General IRGC: Statements that the Boeing was shot down for reasons of national security are not true


Iran has issued a statement by the IRGC General Amir Ali Hajizade regarding the downed Ukrainian Boeing. In a televised address, the Iranian general, who had previously claimed responsibility for hitting the passenger airliner, claimed that he denied attacking the aircraft “for national security purposes”. At the same time, the Iranian general comments on the question of why the acknowledgment by the IRGC of the fact of the attack on the plane did not happen immediately, but three days after the crash.


Amir Ali Hajizade:

Statements that the plane was shot down for reasons of national security are not true. If we immediately told the truth, the reputation of our air defense system would be completely compromised. Our fighters themselves would doubt it, would doubt everything, even themselves.

The general insists on the technical component in this situation.

The American media, commenting on this statement by the Iranian general, write that the general is trying to explain the situation not as a human error (an error in calculating the anti-aircraft missile system), but rather as a technical factor.

Earlier in Iran, it was stated that the reason for the strike on the Boeing-737 of Ukraine’s International Airlines was communication problems, and the combat crew had to make a decision in conditions of extremely limited time and the expectation of a possible missile strike by the Americans.

Against this background, another Iranian general - the deputy chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces - raised the question of the possible use of electronic warfare by a "third party", which could be the main reason for striking a passenger aircraft, which the calculation of the Tor air defense system was mistaken for an American cruise missile.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Livonetc 16 January 2020 07: 31 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Poor organization, inconsistency and lack of preparation.
    Iran still has to work and work on its air defense forces.
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 07: 36 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      It is unclear what is the point of denying human error when practice shows that they occur more often than we would like. Precisely more often than accidental failures of serviceable equipment. It would be better to think about how to reduce the human factor as much as possible by technical means.
      1. Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 07: 42 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
        Precisely more often than accidental failures of serviceable equipment.

        so it's not about random
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 07: 44 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Barmaleyka
          so it's not about random
          This is for special aesthetes. And the general, in my opinion, did not mean this. I didn’t say it directly.
          1. Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 07: 47 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Well, apparently, this is not the full text of the statement, but in the situation with the Boeing, there are already a lot of coincidences and incomprehensions
            1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 07: 51 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              If he had said such a thing, this piece would certainly not have been thrown out as unnecessary. He would be a sensation.
              1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 08: 13 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                I had to look for the Old myself. The other general who raised the EW issue is Ali Abdollahi, and he said that Tehran is investigating a version of the intervention specifically by US EW.

                https://twitter.com/KianSharifi/status/1217310775779434497
        2. Semurg 16 January 2020 09: 05 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Barmaleyka
          Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
          Precisely more often than accidental failures of serviceable equipment.

          so it's not about random

          You are more careful there with conspiracy theories, but it turns out that Russian technology either easily lends itself to external influences not identified by the manufacturer, or it contains specially left loopholes for such an impact. The Iranian general said the human factor means it is, otherwise you will come to your own devices in the course of putting forward the conspiracy theories.
          1. Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 09: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Semurg
            that Russian technology or is easily amenable to external influences not identified by the manufacturer

            ANY technique is exposed to external influence, but here it was possible to influence not the air defense system but the “target”
            1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 09: 24 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Barmaleyka
              here it was possible to influence not the air defense system but the "target"
              A good version, but it was burned by the damned Flytradar24, which received the signal from the Boeing transponder until it was shot down.
              1. Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 09: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
                A good version, but it was burned by the damned Flytradar24, which received the signal from the Boeing transponder until it was shot down.

