Airbus, however it is a Boeing 737.

Cut from Independent Sources section:

Independent investigations into the events have presented a different picture.

This section gives no picture at all of the incident, but presents only the conclusions of journalists from Newsweek magazine.

Perhaps we should balance the points of view as:

• The government said the ship's officers were not to blame; vs.
• Two Newsweek reporters drew a different conclusion, accusing them of ...

Generally speaking, investigations report facts as well as drawing conclusions. Uncle Ed 16:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And generally speaking some "facts" are not accepted as facts by everyone. The article is a again a mess TBH. Refdoc 07:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Source request: G.W. Bush Senior quote

Can someone provide a source for the George H. W. Bush quotation? --Rc251 21:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I googled around and could not find an authorative source. Lesser sources suggest it was made on 2-AUG-88 to the "Bush '88 Coalition of American Nationalities" in Washington [5] [6] You're right to remove it, for now at least. Rwendland 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Newsweek, August 15, 1988 is reported by many net articles as the source, e.g. [7], [8], [9]. Be good if someone with easy access to a good library would check that week's Newsweek. Rwendland 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

With the new edit conflict starting over it, it's even more important that someone grabs an actual copy of that issue. I had reverted the removal of the quote because noone seemed to have checked the actual issue of Newsweek. - Dammit 12:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW the reason I reverted it back in was that the original basis given for removing it was incorrect, a reputable source was given (Newsweek). The issue is whether the source was correctly quoted/checked, and we should presume the editor who inserted the source did do that until someone actually checks that edition of Newsweek is not a valid source. I presume the LexisNexis check recently made does show it was not in that edition of Newsweek, so accept now it should be removed. Rwendland 13:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I shelled out the $3 to LexisNexis AlaCarte and dug up the quote:

"I will never apologize for the United States of America -- I don't care what the facts are." GEORGE BUSH, speaking to a group of Republican ethnic leaders about the accidental downing of an Iranian airliner

Newsweek, PERSPECTIVES; Pg. 15 (August, 15 1988)

That matches up with what this site has: [10] and puts the date of the actual quote at the date of the Bush '88 Coalition of American Nationalities meeting in Washington on 1988-08-02. I'll be updating the article appropriately in just a few minutes. --Wclark 07:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact check

Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before the Vincennes launched its missiles. The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency, despite being a sophisticated anti-aircraft warship.

Can this possibly be true? How could there be no monitoring of civil aviation? If I was on the bridge, it would have been the very first thing I would have requested. This doesn't make any sense. —Viriditas | Talk 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, incedibly it's in the various DOD reports. The investigation report says "U.S. ships deployed to Persian Gulf area are limited to a single VHF radio which is tuned to International Air Distress (IAD) frequency 121.5 mHz. It can take upwards of 1 hour to change pre-set radio VHF frequencies." [11] Rear Adm. Robert J. Kelly later told the senate "Some recommendations have already been acted upon. We have already installed VHF radios in ships assigned to the Middle East force. These radios can be quickly tuned to different VHF frequencies that are used by commercial airlines." [12] The Airbus was shotdown 7 minutes from takeoff, still climbing and had already talked to two ATCs: "Due to heavy pilot workload during take-off and climb-out, and the requirment to communicate with both Approach Control and Tehran Center, the pilot of Iran Air Flight 655 probably was not monitoring IAD." [13]. According to the ICAO report the pilot talked to Bandar Abbas Approach/Departure Control (0654:00–0654:11) seconds before the missile was fired, and 2.5 mins earlier had spoken to Tehran Area Control Center . I guess many radio-equipped plane-spotters could have told the captain it was civilian. Rwendland 11:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW Senator John Glenn asked the Admirals some challenging questions to do with this [14] "[had] you considered assigning any responsibility for the Vincennes shoot down to the Commander of the Joint Task Force of CINCCENT for failure to recognize and establish adequate procedures to deal with Commercial Air Traffic in the gulf. Admiral Fogarty: ... I did not consider the issue of commercial airline schedules germane to the Vincennes investigation ... nothing that I found during the course of my investigation in this regard that would have made me consider assigning any responsibility for the Vincennes incident to Commander Joint Task Force Middle East of USCINCCENT."

Discovery Channel Documentary

I watched the Discovery Channel documentary on the incident last night and there were some interesting things in it.

• Initially the plane appeared to be squawking both mode 2 (military) and mode 3 (civilian) IFF codes. This was attributed to two things. On initial acquisition on the Vincennes computer screens, there was an Iranian F-14 on the ground at the airport (which was both civilian and military) so two codes came back. Then although the aircraft trace moved, the acquisition cursor remained over the initial acquisition location, picking the F-14 IFF.

When the system updated, and was showing only mode 3, this was interpreted that the plane had switched mode 2 off to deceive the Vincennes.

