CIA coverup [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 06:54 AM

ABC News has obtained some incredibly dramatic footage [scroll down for video] of an incident from nine years ago in which the CIA watched as a Peruvian air force fighter jets shot down a plane carrying American missionaries even as the pilot screamed for help.

Pretty good video of shooting down plane.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/video-of-missionaries-bei_n_449074.html

Where was your God?

When we will stop this drug war nonsense.

underdog

02-04-2010, 07:10 AM

I blame AJ.

A.J.

02-04-2010, 07:14 AM

I blame AJ.

It wasn't shot down by a Navy ship. We learned our lesson from the USS Vincennes incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)!

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 07:14 AM

I blame AJ.

Benza? I was wondering what happened to him after his stupid gossip column in the Daily News.
So, all along he was a CIA agent. Stuttering John better watch his back.

Suspect Chin

02-04-2010, 07:47 AM

Other than a possible cover up, I don't see how the CIA could be blamed for this at all. Leading up to the shooting, they try to slow down the Peruvians but they proceed to hastily shoot it down anyway. The article (and your copied and pasted summary) acts like the Americans simply watched as the Peruvians shot it down, but in reality, once the shooting started, they screamed at them to stop. This is Peruvian airspace, and I'm sure they have final say over which planes get shot down.

I'm now convinced you are Dude!'s counterpoint board character.

Furtherman

02-04-2010, 07:59 AM

What cover up? That is a tragic accident which could have been avoided if the agency men and the pilots understood each other.

topless_mike

02-04-2010, 08:00 AM

this wouldnt have happened if everyone spoke english.

also, some how, some way, this is george bush's fault, right?

Suspect Chin

02-04-2010, 08:17 AM

What cover up? That is a tragic accident which could have been avoided if the agency men and the pilots understood each other.

It sounds like maybe the CIA was slow in releasing the details of what actually happened. I think everyone understood each other just fine. The Peruvians were just in way too big of a hurry to blast that plane out of the sky.

JimBeam

02-04-2010, 08:30 AM

Man that was some creepy sh*t to watch.

But saying the CIA had " involvement " in it is just plain crazy.

Sure they were there but that doesn't imply involvement.

It seems like they try and do all that they can do to stop the plane from being shot down.

On a lighter note I love how the CIA guy's international term for shooting them down is a machine gun sound like, " Brrrrrrrrrrrr "

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 08:38 AM

The CIA did not shoot down the plane. However, the CIA didn't follow its own regulations.

I think there was some cover up of the details. Apart from their actions, a cover up is wrong in itself.

I don't think it was only language barrier. The Peruvians did not use the same frequency as the pilot in the shot down plane so he did not hear the warnings.

I think Bill Clinton instituted the more aggressive approach on drug smugglers. But, it happened during GWB's presidency, so will he accept responsibility or blame his predecessor? (Only a real douche would do that.)

JimBeam

02-04-2010, 08:54 AM

I doubt that either persident now matter how " evil " the other side thinks they were ever intended for anything like this to happen.

I still don't see how 16 CIA employees should be disciplined unless of course that refers to the coverup.

Why did the control tower that the plane was communicating with not send out some form of emergency broadcast ?

Also why were they in such a rush to shoot the plane down even if it was dirty ?

Wouldn't it have been a bigger capture if they forced it to land and took prisoners ?

I just don't get the victory in shooting it down.

Suspect Chin

02-04-2010, 09:11 AM

Also why were they in such a rush to shoot the plane down even if it was dirty ?

Wouldn't it have been a bigger capture if they forced it to land and took prisoners ?

I just don't get the victory in shooting it down.

I thought the same thing. Seems a little over aggressive to shoot down on sight.

JimBeam

02-04-2010, 09:19 AM

I mean even if it's flight plan wasn't recognized that should've at least tried to find out where it came from and where it was going.

The one CIA guy said they couldn't get close to see the tail because that would spook them but again that goes back to what's the harm in letting them land and/or get away ?

With this story out now what's to stop smugglers from putting inncoent women and children on all of their flights ?

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 09:43 AM

I mean even if it's flight plan wasn't recognized that should've at least tried to find out where it came from and where it was going.

The one CIA guy said they couldn't get close to see the tail because that would spook them but again that goes back to what's the harm in letting them land and/or get away ?

With this story out now what's to stop smugglers from putting inncoent women and children on all of their flights ?

I think their mistake was not trying to get the numbers even if it meant risking detection.
It seems that if the plane flew over Brazil airspace the CIA would have not been allowed to follow and Brazil would not cooperate with taking down the plane. So, the CIA felt a sense of urgency.
Still amazed, although this is 9 years old, that all pilots don't speak english. And, that the US pilots in South America know only very basic spanish.
When the CIA pilot said he didn't have a good feeling about this, he should have risked detection, instead of deferring to the Peruvians who seemed to want to shoot anything down.
Also, I think the CIA pilot said "don't go to level 3." But, the Peruvian replied, "level 3, ok." As if the CIA pilot authorized level 3- I am guessing that means engagement.

