I had never heard this version of the story about downing the Iranian air liner. I decided to check one little detail that looks wrong on it's face. Most modern warships carry at least a little bit of anti-aircraft weaponry. Those that don't are pretty worthless in battle. The HMS York is armed with a sea dart missile system. See the Royal Navy for documentation here:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operati...ing-department/weapons-engineering-department
So do you have anything that backs up your account? How much of the rest of it is likely to be wrong?
Excuse me for not going into technical detail when posting very late at night.
I work beside someone who was serving on the
York at the time. His first reaction when I raised the subject of Iran Air 655 during a conversation about the Lockerbie bombing was "We got the blame for that!" I said, "Er, what do you mean?" not even having realised the
York was in the area at the time, or even connecting the photo (on his 40th birthday invitations) of him in an HMS York naval uniform with his comment.
I then got the whole story. Indeed, you're right about the
York's armament capability, Calum actually said, "We didn't even have any anti-aircraft capability
that would have been able to hit a plane at that altitude." He did mention the Sea Darts. Sorry for not getting technical enough.
There was a TV documentary crew on board the
Vincennes at the time of the incident, and the footage has been widely broadcast. One sequence shows the shot being fired, and the jubilant crew acknowledging their "kill". The second shows the same crew slumped over their consoles in distress as the realisation sinks in that they have shot down a passenger plane full of innocent civilians.
Calum tells me there was only about ten to fifteen minutes between these two shots. However, in that time, the
Vincennes was absolutely adamant that they had shot down an attacking Iranian fighter jet, and that if anyone had brought down a passenger plane it must have been the
York. This got out to the media, to the point where Calum's mother heard on the radio that her son's ship had shot down a civilian airliner.
Calum says that the
Vincennes and its sister ship then sailed away from the scene, and he spent the next two weeks, with his shipmates, fishing body parts out of the Persian Gulf. It's not a pretty story - he said they were reduced to pairing legs by looking for matching shoes.
The rest of the story is public knowledge. The gung-ho attitude of the captain of the
Vincennes, shoot first and ask questions afterwards - to the point where other US captains had expressed concerns about him. Yes, the shooting was a tragic accident, but in the light of that guy's behaviour, it was an accident waiting to happen.
Then, on his return to the USA he got the proverbial hero's welcome, and a medal. Reagan was president at the time, but I think it was Bush snr. who refused to apologise or accept responsibility for the tragedy, or admit that the
Vincennes was violating Iranian territorial waters at the time.
This isn't forgotten, particularly as it is widely believed in Britain that the Lockerbie disaster was actually Iranian revenge for IR655.
I say this just to clarify the background to the reporting of these current events. My initial reaction to Linda's death was that it was a tragedy, but no doubt the US forces had done the best they could in a very difficult situation, and we should be grateful to them for trying. However, as more emerges, doubts start to creep in.
I hope these doubts will be laid to rest in due course. However, it's all very difficult at the moment, with Linda's parents in a state of complete prostration, and conflicting stories flying around all over the place.
Rolfe.