                and?!
                technically it is quite possible to induce an additional signal
                1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 09: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 3
                  -3
                  Can you consistently describe how you need to influence the “target”, that the air defense system will cease to define it as a civilian airliner, and Flytradar, which is a network of cheap amateur radio sets, not?
                  1. Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 11: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
                    that the air defense system will no longer define it as a civilian airliner

                    for the air defense system there is neither civilian nor military, there is simply a goal that is being followed and separation is not on signal but on indirect grounds
                    Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
                    and Flytradar, which is a network of cheap amateur radios - no?
                    Flytradar works on a completely different principle
                    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 12: 00 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Quote: Barmaleyka
                      for the air defense system there is neither civilian nor military, there is simply a goal that is being followed and separation is not on signal but on indirect grounds
                      If the electronic warfare made the air defense system incorrectly assess the indirect signs of the target, then this is not the effect on the target, but on the air defense system.
                      1. Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 12: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        it’s not just at the WRC, but at the target that if we are talking about external intervention of the target, the properties of a dangerous object were given
                      2. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 12: 08 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        And can such an external intervention fill the ether with false "dangerous objects" in large numbers with the impossibility of distinguishing them from non-false?
    2. Polite Moose 16 January 2020 08: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
      It is unclear what is the point of denying human error when practice shows that they occur more often than we would like.

      Well, how in what? An attempt to shield your ass and subordinates. Failure of technology - that's all. I am not me and this is not mine.
      But I’m really interested, is it possible that the operator of the complex, which covered (most likely) the airport, even at a discount on the fact that the huge Boeing was on his screen indistinguishable from the Kyrgyz Republic, didn’t strain that the target was moving away from the object being covered and not on him? No matter how flawed this air defense system is, but not take into account the direction ... request
      1. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Polite Moose
        was the operator of the complex that was covering (most likely) the airport ... not straining that the target was moving away from the object being covered, and not towards it?

        Most likely he stiffened at the fact that the target was moving toward a covered military facility, not the airport.
    3. dzvero 16 January 2020 09: 00 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Because it is not a calculation error, but of the one who gave the order to shoot to kill. Also, I do not see an attempt to deny the error, but that they are trying to figure it out. How successful is another question and only time will tell.
  2. bessmertniy 16 January 2020 07: 39 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    Probably antediluvian equipment - cannot distinguish a liner from a cruise missile. negative
    1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 16 January 2020 07: 48 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      "Tor-M1" is not that antediluvian, but it may not be designed to operate as an object air defense system, therefore, it can only find its own or someone else’s system and record the rest into strangers. It would be interesting if someone could specifically say whether Tor-M1 can read civilian transponders.
      1. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich
        Can Tor-M1 read civilian transponders?

        Interestingly, are tomahawks not equipped with civilian transponders? Fly yourself on the train, and then whack, and to the point.
        1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 17 January 2020 07: 25 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          This (maybe) will work once, after which the signal from these transponders will be used to direct missiles at them.
          1. Petrix 17 January 2020 18: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Those. SAM will direct to all civilian liners.
            1. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 17 January 2020 19: 14 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              After the announcement of the no-fly zone - yes. And this will be legal, even despite international laws on the protection of civilians. According to the Geneva Conventions, those who put civilian transponders on military equipment will leave for a bottle.
  3. askort154 16 January 2020 07: 52 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    Livonetc ..... Iran still has to work and work on its own air defense forces.

    "work and work" over all.
    And as regards Iran’s air defense, who else can boast of this:
    - 2011, Iran "landed" the American UAV RG-170,
    - June 20, 2019 Iran shot down an American UAV RG-4A.
    Both of these UAVs in the United States are considered strategic. yes hi
    1. Revolver 16 January 2020 08: 26 New
      • 10
      • 6
      +4
      Quote: askort154
      2011 Iran "planted" an American UAV RG-170

      The usual bragging. Due to a technical malfunction, the UAV lost contact with the operator and flew evenly and rectilinearly until fuel was generated, after which it planned to the ground. They were just lucky that there was enough fuel to cross the Afghan border and fly into Iran.
      Quote: askort154
      June 20, 2019 Iran shot down an American UAV RG-4A.

