Barack Obama demands Iran return downed US drone

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8952147/Barack-Obama-demands-Iran-return-downed-US-drone.html

Barack Obama demands Iran return downed US drone

President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged a US drone was in Iranian hands for the first time and said the United States has asked Tehran to return the sophisticated spy aircraft.


http://campaigniran.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/usbases1.jpg
US military bases located around Iran: one of the reasons Iran might not be willing to hand the US drone back


"We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said at a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. It was the first open confirmation by the Obama administration that Iran was in possession of the drone, which Tehran says it brought down as the plane was flying over the country's territory. Obama, however, shed no further light on the plane's mission or why it failed to return to a base in Afghanistan. "With respect to the drone inside of Iran, I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters that are classified," he said. The bat-winged RQ-170 Sentinel, designed to evade radar for surveillance flights, was on a CIA mission when it went missing, US officials, speaking anonymously, have said previously.

The episode has handed Iran a propaganda coup and Iranian state television has shown images of a robotic aircraft that experts say resembles the Sentinel. Iran has vowed to reverse engineer the drone but has given contradictory accounts of how the aircraft went down on December 4. Tehran initially said it shot down the drone but later claimed the Iranian military managed to hack into the plane's flight controls.

US officials have expressed scepticism that Iran has the technological capacity to have brought the plane down through hacking and that it was more likely the drone suffered a malfunction. Other American drones have flown off-course in the past, including the Fire Scout robotic helicopter, which engineers lost contact with during a flight in Maryland in 2010. Military commanders at one point considered shooting the helicopter down as it was heading towards the US capital but technicians managed to gain back control over the aircraft.

US officials and analysts also have cast doubt over Iran's ability to replicate the drone – at least without the help of Russia or China. "US capabilities are remarkably advanced, and it's unclear that the Iranians have the expertise" to exploit the advanced technology – including sensors – in the aircraft, a US official speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity said recently.

If China, Russia or even Iran flew drones over US airspace (an act which is classed as an act of war), allowed enemy state Cuba to obtain nuclear weapons 'illegally' under international law, had overthrown the US government in the past and continued to threaten military action against the United States - how do you think the US and the western world would react? why, in the same way Iran has reacted.

Thoughts?

[xxMATTGxx]

So the title says demands but in the actual article it says "We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond." Nothing wrong with asking for it back. It's just like Bush asking for the Orion back from China.

Don't really have an opinion on the whole "drones" thing, I suppose they do help the troops on the ground in Afghan but for spying missions is a whole different reason and the West will always spy on other countries.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So the title says demands but in the actual article it says "We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond." Nothing wrong with asking for it back. It's just like Bush asking for the Orion back from China.

Don't really have an opinion on the whole "drones" thing, I suppose they do help the troops on the ground in Afghan but for spying missions is a whole different reason and the West will always spy on other countries.

They'll be demanding behind the scenes, don't want to look like the bad guys now do we?

[FlyingJesus]

Speculation = fact right

[-:Undertaker:-]

Speculation = fact right

What the politicians say in public when they're caught by the short and curlies = fact right

[Chippiewill]

*predicts reports in a year's time saying that Iran has WMDs and needs to be invaded to protect international interests, US then cripples Iran's military and technology and then leaves*

[FlyingJesus]

What the politicians say in public when they're caught by the short and curlies = fact right

Replying with more speculation doesn't make your point validated lol. I have no real doubt that behind the scenes there's a lot more force behind it than "can we please have our stuff back?" but that doesn't mean you can display opinions and predictions as though they were factual evidence. This is something you very much need to learn for pretty much all of your arguments if you want to be taken seriously by people over the age of 16

[Ajthedragon]

Lol.

USA does make one laugh really...!

[GommeInc]

They shouldn't of been spying on them then :P Have no sympathy nor care over the whole situation. It's all pointless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Replying with more speculation doesn't make your point validated lol. I have no real doubt that behind the scenes there's a lot more force behind it than "can we please have our stuff back?" but that doesn't mean you can display opinions and predictions as though they were factual evidence. This is something you very much need to learn for pretty much all of your arguments if you want to be taken seriously by people over the age of 16

I like to deal with whats happening (ie the facts on whats happening behind the scenes which we all know of) as opposed to what the media and the politicians portray the event as, because conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. For another example of this, see the debate surrounding global warming in the mainstream media which omits events such as Climategate I & II but which I like to include because I rather think they are important. The same can be said for the European Union which is built on a federal/united idea, but that rarely gets a mention in the mainstream media or in the debates surrounding our membership.

You may not like it, but I couldn't care less what you like concerning what I think, say or how I say it. Alright Thomas?

[Eoin247]

Just an update on this, Iran says now that the drone belongs to them and not Washington. Doesn't seem that they have any notion of giving it back.

[Chippiewill]

I like to deal with whats happening (ie the facts on whats happening behind the scenes which we all know of) as opposed to what the media and the politicians portray the event as, because conventional wisdom is almost always wrong.