Stop with this drug war nonsense.

Suspect Chin

02-04-2010, 02:02 PM

When the CIA pilot said he didn't have a good feeling about this, he should have risked detection, instead of deferring to the Peruvians who seemed to want to shoot anything down.

They were over Peruvian airspace so I think the Americans were deferring to the Peruvians. I do believe Peru is still a sovereign state and the CIA was simply assisting them in the international 'Drug War.'

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 02:29 PM

They were over Peruvian airspace so I think the Americans were deferring to the Peruvians. I do believe Peru is still a sovereign state and the CIA was simply assisting them in the international 'Drug War.'

I understand that if the Peruvians wanted to shoot down the plane the CIA couldn't stop them. But, they were operating together. It seemed that the Peruvians were relying on the CIA to identify the plane as a drug runner.
Unfortunately, the CIA seemed to not be aggressive enough in ascertaining whether it was a legitimate target.

If the system was to communicate with the Peruvian airforce, I think the CIA should have tried using better spanish speaking agents. It seems that the CIA agent saying "don't go to level 3" was interpreted as "go to level 3." Big difference.
Nevertheless, I understand they made mistakes. I would not crucify them for that, only hope they learn from it. The problem comes from covering up a mistake.

Ogre

02-04-2010, 03:49 PM

I think Bill Clinton instituted the more aggressive approach on drug smugglers. But, it happened during GWB's presidency, so will he accept responsibility or blame his predecessor? (Only a real douche would do that.)

http://www.australia.to/2010/images/stories/1News/barack_obama.jpg

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 04:09 PM

http://www.australia.to/2010/images/stories/1News/barack_obama.jpg

Oh no, I was tricked.

jennysmurf

02-04-2010, 04:16 PM

ABC News has obtained some incredibly dramatic footage [scroll down for video] of an incident from nine years ago in which the CIA watched as a Peruvian air force fighter jets shot down a plane carrying American missionaries even as the pilot screamed for help.

Pretty good video of shooting down plane.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/video-of-missionaries-bei_n_449074.html

Where was your God?

When we will stop this drug war nonsense.

Really? :wacko:

keithy_19

02-04-2010, 04:19 PM

This just seems like a terrible tragedy.

"These were Americans that were killed with the help of their government

That pisses me off though.

keithy_19

02-04-2010, 04:20 PM

Really? :wacko:

That bothered me too.

jennysmurf

02-04-2010, 04:30 PM

That bothered me too.

Okay, glad I wasn't the only one.

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 04:35 PM

Okay, glad I wasn't the only one.

I found it highly despicable. Reprehensible.

Don Stugots

02-04-2010, 04:51 PM

I blame AJ

jennysmurf

02-04-2010, 04:54 PM

I found it highly despicable. Reprehensible.

Uh huh.:dry:

SatCam

02-04-2010, 04:55 PM

Where was your God?

eating dinner or something i dunno what a weird question lol

jennysmurf

02-04-2010, 05:10 PM

eating dinner or something i dunno what a weird question lol

Thaaaaaaank you!

Serpico1103

02-04-2010, 05:12 PM

eating dinner or something i dunno what a weird question lol

:wub:

sailor

02-04-2010, 05:13 PM

i blame big business.

Willmore

02-05-2010, 07:46 AM

Doesn't it bother anyone that the CIA operatives sent to work in South America couldn't speak Spanish beyond "banditos" and "amigos"?

Zorro

02-05-2010, 07:54 AM

Since when did shooting down missionaries become a bad thing?

Bob Impact

02-05-2010, 02:38 PM

i blame big business.

You know, a corporation made those planes.

Serpico1103

02-05-2010, 02:48 PM

Investigations revealed that the Cessna was one of 15 small civilian aircraft shot down during the covert programme from 1995 to 2001. The CIA inspector-general said in November that in most cases the flights were shot down “without being properly identified, without being given the required warnings to land, and without being given time to respond to such warnings as were given to land”.

They simply didn't follow their own procedures. To not follow procedures in most of the 15 times they shot down planes is a tremendous problem.

Bob Impact

02-05-2010, 02:53 PM

Investigations revealed that the Cessna was one of 15 small civilian aircraft shot down during the covert programme from 1995 to 2001. The CIA inspector-general said in November that in most cases the flights were shot down “without being properly identified, without being given the required warnings to land, and without being given time to respond to such warnings as were given to land”.

They simply didn't follow their own procedures. To not follow procedures in most of the 15 times they shot down planes is a tremendous problem.

Right but from the sound of that video it wasn't really their call and that they thought the Peruvians were shooting too fast. I certainly don't approve of the cover up, but i don't really get why this is on the CIA.

Serpico1103

02-05-2010, 03:18 PM

Right but from the sound of that video it wasn't really their call and that they thought the Peruvians were shooting too fast. I certainly don't approve of the cover up, but i don't really get why this is on the CIA.

I think the major problem is the coverup.

