We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
RETAIL EXCELLENCE IRELAND has said it is “regrettable” that Dublin City Council is implementing the first measures of its transport plan.
REI said there had been “calls for a pause” and that “retailers have not been adequately consulted on this new plan”.
It was announced yesterday that the first measures of the Dublin City Centre Transport Plan will come into effect next month, from 25 August.
These first set of measures will be implemented on the North Quays at Bachelors Walk and on the South Quays on Burgh Quay and Aston Quay.
The use of private cars in these parts will be restricted from 7am to 7pm.
Dublin City Council would like to announce that the first of the measures contained in the Dublin City Transport Plan 2023 will come into effect from 25th August 2024. For more details on the new measures please click here: https://t.co/Mj8xVoDVNc pic.twitter.com/DolOFgtDHs
— Dublin City Council (@DubCityCouncil) July 25, 2024
Access will be restricted during these hours to buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians.
Outside of these hours, the restrictions will not be in operation and all vehicles can travel as before.
All other routes on the quays and all other routes in the city remain the same, and access to all Liffey Bridges will also remain the same.
Dublin City Council said these first set of measures will “address the fact that 60% of general traffic in the city centre that is not stopping, working or shopping but is travelling through the city”.
Chief Executive of Dublin City Council Richard Shakespeare said his office “carefully considered correspondence from all parties” and that the “correct course of action is to process with the implementation of the City Centre Transport Plan in August”.
However, Retail Excellence Ireland (REI) said the measures “do not not address our concerns around deliveries, public transport capacity, and projected retail spend as a result of limiting car journeys into the city”.
It also said that a “snap survey” conducted by REI among Dublin retailers in June found 10% of respondents said they have been adequately consulted on the plan.
Jean McCabe, the CEO of REI, said the plan “must be revisited if businesses in the city see a marked reduction in retail spend as a result of the new plan”.
However, she welcomed the establishment of a working group to monitor the impact of the changes, which will be chaired by the Dublin Lord Mayor James Geoghegan.
“We appreciate that the plan for the city has to start somewhere and there is no easy fix,” said McCabe, “but it is critically important that industry feedback is noted and acted on if we see a significant drop in retail spend as a result of these changes.”
However, Dublin Chamber, Ireland’s largest chamber of commerce with over 1000 member companies, said the transport plan is “good news for Dublin”.
Stephen Browne, Head of Public Affairs at Dublin Chamber, said there has been a “great deal of debate and confusion in the City on the council’s plans” over the past few weeks, “with many objecting at a very late stage”.
He said Dublin Chamber’s “support has been unwavering”.
He said the Dublin City Centre Traffic Plan “can provide attractive public spaces where people live and engage in the City in a positive way”.
“These spaces can be used for cultural activities, focal points for tourism and areas where Dubliners can stop and enjoy their City,” said Browne.
He added that the plan is “another step towards our proposals for a more pedestrian-friendly city”.
He added: “Without it, public transport services across the county of Dublin will be less effective, less frequent and have longer journey times.”
Browne also welcomed the establishment of a working group to monitor the implementation of the plan.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
According to the wanks
@Jackie Culligan: Can’t have Boeing losing any more value on the stock market…. So yea it was shot out of the sky by the Iranians
@D H: 63 Canadians on board, yet not a single US citizen. That was very a fortunate turn of events.
@Paraic: And mostly Iranian born Canadians….
@Paraic: I imagine US citizens in Iran are as rare as hen’s teeth
@Jackie Culligan: According to the Canadians now too.
@ihcalaM: Same thing.
@JackSimpson: That’s like calling Irish people….. But besides that, why doesn’t Iran give the Black box to the French? Hmmm!
@Jackie Culligan: According to the masturbating Americans… that is what your ‘wanks’ reference literally means. Great input there on your behalf.
@Jackie Culligan:
Remind you of anything?
https://twitter.com/RedRaven1776/status/1215391316575772673?s=09
@Jackie Culligan: According to the mastur#ating Americans… that is what your ‘wanks’ reference literally means. Great input there on your behalf.