      Firstly, to shoot down a slow non-maneuvering target a lot of skill is not necessary. Secondly, to shoot down the apparatus over international waters is a gross violation of international law. And if they thought Trump was afraid to send an answer, they seriously miscalculated.
      1. asv363 16 January 2020 12: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Iran shot down a drone on 20.06.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX over its territorial waters. And then no response was received from the United States.
  4. Revolver 16 January 2020 08: 05 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    Quote: Livonetc
    Iran still has to work and work on its air defense forces.

    And it’s useless for them to work, they are [moderated]. Persians have forgotten how to fight since Alexander the Great carried them under the Gaugamels. And if we take closer times, then they turned out to be the ONLY in the world who couldn’t pile on Arabs (specifically Iraq Saddam), although for the last hundred-plus years the Arabs have not been tumbled down either by a lazy or completely stupid one. And this despite the fact that Iran’s arsenals were bursting with the most modern equipment purchased at the time by the shah. Saddam at that time had nothing even remotely comparable to the same F-14s. But to have little, we must also be able to. And to promise teenagers 72 virgins and send them through minefields and clouds of gas to machine guns with bare hands, except for weapons, a primitively stamped key supposedly from the gates of paradise, there is no great skill.
    1. Altai72 16 January 2020 09: 35 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      I agree with you. Khomeini hung the plastic "keys to Paradise" around the neck of the teenagers and sent them to Iraqi tanks. Thus, Khomeini defeated the race to send to Paradise. Iran sent there 500 of its own, compared with 000 Iraqis. They also said very clearly about weapons. The largest batch of BMP-shek was then transferred to Iran, and in general a lot of things. But somehow, Iran managed to trample the whole war on the spot.
      1. Altai72 16 January 2020 09: 38 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        What kind of phaeatics and idiots must be in order to send children to war, without exception ...
  • rocket757 16 January 2020 07: 37 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The general insists on the technical component in this situation.

    the general "holds the punch" .... opinion. regarding, has not changed, but the version of the general also has the right to be considered.
    1. Cruorvult 16 January 2020 09: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Here you can see a drone on M2 on the monitor, you can’t confuse it here. 16:02.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaCFZYzMXxk

      Strange situation.
      1. rocket757 16 January 2020 09: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Consider ALL VERSIONS, all information. If you need help, help, do not stay away.
      2. Doliva63 16 January 2020 16: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: CruorVult
        Here you can see a drone on M2 on the monitor, you can’t confuse it here. 16:02.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaCFZYzMXxk

        Strange situation.

        Well yes. In the thermal imaging channel, probably, the operator simply had to see the plane in all its glory, it is difficult to confuse it with the RC.
        1. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          What is the difference which aircraft? If he is a threat, they are trying to destroy him.
          The operator sees a passenger plane peacefully gaining altitude and suddenly it became a threat. Maybe the order came to bring down everything in the air. The order is not for this purpose, not for this part of the air defense, but for the whole country. A Boeing at the wrong time in the wrong place. Or a suspicious maneuver was made, or a transponder or some necessary defendant disconnected (at least temporarily), doesn’t it matter?
          The combat situation, and the operator of the complex should interrogate a hundred times?
          1. Doliva63 17 January 2020 19: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Petrix
            What is the difference which aircraft? If he is a threat, they are trying to destroy him.
            The operator sees a passenger plane peacefully gaining altitude and suddenly it became a threat. Maybe the order came to bring down everything in the air. The order is not for this purpose, not for this part of the air defense, but for the whole country. A Boeing at the wrong time in the wrong place. Or a suspicious maneuver was made, or a transponder or some necessary defendant disconnected (at least temporarily), doesn’t it matter?
            The combat situation, and the operator of the complex should interrogate a hundred times?