What makes you think that your speculation is any closer to the truth than the media? You have no reasonable evidence and you're only stating it for your own agenda.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What makes you think that your speculation is any closer to the truth than the media? You have no reasonable evidence and you're only stating it for your own agenda.

Why do I think the United States is saving face in public you ask on this issue?

Mmmmm..... well, lets see here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Yemen

So you'll understand if i'm at the very least sceptical when the politicians 'kindly ask' for the drone back.

[Accipiter]

Iran should ask for all those people back that the U.S without good reason went and ******* napalmed...

[FlyingJesus]

I've quite clearly said that I also expect that it's not the friendliest of exchanges, but the point is that you have absolutely terrible reporting/debating etiquette, so no it is not "alright", and as for:


(ie the facts on whats happening behind the scenes which we all know of)

Stop. Calling. Ideas. Facts.

There is a world of difference between saying "I believe that... and my beliefs shan't be faltered without evidence to the contrary" and "IT IS THE CASE THAT... AND YOU BETTER NOT ARGUE DESPITE ME HAVING NO EVIDENCE". You are justified in being sceptical, you are not in any way justified in making slanderous claims and I wouldn't be surprised if it got you in real trouble one day if you don't learn how to convey news properly.

[Jordy]

I'm confused as to why the US thinks it has any rights to it anymore. I don't see how the situation is much different to this analogy; Someone came on your property to stare through your windows with a £200 pair of binoculars. They then fled your property and left them behind. Would you return them or not? Obviously not as they were on your property to begin with, plus they had bad intentions!

A drone was bound to malfunction or be shot down at some point anyway, they should have made them so they explode when they come into enemy hands or something to remove the sensitive data (or not spied to begin with...).

[-:Undertaker:-]

I've quite clearly said that I also expect that it's not the friendliest of exchanges, but the point is that you have absolutely terrible reporting/debating etiquette, so no it is not "alright", and as for:

Stop. Calling. Ideas. Facts.

Stop. Pretending. To. Be. The. Forum. Elder.


There is a world of difference between saying "I believe that... and my beliefs shan't be faltered without evidence to the contrary" and "IT IS THE CASE THAT... AND YOU BETTER NOT ARGUE DESPITE ME HAVING NO EVIDENCE". You are justified in being sceptical, you are not in any way justified in making slanderous claims and I wouldn't be surprised if it got you in real trouble one day if you don't learn how to convey news properly.

I always invite people to argue with my viewpoints, or are you actually talking complete rubbish and just talking down your nose as usual? I have backed up all of my claims (see previous links on Middle Eastern affairs) and i'd be willing to bet an arm and a leg on what i've said being 100% completely true. And if its not true and the US are being nice to Iran (that'll be the day) to give them back their toy plane? well then i'll be shown to be wrong in my speculation won't I?

..as it happens all of the evidence (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=730291&p=7361290#post7361290) on the topic backs my viewpoint up, so thank you very much.


I don't see how the US thinks it has any right to get it back. I don't see how the situation is much different to this analogy; Someone came on your property to stare through your windows with a £200 pair of binoculars. They then fled your property and left them behind. Would you return them or not? Obviously not as they were on your property to begin with, plus they had bad intentions!

A drone was bound to malfunction or be shot down at some point anyway, they should have made them so they explode when they come into enemy hands or something to remove the sensitive data (or not spied to begin with...).

Indeed, Pakistan aren't too happy with the drone bombings which took place in the last few weeks with good reason.

[FlyingJesus]

Despite the fact that I pretty much am the forum elder, I don't see how correcting you on your methods has anything to do with that. You're still totally missing the point - yes you have reasons for believing what you believe, often strong reasons, but there is still no reason in the world of educated discussion to call opinion fact. The outcome has nothing to do with it, nor does the likelihood of truth, nor does anything other than the discernment between what IS the case and what MAY be the case.

Also no you haven't backed up all of your claims, a real backup of your claim would be a professional report or your own soundclip/quote where Obama says "actually we're kinda threatening them about it". Until that happens, you have backed up the reasoning as to why you believe this is the case, but not the fact of it. Massive difference but it's really very easy stuff

[-:Undertaker:-]

Despite the fact that I pretty much am the forum elder, I don't see how correcting you on your methods has anything to do with that. You're still totally missing the point - yes you have reasons for believing what you believe, often strong reasons, but there is still no reason in the world of educated discussion to call opinion fact. The outcome has nothing to do with it, nor does the likelihood of truth, nor does anything other than the discernment between what IS the case and what MAY be the case.

Ho ho ho.


Also no you haven't backed up all of your claims, a real backup of your claim would be a professional report or your own soundclip/quote where Obama says "actually we're kinda threatening them about it". Until that happens, you have backed up the reasoning as to why you believe this is the case, but not the fact of it. Massive difference but it's really very easy stuff

*slaps forehead* how could I be so stupid? how can I, a 19 year old on HabboxForum make a claim without writing up a professional report!?

But don't you worry Mr. Dacre, i'll have my ten thousand page report on your desk by Monday.

[FlyingJesus]

Thanks that would be great. Until then, stop claiming that opinions are factual.

[FiftyCal]

Why did we fly a drone there in the first place?