Whiile I am not an expert, the CIA inspector general said they screwed up most of the time when they shot down a plane. I'll defer to his knowledge on CIA procedure. We have had issues of police pulling people over just because they were black. Imagine if instead of pulling them over, most of the time they shot at the car until it exploded.

SatCam

02-05-2010, 03:29 PM

Imagine if instead of pulling them over, most of the time they shot at the car until it exploded.

the plane didnt explode btw. they killed 2 of the 5 people onboard but the plane stayed airborne

Serpico1103

02-05-2010, 03:31 PM

the plane didnt explode btw. they killed 2 of the 5 people onboard but the plane stayed airborne

By airborne do you mean belly up in the river?
Watch the video.
Hear the pilot say "I am on fire." The Peruvian pilot say "I see black smoke." Then.... SPLASH.

SatCam

02-05-2010, 03:36 PM

By airborne do you mean belly up in the river?
Watch the video.
Hear the pilot say "I am on fire." The Peruvian pilot say "I see black smoke." Then.... SPLASH.

No you are right I did miss that part, I was going by the story. But none the less, there were three survivors

Serpico1103

02-05-2010, 03:38 PM

No you are right I did miss that part, I was going by the story. But none the less, there were three survivors

I think more than that survived the holocaust. When will they let it go?

Bob Impact

02-05-2010, 03:38 PM

I think the major problem is the coverup.

Whiile I am not an expert, the CIA inspector general said they screwed up most of the time when they shot down a plane. I'll defer to his knowledge on CIA procedure. We have had issues of police pulling people over just because they were black. Imagine if instead of pulling them over, most of the time they shot at the car until it exploded.

Right, but my point was why is it CIA procedure determining whether or not these planes are shot down? I agree with your point here, my issue isn't really with the blame being put on the CIA here, I don't think we should be involved in this type of thing anyway, I guess my question is why is it presented in the report as if the CIA pulled the trigger instead of what the video shows, which is the CIA saying no while the Peruvians shot down the plane?

More importantly, why am I asking these questions on a message board and expecting answers?

Serpico1103

02-05-2010, 03:45 PM

Right, but my point was why is it CIA procedure determining whether or not these planes are shot down? I agree with your point here, my issue isn't really with the blame being put on the CIA here, I don't think we should be involved in this type of thing anyway, I guess my question is why is it presented in the report as if the CIA pulled the trigger instead of what the video shows, which is the CIA saying no while the Peruvians shot down the plane?

I think the operation ran like this: CIA patrolled looking for planes that fit a drug runner profile. When they spotted one they suspected they were supposed to check the tail numbers (they didn't). If still suspicious they call in the Peruvian airforce for support. The Peruvian airforce in coordination with the CIA is to demand the pilot to land or risk being fired upon (Pilot wasn't properly warned, given chance to react even though he was talking to the air traffic controller at nearest airport, not something a covert drug smuggler would be doing.) The CIA here was to take the lead role in telling the Peruvian plane to shoot. It seemed the CIA agents let the Peruvian airforce take over. I think language was the major factor. At one point I thought the CIA agent said "it's not level 3." Level 3 I assume is engage. The Peruvian pilot says "level 3? Ok." And opens fire.

Maybe if in the other shoot downs where procedure wasn't followed corrective measure wasnt taken, the problems would have been rectified before this incident.

Bob Impact

02-05-2010, 03:48 PM

I think the operation ran like this: CIA patrolled looking for planes that fit a drug runner profile. When they spotted one they suspected they were supposed to check the tail numbers (they didn't). If still suspicious they call in the Peruvian airforce for support. The Peruvian airforce in coordination with the CIA is to demand the pilot to land or risk being fired upon (Pilot wasn't properly warned, given chance to react even though he was talking to the air traffic controller at nearest airport, not something a covert drug smuggler would be doing.) The CIA here was to take the lead role in telling the Peruvian plane to shoot. It seemed the CIA agents let the Peruvian airforce take over. I think language was the major factor. At one point I thought the CIA agent said "it's not level 3." Level 3 I assume is engage. The Peruvian pilot says "level 3? Ok." And opens fire.

Maybe if in the other shoot downs where procedure wasn't followed corrective measure wasnt taken, the problems would have been rectified before this incident.

This makes way more sense then the presentation in the report.

Serpico1103

02-05-2010, 03:56 PM

This makes way more sense then the presentation in the report.

I read many different accounts. All seemed scattered and unfocused. Where the agents punished right away? Not severely enough? What did the cover up involve? What should the agents have done differently? Were there other mistaken shoot downs?

I think the media was just excited to show the video and didn't care much about the article's content.

Bob Impact

02-05-2010, 04:03 PM

I think the media was just excited to show the video and didn't care much about the article's content.

Now this I refuse to believe, the media sensationalizing a story? As if!

Enabler

02-05-2010, 04:14 PM

So many things went wrong in this tragic accident. But yeah, the fact that CIA agents piloting airplanes in Peru cant speak Spanish above a 1st grade level is perhaps most disturbing.

hanso

02-07-2010, 06:22 PM