@Sinéad: ok I got it the first time. Too many wanks in the area.
Honestly what sane person can believe a word that comes from the Whitehouse.
@rumug: stephen Brady’s comment above suggests he thinks it is a reliable source. Is that good enough for you?
@alan: as reliable as the sources that told us Iraq had WMDs?
@rumug: The “word” didn’t come from the White House. The Pentagon via US & Iraqi Intelligence believe the plane was hit by a Russian Tor missile.
@Clifford Brennan: *Russian made
@Clifford Brennan: Good news for the manufacturer’s, missile works well and plane didn’t spontaneously combust on it’s own.
@SilexFlint: Who knows? Just helping the mug out.
@rumug: I’ll never forget that time the White House told us that the Navy Seals stormed that hospital in Baghdad to rescue Private Jessica Lynch in an epic gun battle. Except no one told Sky News, who had a reporter live in the hospital at the time. She was interviewing the lovely medical staff who treated had her and also the receptionist who explained that a colleague of Pvt Lynch had called by moments earlier, signed the necessary paperwork for her release and brought her out to his vehicle with the help of a kind staff member.
@SilexFlint: Its a Boeing. These days you wouldnt be surprised if it spontaneously combusted
@Paraic: Your facts are all wrong. It was a hammed up rescue mission but nothing you have stated is correct. Why bother telling lies?
@Clifford Brennan: What facts did he get wrong exactly??
@Clifford Brennan: The only lies are coming from the WH. I watched the Sky News report with my own eyes after coming off a night shift in 2003. They covered up the whole thing up immediately. 20 mins later Sky news on the hour reported the White House “Special Forces” version of events and never played the report again (uncharacteristically). I would have doubted myself if it wasn’t for the fact that Jessica Lunch later testified before the house oversight committee because the whole BS story didn’t sit well with her moral concience. It simply didn’t happen.
@rumug: Here’s footage just posted to twitter of the missile hitting the plane:
https://twitter.com/Roman_012/status/1215335999997448195?s=19
@Paraic: What didn’t sit with her was the story of her heroic fight against the ambushers. She lost a lot of her friends that day – but her weapon jammed and she was unable to fight back. She was taken to Nasiriya hospital. Special forces did retrieve her. They did ham it up – a lot. The doctor taking care of her had attempted to bring her to an Army checkpoint but was fired upon so they brought her back. Anecdotal stories from 17 years ago can be discounted. There’s no need to make things up, it was embarrassing but facts matter.
@Clifford Brennan: of course, blame Iran and Russia! Like hitting two birds with one stone!…
@David Jordan: Has this clip been verified as a missile hitting this plane? “Verification” by US funded propaganda arm Bellingcat does not count!
@Clifford Brennan: I didn’t mention the part about Jessica Lynch’s supposed heroics. It wasn’t what was being discussed. But that story was also false since you want to bring it up. She was unconscious as you know. You’ve stated that special forces rescued her and that it was “hammed up”. This is just a dishonest way of avoiding saying it was untrue. There was no “rescue”. That was a White House lie. The hospital receptionist stated that a “colleague” of hers called for her and signed her out. She had a leg injury so a hospital porter kindly helped wheel her out. She was not in the special forces so?? A gun battle was mentioned on CNN while Sky (in the hospital live) were not in the midst of one. Call me a liar when you find a copy of the Sky report. And stop relaying WH lies.
@JackSimpson: Verified by the NY Times Visual Investigations team, actually.
And before you go out berating the NYT as some sort of propaganda wing of the US military, they’ve exposed more Washington scandals than a lot of the news media put together.
Check nytimes.com or @malachybrowne on twitter for verification details.
@Paraic: Totally off topic from the missile investigation which is rapidly progressing as we speak, but usually the person making the claim (i.e. you making the claim about a sky news report exposing this supposed lie by the US military) provides the evidence, not the other way around.
You’ve just made the claim and essentially said “yeah the clip is out there gotta trust me”…
@Paraic: Well then you’re saying you know more about the rescue than Jessica Lynch does. I read an interview of hers where she stated that she was taken from the hospital by US special forces and initially feared it was Iraqi troops and she was about to die. She says the doctors were very kind but attempted to amputate her leg which she refused. I’ll take her version over yours if that’s OK?