            You, it seems to me, are too excited. The operator watched this board from the moment of takeoff. The plane did not leave the corridor. Even if something suddenly “disappeared” there, did he suddenly stop being previously identified as a civilian aircraft? Once again - the Boeing was walking within the corridor. He can refuse everything there at all - these are his problems, but not air defense. Now, if its fragments fell in the restricted area - then another thing. And so - some kind of nonsense.
            1. Petrix 17 January 2020 19: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Doliva63
              The operator watched this board from the moment of takeoff. The plane did not leave the corridor.

              This is unknown. Do not think that the operator is aware of everything. It is possible, but unlikely. And what prevents a military aircraft from flying in a civilian corridor and generally trying, if not to hide behind a civilian side, then at least imitate it?

              https://meduza.io/feature/2020/01/17/iran-obvinyaet-ssha-v-kiberatake-iz-za-kotoroy-pvo-sbili-ukrainskiy-boing-no-est-ob-yasnenie-prosche-v-irane-dve-armii-i-eto-sozdaet-problemy
              However, on January 8 at Bidhana base, conditions were not good. The Torah position was extremely unsuccessful for the operation of the radars: it is surrounded by low mountains, which make it difficult to observe the air situation. In particular, two ridges of hills separate it from the international airport. From the territory of the base it is impossible to detect the take-off of an airplane at the airport. Thus, the liner appeared on the Torah radar unexpectedly for the operator already at the approach to the base.
  • Barmaleyka 16 January 2020 07: 38 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    the general is trying to explain the situation not as a human error (an error in calculating the anti-aircraft missile system), but rather as a technical factor
    quite possibly
  • oracul 16 January 2020 07: 49 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    There may be many reasons, but I would not discard the electronic warfare funds from my account. The United States and Israel are capable of much in the confrontation with Iran. It seems that for three days the Iranians tried to find an explanation for what happened, did not find it and considered it good to take the blame on themselves. This completely satisfied their opponents.
    1. asv363 16 January 2020 14: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Leonid, I agree with you. In theory, various hypotheses can be discussed, and it is quite possible there were some kind of interference. Iran and the IRGC leadership may not have voiced such facts for two reasons:
      1. There is not enough evidence on their part;
      2. Publicity will do more damage to the country's security than pleading guilty. The discovered flaws are removable and it is not worth informing everyone about improvement methods.
    2. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: oracul
      This completely satisfied their opponents.

      Opponent: “If you don’t take the blame on yourself and do not defuse the situation, then am Well, let's start the war, well, let's get to nuclear weapons. Do you need it? "
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nikitich 16 January 2020 07: 51 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    And the second general, understandably what he means, has a surname?
  • rotmistr60 16 January 2020 07: 52 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    the question of the possible use of electronic warfare by a "third party"
    Which is very likely in connection with the situation at that time and the capabilities of the Americans. Iran is surrounded by American bases and Americans could use electronic warfare, both ground and air based.
    1. Altai72 16 January 2020 08: 09 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      At a certain point over Tehran, according to the course of the flight of this particular airliner ???
      I do not know..
    2. Strashila 16 January 2020 08: 32 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      “American capabilities.”, it’s important to understand what jammed the frequency of the friend-or-foe line ...? or jammed all the electronics of the aircraft, I proceed from a NYT article.
  • kiril1246 16 January 2020 08: 17 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Israel is to blame, love. It was he who covered his armored trains with a Ukrainian liner.
  • Strashila 16 January 2020 08: 28 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    “Our fighters themselves would have doubted it, would have doubted everything, even themselves.”, The key fighter should not doubt, he must obey the order.
    "the possible use of" third party "electronic warfare, which could be the main reason for striking a passenger plane, which the calculation of the Tor air defense system was mistaken for an American cruise missile.", the same scenario, NYT wrote that the planes in At the beginning, the electronics turned off and then a missile attack followed.
    Recorders should, if they can, confirm or deny this version.
    1. Avior 16 January 2020 09: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      . NYT wrote that the electronics went off on planes in the beginning and then a missile attack followed.