• The Vincennes was on course to another area of the gulf, when they requested permission to support another US ship. Permission was denied, but permission was given to launch their helicopter in support. When the helicopter came under fire, the Vincennes headed full speed for the helicopters location. The documentary didn't make clear whether the Vincennes had already changed course before the helicopter was fired upon. This is a crucial point. If the Vincennes changed course towards the north BEFORE the helicopter was fired upon, they were disobeying a direct order. AFTER the helicopter was fired upon, they were of course permitted to make best speed towards it, in order to support it.

• US Navy radio operations guidelines at the time did not require ships to broadcast the IFF code number of the plane they were trying to contact during warning transmissions. Had they done so, it is highly likely the Iranian pilot would have recognised it, and responded.

This is the point that really gets me. Guidelines or not, this is a serious failure of the crew of the Vincennes to simply think outside of a very very small box. That 655 is "unidentified" *and* squawking at the same time is absurd. It seems odd to me that no one thought to refer to the unidentified craft with it's transponder code when that is the only specific thing that would allow the crew of the 655 to recognise that the Vincennes was trying to contact them, as opposed to an ambiguious heading and an incorrect air speed. -- GIR 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• The report from a crew member that the plane was descending when it was actually ascending, which led directly to the shoot down order, was attributed by psychologists to 'scenario fufillment' syndrome, where under extreme stress, the mind can misinterpret information presented to it in a way that confirms the subjects most expected outcome.

• The factor that each person in the chain of command implicitly trusted the information that they had been given by their subordinates. Neither the officer above the crewman, nor the captain crosschecked the assertion that the aircraft was descending. Each trusted the information and the person giving it to be correct.

Personal opinion - this is probably attributable to the military mindset, especially amongst a close-knit group of personnel. Each person implicitly trusts the others in their unit, as it is a matter of mutual survival in combat situations. If someone yells "Sniper on the hill!", no-one will double check that - they will take cover.

• In communications sent, the Vincennes was broadcasting the surface speed of the aircraft, however the aircraft relative airspeed could well have been different, hampering the aircrafts ability to identify itself from the information the Vincennes was broadcasting.

• During a check of airline schedules, the twin factors of different timezones for the airport and ship, and the delay in taking off lead the the erroneaous conclusion there were no commercial flights scheduled.

All interesting stuff and should be included! exolon 15:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Other factors that may have been contributing"

Is it just me or does this entire section from the article read like an apology for the US Navy killing 290 people? Especially reading the last bulleted point, to the effect that this incident may have been instrumental in ending the Iran-Iraq war, seems over the top. So, let me see if I get it right: this 'aggressive Captain', by accidentally blowing up 290 people, actually did a good, nay, noble thing? It's not surprising to read a quote from GWH Bush further down, in which he said that the US will never admit any wrongdoing, "no matter what the facts are."

None of it is sourced either except for the last bit about the software developer. Unless the author can cite a source for these claims, I'm removing the section. SouthernComfort 06:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Worst peacetime naval disaster?

"This incident took place just over a year after the USS Stark was accidentally attacked in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi fighter jet, costing 37 lives and proclaimed at the time to be the worst U.S. Naval peacetime disaster."

-On June 3 1969 the USS Frank E Evans sank when she was rammed by the australia aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne, costing 74 USN lives. This peacetime tragedy occured long before the USS Stark incident and was much worse. - jimbob [[15]]

Contradiction?

"The American ship tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement."

"The American version of the tragedy of Flight 655 has been questioned by many, including a writer of the Newsweek magazine, who said that, since all talks in international flights between pilots and control towers must be done in English, the occupants of the USS Vincennes should have known that the plane nearing them was a commercial jet-liner."

Is it just me or that a contradiction?

You answer is here: Iran_Air_Flight_655#Radio_frequencies. Vincennes crew also addressed the Airliner pilot as an F-14 on distress frequencies. So how could he know they were talking to him.

I am reverting back your edit. 203.48.45.194 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 - 

- The USS Vincennes did try and contact Flight 655. Three times using civilian air channels and seven times using military ones. The problem was that they used distress frequencies, which Captain Rezaian was probably not checking, and were not addressing him correctly. During take off, he was most likely listening to the approach constrol frequency at Banda Abbas monitoring air traffic control. Just 40 seconds before the missile launch the Sides sent a message clear enough that it could not have been mistaken as being inteded for another aircraft. Secondly, the Vincennes did not have the equipment to monitor such channels as the Approach control frequency at Bandar Abbas. Captain Rezaian was fluent in english and would have responded to any such contacts. He did, at 7 thousand and 10 thousand feet (I believe, off the top of my head) send messages with his intent, direction, speed, and alititude.

Unfortunately, the Vincennes was not equipped with civilian aviation band radios (not even receivers). There were unable to listen to Iranian ATC then. From reading the investigation reports it seems that a huge lack of miscommunication contributed to this event. Again emphasizing the need for international cooperation. Additionally, the Vincennes did have Civilian and Military hard coded transmission radios in such an event as this however altering the VHF frequency on this certain radio required upwards of an hour to modify—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjsoques (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

They also contacted the plane on civilian distress freq but being a military ship thats the only civil freq they can hear and speak too