@JackSimpson: The video was just geolocated to these apartments in outside Tehran at 35.489414, 50.906917 (copy and paste into Google).
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1215342730810986496
The distance from the camera to path the plane flew (on flight radar) agrees with the delay in the audio on the video, ~10 seconds between visible explosion and noise of the explosion (speed of sound = 343m/s) gives a distance of about 3.43 km.
It is also thought that this was the 2nd missile to hit the plane, and that’s why the person was filming.
BTW: Here’s how the story appeared at the time: “Acting on information from CIA operatives, they said, a Special Operations force of Navy SEALs, Army Rangers and Air Force combat controllers touched down in blacked-out conditions. An AC-130 gunship, able to fire 1,800 rounds a minute from its 25mm cannon, circled overhead, as did a reconnaissance aircraft providing video imagery of the operation as it unfolded. “There was shooting going in, there was some shooting going out,” said one military officer briefed on the operation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/04/03/she-was-fighting-to-the-death/827181d6-bc41-4d13-b20c-ba95fedab997/
The article is fiction from beginning to end. It even aludes to to but rehashes Sky’s interview.
@Malachai: I never said the clip is out there. What I said was, the story was live and was quickly pulled. Good luck finding a copy! I know what I witnessed. 2003 wasn’t exactly an era of YouTube uploads. It was a time when DVD players had replaced VHS recorders in most homes and as far as I recall it was at an unsociable time when most were at work or in bed (not sure which) I had been on night shift and was off. But every word is true. Sky interviewed hospital staff and they all were friendly and seemed to have liked the girl. Switched to CNN to see what they had to say. Total different story, gun battle special forces. Switched back to sky, story now aligned with CNN and previous live broadcast never repeated…
@ihcalaM:
1) No thanks, I won’t waste my time. The NYT is akin to Pravda during soviet times.
2) “they’ve exposed more Washington scandals than a lot of the news media put together” – They’ve propagated more conspiracies than most other news outlets, you mean.
@Clifford Brennan: Post the interview that you read then.
@Clifford Brennan: Thanks. In summary what I’m saying is that I know for sure that part B of the Jessica Lynch story is false (her rescue). You are saying that only part A (her heroic battle) is a lie. But that I’m a liar because I’m pointing out that I witnessed live footage from her private room in the hospital, where nurses a doctor and receptionist were interviewed seconds after her departure. The was no gun battle mentioned. No bullet holes in the corridor walls. Her nurse said that she had personally given her own blood to save her. The doctor spoke fondly of her and explained treatment. Receptionist said she waved her off… Believe what you want. If you want to believe 50% of a known to be 50% untruthful account, suit yourself.
@David Jordan: 1) “The distance from the camera to path the plane flew (on flight radar) agrees with the delay in the audio on the video, ~10 seconds between visible explosion and noise of the explosion (speed of sound = 343m/s) gives a distance of about 3.43 km.” – That’s fair enough.
2) Who/What is the original source of the video?
3) “The video was just geolocated to these apartments in outside Tehran at 35.489414, 50.906917″ – Can geolocation information be manipulated? I know nothing about this area.
4) Is it possible to find out when (exact date/time) this video was taken? Could it be an old video?
5) If it was a missile attack, surely there will be missile fragments. I doubt Iran will acknowledge it was their missile. Other possibilities: i) a MANPAD (many modern weapons have a ceiling of >5km and a range of greater than >3.5km); ii) An AIM-120D (range >160km) fired from an aircraft which could penetrate Iranian airspace (F22 or F35)?… We’ll probable never know for sure.
@Paraic: Nope. I’m still taking her first hand account over your own ever embellishing recollection of the brief clip you saw once 17 years ago. G’night everybody.
@JackSimpson: You’re beyond help I’m afraid, Jack.
If you think the NYT and the military industrial complex are working hand in glove (as I suspect you do) then you just haven’t been paying attention to their reporting over the past fifty years, since their publication and exposé of the Pentagon Papers.
