"Figured it Out - Iran to Make Topgun II Movie" Topic

Ha!

I figured it out.

They're going to make the Topgun II movie, but more from the Iranian perspective, and this time the bad guys (errr, Iranian "good guys") are going to win.

link

Their 2/3rds scale model will be the perfect backdrop for this, and they can show the Iranian defense forces defeating the mighty US Navy in both aerial and naval combat, with their "superior" wonder weapons.

No doubt, the propaganda value in the region, and throughout the world will be huge, as whole squadrons of F-18s are shot out of the sky by those highly skilled, and well equipped, Iranian pilots, flying F-14s, F4s, and other jet fighters.

At this time, it is unclear if Tom Cruise has agreed to star in the remake.

Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.

Of course, perhaps it's just for the more practical use of serving as a target for naval and aerial attack drills as well, but the propaganda angle should not be overlooked.

It's a prop for a movie about the USS Vincennes shoot-down of Iran Air 655 in 1988 when 290 civilians were killed:

link

As the Washington Post pointed out many in America may have forgotten about Flight 655, but few have in Iran:

link

Cheers,
Bertie

Can't really say I blame the Vincennes crew, given the circumstances in the region, and due to previous attacks on US forces there.

Ah, I see, kind of like the suicide bombing in Lebanon, backed by the Iranians and others, that killed 241 Marines and other US personnel, back in 1983 (299 people in total).

Iran and Syria have denied their involvement.

However, it is interesting to point out that:

"To date, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have continued to deny any involvement in any of the bombings; even though, in 2004, Iran erected a monument in Tehran to commemorate the 1983 bombings and its martyrs.[13]".

A US judge found them to be guilty, and awarded more than $2.6 USD Billion in damages to the families of those killed.

More info on the subject can be found here:

link

Shooting down an airliner is a bit different to a terrorist bombing.

One was premeditated murder of soldiers by a terrorist group and the other an act of gross incompetence by an over aggressive commander combined with overreliance on technology.

The Vincennes captain was described as over aggressive by an officer serving on another ship in their battlegroup, whilst a USN admiral admitted the Vincenes was in Iranian waters at the time.

The Americans awarded the Vincennes captain a medal for his service in the Persian Gulf.

US never apologised for the action but did pay compensation in 1996 after the incident went to the International Court of Justice which ruled in Iran's favour.

There's no good or bad guys in the Iran-America saga. The Iranians may be a nasty dictatorial regime but then:

1. The USA supported the equally dictatorial Shah to 1979.

2. The USA supported Iraq in 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War including provision of satelite intelligence, turning a blind eye to Iraqi usage of chemical weapons and supporting loans from rest of Arab world and sales of weapons to Iraq.

The USN was also active against the Iranians in the 1980s whilst ignoring similar Iraqi actions in the so-called "Tanker War".

Indeed the Iraqis accidentally attacked a USN frigate with an Exocet missile.

3. The USA has gone out of its way to be anti-Iranian whenever it could. E.g. George W. Bush lumped Iran into "Axis of Evil" even though at the time Iran had nothing to do with terror attacks on USA (which were probably funded by US ally Saudi Arabia and initial training in camps provided by other US ally Pakistan).

Al Qaeda and Taliban are both Sunni whilst Iran is Shia, something that has escaped the Americans (but then they also accussed Hussein of supporting AQ which is also illogical as Hussein did not want Saudi sponsored religious extremists threatening his secular Ba'ath regime).

Bare in mind US and Iran were actually cooperating against Taliban up to that whole Axis of Evil speech as Iran has a vested interest in keeping Sunni extremists out of power.

4. The USA is supporting equally dictatorial Persian Gulf states to buld up massive armed forces whose main purpose is war against Iran.

This includes offensive systems such as long range strike aircraft and cruise missiles.

The Iranian military is effectively crippled whilst the Arabs now have larger and more well equipped forces than most European powers.

No wonder Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons – it's their only chance to create a deterrent against the Arabs, the Israelis and the Americans.

5. America and NATO has basically taken the Sunni side in the Shia-Sunni conflict.

This includes:

1. Tacit support of anti-Shia suppression in Saudi Arabia

2. Tacit support of suppression of Shia "Arab Spring" uprising in Bahrain.

3. Provision of air support to Sunni militants in Libya.

4. Supporting Sunni militia in Syria.

5. Supporting the extremely fundamentalised Pakistani military. Remember Pakistan's ISI created the Taliban and still support elements of it that act in pro-Pakistani interests.

Not necessarily, since as we've seen, airliners can be fairly lethal airborne missiles.

Iran took many Americans hostage in 1979, and kept them for over a year, before they finally released them.

It is widely known that they are the number one supporter of terrorism on a global scale, as well (or, at least were, before AQ was formed – not sure if they are still #1, or #2 now, since I lack secret intel), providing personnel, weapons, and cash for successful suicide attacks.

So, given that, it seems logical to oppose them.

Except this airliner was not being used as a missile and it was 13 years before the Saudis decided to use airliners as missiles.

My point was Uncle Sam isn't the good guy here just like the Iranians or Iraqis weren't the good guys. It's all just horrific oil driven geopolitics with little or no regards for the people who live in the area.

As for largest supporters of terrorism before AQ, the original main supporters of terrorism in the 1980s was Libya.

Libya even directly engaged in terrorism (e.g. Lockerbie or bombing of discos frequented by US service men in Europe) as well as providing overt support to the PLO, MNLF, Provisional IRA, PFLP, Basque terror groups, Polissario Front, Japanese Red Army Faction etc.

In fact the Arabs supported terrorism against Israel for a long time.

The Saudis, Qataris and Emirates still support terrorist and insurgency groups to this day.

Most Iranian sponsored terrorism has been anti-Israeli forces. They have since moved onto operations in Iraq which makes sense given large Shia population there and historical precedents,

Also isn't it more logical for USA to oppose Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar etc who have funded and trained anti-US groups, whose nationals have attacked US interests, who have killed thousands of Americans etc?

Last time I checked Bin Laden was a Saudi, Taliban are a Pakistani creation and the oil rich states still support Islamists around the world.