      You were mistaken, they didn’t write such a thing. However, can you give a link?
      1. Strashila 16 January 2020 09: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        https://topwar.ru/166661-predstavleny-novye-podrobnosti-sluchivshegosja-s-ukrainskim-boingom-737.html
        1. Avior 16 January 2020 09: 29 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          I always thought in an old-fashioned way that the quote about what the resource wrote was a link to the resource itself smile
          But even by your link there is not a word about any disconnection of electronics, it says that the rocket hit shortly after the last communication session with the dispatcher, which they wrote.
          And about electronics they write exactly the opposite - at first the rocket hit, then the electronics turned off.
          hi
          1. Strashila 16 January 2020 09: 44 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            "The NYT claims that the rocket hit the board after it transmitted the last signal." in.
            another source.
            https://lenta.ru/news/2020/01/13/ukraine_airlines
            "The full chronology of the crash of the Ukrainian plane in Iran has been made public"
            from the article
            “In the first three minutes, the liner gained a height of 2,4 kilometers and all this time it was reflected on radars. After a few minutes, the electronic systems stopped working and the aircraft transmitted the last signal. After a few seconds, the Iranian air defense missile hit the plane, it caught fire, then another rocket hit the ship, which, according to The New York Times, was fired from the country's secret military bases. "
            1. Avior 16 January 2020 10: 47 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              As you know, here is a big subtlety.
              If we are talking about the last transmitted signal, this is one thing, communication with the dispatcher is not supported all the time.
              And if the fact that the electronics failed before a rocket hit is completely different, then there was a breakdown before that.
              Translation into Russian is the same everywhere, obviously from one source, and this can be interpreted anyway, especially taking into account the subtleties of translation, which is very important in this case.
              If the second, then this is sensational news, but for some reason they do not write about it anywhere.
              hi
              1. Strashila 16 January 2020 12: 00 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                An operator of an air defense missile system sits, sees a radio label "civilian side". all hockey.
                The label disappears ...?
                But the operator sees the aircraft,
                reasonable question, but what about this aircraft?
                What is the reason for the disappearance of the label ...?
                capture of an aircraft, events 9 \ 11, taking into account previous events?
                another gift from a Boeing company with a glitch in the control system?
                are civil controllers silent?
                This is the situation at the sentry, “I’ll stop shooting,” but something is hiding at him, overcoming the line with the inscription “border of the post, fire to defeat”.
                So this operator, "thin red line", he complied with the order written in the heap of instructions.
                1. Avior 16 January 2020 12: 17 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  It has already been written many times that he could not see any mark “civilian side”, Thor doesn’t have such equipment in principle, he has his own - someone else’s, but this has nothing to do with this case.
                  It is surprising that, according to the capabilities of the radar station, Thor was supposed to track the trajectory from the moment of takeoff at the Tehran airport and the flight path. It is clear that it is unlikely that the crew would have decided that an American rocket took off at an airport and flies away from Tehran.
                  The explanation, in my opinion, for some reason they didn’t see it, but they suddenly saw it only close up and because they were “on the platoon”, they were waiting for the Americans to strike, they immediately started before they even determined the flight path, Tor short-range system, maximum 12 km, no time to think.
    2. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      Recorders should, if they can, confirm or deny this version.

      Well, if you can remotely indulge with the electronics of the aircraft, then with recorders why not indulge? Question everything!
  • Altai72 16 January 2020 09: 01 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    [/ quote] could be the main reason for striking a passenger plane, which payment SAM "Tor" mistook for an American cruise missile. [Quote]

    Keyword "calculation"
    The speed (especially in the stage of diving towards the target) and the dimensions of the Kyrgyz Republic are confused with a passenger airliner ...
    I do not know...
    1. Cruorvult 16 January 2020 09: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      That's for sure, taking into account what is there: No.To increase the accuracy of tracking the target of the guidance station in the television optical sight on the elevation "and the flight altitude is only 2 km.
    2. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Altai72
      the dimensions of the Kyrgyz Republic are confused with a passenger airliner ...