@JackSimpson: There are allegedly missile fragments on site, pictures are up on the web but they were taken at a downward angle (i.e. away from buildings and landmarks) so geolocation is proving very difficult at the minute, we’ll see how that goes.
Conveniently, the Iranians seem to have bulldozed the wreckage at the crash site already, which will further hamper any investigation.
A missile from a non-Iranian source seems very unlikely considering the proximity of the plane to the airport in Tehran when the missile hit (the US/etc. don’t just have stealth jets doing laps around international civilian airports deep inside enemy territory for fun)
@Clifford Brennan: It wasn’t a “brief clip” Clifford, I didn’t say it was. It must have been the guts of 45 minutes, during which time the Sky reporter walked around various parts of the hospital interviewing everyone. Presumably the SAS fast roped in through the windows to whisk her away from harm once the interviews were over LOL!
@ihcalaM: Ok, if you have been lapping up their ‘reporting’ for the past 50 years, I’ll leave you to it. You’re set in your ways and nothing I say will change that.
@JackSimpson: It’s a shame you’ve missed out on some of the best investigative reporting the world has ever seen because you’ve twisted your mind into thinking it’s a propaganda machine.
What kind of propaganda machine repeatedly attacks its own alleged sponsor?? What a vacuous idea.
@Malachai: You made a statement that the US just wouldn’t have stealth jets inside Tehran / Iran several times now yet offer absolutely no credible support to the statement. Firstly, several US bases came under missile attack from Iran. I can’t think of any reason why they WOULDN’T immediately put stealth UAVs into the air to identify and intercept any further potential missile launches. This would not be limited to a single launch site. The idea that they would just hope that their automated anti-missile defences would take care of everything is bizarre. And of course the entire purpose of stealth aircraft is to operate behind enemy lines undetected. To state that they never do it (even when under attack) is naïve to the extreme. They absolutely would and most likely did.
@ihcalaM: 1) “There are allegedly missile fragments on site, pictures are up on the web” – Yes, I’ve seen them. Unsurprisingly, Eliot Higgins is pushing these images in a big way.
2) “The Iranians seem to have bulldozed the wreckage at the crash site” – What is/are your source(s) for this? From what I can gather, it is twitter speculation.
3) “A missile from a non-Iranian source seems very unlikely considering the proximity of the plane to the airport” – Why?
4) “the US/etc. don’t just have stealth jets doing laps around international civilian airports deep inside enemy territory for fun” – It’s like saying “Iranians don’t shoot down passenger jets with their own civilians for fun”. Anyway, the US wouldn’t need to. All it would have taken would be one quick incision into a weak spot in Iranian airspace (I’m sure the US know all about these weaknesses) – under the right conditions, a stand-off air-to-air missile could be launced from >150km away. Against a big cumbersome unmaneuverable target like a passenger plane, surely it’s a possibility? Imagine the message that would send to the Iranian elites, i.e. the US can penetrate airspace with ease. A MANPAD strike is another possibility.
5) It is possible Iran shot it down but atm I think it is not very likely. The passenger jet had just taken off from Tehran airport (as you said – deep in Iran) at a scheduled time. How could a target which likely would illuminate any radar screen be mistaken for an enemy that would have travelled hundreds of km to get to where it was. Such an illuminating target would have been detected as soon at it entered Iran if not before. Maybe they mistook it for a cruise missile (Tors are designed to take down cruise missiles) or a stealth aircraft (can’t imagine any other target getting that far into Iranian airspace) – but I’d imagine there is a big difference between a passenger jet and a cruise missile/stealth aircraft on a radar screen?..
6) Other possibilities = i) explosion on plane; ii) malfunction.
@ihcalaM: Oh and a final question. Might a civilian aircraft (just after taking off and climbing at night), look anything like a missile launch to a UAV operator, working from a shipping container in Texas? Totally impossible I guess you’ll say. Don’t worry I won’t be offended, yesterday people were having a go at me for even speculating that a missile shot it down. Water of a ducks back. Goodnight, I’m of to bed.
@ihcalaM: 1) “It’s a shame you’ve missed out on some of the best investigative” – Apologies for the delay in replying. After reading your comment, I felt a sudden urge to get sick. You’ve been institutionalised. 50 years of reading propaganda is bound to do that. The publication has been a pusher of wars for decades, wars that have lead to the deaths of millions. In more recent times it has been a pusher of conspiracies. I think I’ll pass.
2) “What kind of propaganda machine repeatedly attacks its own alleged sponsor??” – Sponsor as in DT? If so, that is a foolish question. The NYT has a liberal bias. Many of the liberals that contribute are liberal interventionists, i.e. they hate DT but surprisingly agree with certain foreign policy moves like being tough on Russia, Iran, etc – US imperialism. Do you not remember the liberal news networks that were overcome with joy when DT attacked Syria? Many neoconservatives contribute too. Many of these don’t like DT either (some do) but agree with certain foreign policy decisions. My point: It is possible to hate DT but support some of his foreign policy decisions/war-posturing at the same time.
@Paraic: Tehran is well inside Iranian airspace. If this were a border region, I’d be inclined to take the suggestion more seriously, but what you must know about stealth aircraft is that stealth is not absolute. The longer an aircraft spends in enemy territory, the higher the risk of detection. In this case, having F-22s/F-35s rocking around outside Tehran international airport would cause an international incident if the Iranians discovered it, and rightly so.
The missile attack on the US bases didn’t come from anywhere near Tehran anyway. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Iranian airspace is not full of supersecret US ninja jets waiting to pounce, nor do they scramble a country-wide fleet on a whim.
As for your UAV assertion – CUAVs aren’t really used for air-to-air combat. The first confirmed CUAV air-to-air hit was only recorded last year and that was in target practice, they’re made for hitting ground targets. Just doesn’t seem more plausible the US hit it, especially when there are probably far more Iranian SAMs in the area (seeing as it’s the capital) and it’s the job of an SAM to hit an aircraft.
@JackSimpson: 1) Eliot Higgins ‘pushing’ something doesn’t make it inherently malicious, but nice try. As I say, waiting on better verification for that, I don’t consider it hard evidence yet.
2) I’ve seen a few pictures and a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnnYePYwaRM @ 2:59) that, again, haven’t been verified, but seem pretty convincing.
3) See my reply above about stealth jets/UAVs – doesn’t strike me as very likely whatsoever, but I suppose we’ll find out more about the origin of the missile in the coming days.
4) The time doesn’t add up. The closest US air base I can think of to Tehran is Badrah and that’s like 750km away. The downed plane was in the air for two and a half minutes before the trouble started, that’s just not enough time, so the attack fighters would have to have been in the vicinity which as I say I don’t buy either. MANPAD? No way, unless the CIA now has Iranian operatives on the ground outside an airport with a Stinger at the ready…
5) I think we agree in a way – I think it would be a catastrophic failure of judgement from an Iranian operator to mistake one for the other, but the simple fact is that if we’re to assume neither side wanted to down a civilian aircraft, then somebody made a mistake, and we KNOW Iran has SAMs everywhere in their capital city whereas we’re speculating heavily about US capability. It’s probabilities.
@JackSimpson: 1) Simply untrue. Have you read the Pentagon Papers? They fought the US government (Nixon, warmonger-in-chief at the time) viciously in court for the right to publish what could only be described as a calamitous set of documents outlining the criminal way in which the US became embroiled in Vietnam. That’s hardly pushing war.
They’ve published plenty of things on either side on the Iraq war, more recently David Barstow’s expose of DOD’s covert funding of state propaganda in the mass media won a Pulitzer in 2009.
To paint it as a paper cheerleading for war is to be ignorant of the facts.
2) I meant sponsor as in the military-industrial complex, as I thought you were implying. I have no doubt it is anti-Trump, as any newspaper worth their salt should be, they’re a bit too faux-neutral if anything! Liberal interventionists may contribute, sure, but if I’m giving you *evidence* (not Op-Eds) from the NYT investigators it’s usually very sound. They get to the facts exceptionally well, the slight liberal spin afterward is pretty easy to see through if you’ve any sense.