      And if this stealth bomber suddenly turned off invisibility? Or the air defense system was turned off for the purpose of disguise, turned on and something flies, and how do you know the passenger or military?
      Quote: CruorVult
      and the flight altitude is only 2 km.

      Oh, like a bomber on a shaver. Civilians fly higher.
  • Bukhalov 16 January 2020 11: 01 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The Persians are completely confused: from, and it’s not us, through us because of the increased combat readiness of the reconstitution (in the sense of fright), to a technical error. They lie like breathing. And even easier. Moreover, they explain why they lie. It turns out to "not compromise the Iranian air defense." Everything is in strict accordance with the traditions of 1001 nights: everything that was true yesterday was not true today. But tomorrow may again be true. Like in the movie about Aladdin: "A dream is not a dream, not a dream it is Prison." In the end, they will fall into the version that the missiles hit the target at the signal of Israeli electronic means. In the sense that although the plane was shot down by Iranian missiles, but at the command of Israel and from the Israeli control panel. The question of who is to blame returns to its classic canons. I remember the Egyptians seriously reporting sharks trained by Jews and attacking only wealthy tourists in order to ruin the Egyptian tourism business. The counterintelligence of Saudi Arabia has already caught eagles - Jewish spies, accurately identifying their nationality by beak. So nothing new.
    1. borberd 16 January 2020 18: 25 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Lied 3 days after the downing. They lie now. Even excuses can not come up with a believable one. Those who tracked the flyradar data say that at the time of the shooting at the Boeing, there were about 18 other civilian aircraft in the air. Why weren’t they shot down if they were so nervous? I think that they shot down intentionally, knowing that they were knocking down a civilian side. Moreover, there was no disconnection, because at such bases the connection is duplicated many times. And so the order, the calculation of air defense received from the very top. And the current tales - an attempt to smear the leadership and appoint the guilty.
  • alien 16 January 2020 11: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Interestingly, how did the passenger plane take off during the operation of the REP in the conditions of interference and lack of mobile communications?
  • otstoy 16 January 2020 17: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The IRGC terrorists decided to freeze again. The rationale for them is simply brilliance: our fanatics will not understand us.
  • vomag 16 January 2020 19: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    That's as soon as YOU EVERYTHING understand that both dviguns blew up the plane at once ... then everything else will become clear ... Iran took the blame on itself although the plane did not shoot down ..... this was a terrorist attack
    1. Petrix 16 January 2020 21: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: vomag
      That's as soon as YOU EVERYTHING understand that both dviguns blew up the plane at once ....... it was a terrorist attack

      And what fragments of the explosion of one rocket can not be hooked two engines? And air defense fires two missiles for reliability.
      1. vomag 16 January 2020 22: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Petrix
        And what about the fragments of the detonation of one rocket you can’t hook two engines

        So this is the point! They initially thrust the explosives into the engines for a couple of days somewhere in London ... and both of them pulled them all at once, all the parsley! This is a terrorist attack as it is! Iranians talked about it and showed photos of dviguns .. but to everyone I don’t care ..
  • Old26 16 January 2020 22: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: vomag
    So this is the point! They initially thrust the explosives into the engines for a couple of days somewhere in London ... and both of them pulled them all at once, all the parsley! This is a terrorist attack as it is! Iranians talked about it and showed photos of dviguns .. but to everyone I don’t care ..

    It started, conspiracy theories. The engines in the photos are not gouged by the explosion. And such as they should be as a result of the fall ....
  • iouris 16 January 2020 23: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The real picture can be completely perverted using blurry concepts. In fact, the general once again confirmed that the plane was shot down not from terrorist aspirations, but unintentionally. But for some reason, it definitely doesn’t work out that way for sure. Why so?