@ihcalaM: Multiple weak arguments. UAVs routinely carry air to air missiles. Only being reported as being used once before, does not preclude them from being used now. The US constantly have UAV aircraft in the air above foreign soil. During the so called Japanese tanker “mine” attacks, the US had no less than 3 distinct aircraft above the Japanese tanker at the time. We only know about them because one was shot down and Iran reported that they realised that another was crewed so they spared their lives. The aircraft were an MQ-9 Reaper (a fighter UAV), RQ-4A (Targeting) and a Poseidon P-8 with a crew of 38.
@JackSimpson: you’d prefer the Russian MOD maybe? Beauty of Bellingcat is they don’t just verify -they show you HOW they verified and invite you to verify for yourself. So feel free to knock us out with your findings. But do knock off the hurler on the ditch routine. It’s wearisome.
@Paraic: I didn’t say it was impossible that it was a UAV air-to-air hit, just that it is an extremely uncommon event compared to the likelihood of an SAM taking down an aircraft (and we’re speculating about the presence of CUAVs, but we know there were SAMs around Tehran). As I say, probabilities.
Wasn’t it obvious that it was shot down by a missile in the first place?
@Paraic: yes. Especially when the Iranian government are holding onto the black boxes
@Stephen Brady: I don’t think holding on to the black boxes means anything. I mean, what country would hand anything over to an enemy who has just attacked them?
@Paraic: the US killed a pr/ck in a foreign country. Hardly an attack
@Stephen Brady: They assassinated the 2nd most powerful person in Iran. Of course it was an attack on Iran itself.
@Stephen Brady: They murdered 10 officially credited Iraqi and Iranian personal on a diplomatic mission on the sovereign territory of Iraq. Hope that clears it up for you Pr/ck.
@Paraic: good man! It’s all sorted….tell all the authorities to step down their investigation, Paraic is the man.
@Stephen Brady: What ever country a plane crashes in always leads the investigation and only sometimes if that black box is damaged they will call in experts from other countries who have the technology to read a badly damaged box. No big story with that one and nothing at all strange with keeping the black box.
@Paraic: they should hand them over to a neutral air accident organization then
@Zippy: yes but the country where the jets were manufactured also has s right to be accredited to the investigation hopefully Iran if they refuse the USA will let someone else be involved
@Pat Joffre: I heard France have offered some help and more then likely will quietly be brought in on the investigation.
@John Mc Avinue: he was on the US terrorist list since 2002. He slaughtered unarmed Iranian protesters in their hundreds as well as orchestrating attacks on foreign soil against Iraqis Brits and Yanks. He had it coming. I’m only suprised he lasted as long as he did. Looks like shitposting Trump on Twitter wasnt a smart move.
@Stephen Brady: Good job the world police were on hand to take him out!! What bad guy is next to be assassinated?? Hmmmmmmm who to hate next!! We have the iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/NK covered and them pesky Russians!! Man I hate them with there inferring computer wiz kids..We have the good guys in the US keeping us all safe feeling blessed.
@Zippy: you would be speaking German if the US police as you call it didn’t come to the rescue in WW2
@Pat Joffre: I read somewhere yesterday that Boeing weren’t seeking to investigate. This was before any suggestion of a missile strike was reported in the press. But you have to assume that they are intelligent enough to know instantly that this was no “mechanical failure”. Not sure what their policy is with respect to investigating missile attacks though.
@Gav: wrong.
@Gav: is that the same way that the Germans now speak English because they lost the war?
@Paul Furey: anything else to add here without dressing up for kids panto?
@Gav: wrong. The Russia killed the most Nazis and lost the most people. The US have tried to airbrush the Russians out of history of WWII allied forces
@Zippy: good ol USA have to have an enemy you know? How else can it justify billions a year on defence spending, spending more than the combined 25 countries on the list 23 of which are allies!! No enemy questions asked???
Difficult to believe anything that comes out of the US these days.
@Rochelle: and you really believe everything that comes out of Tehran????
@PMBinARG: Do we know if the missiles were being launched from or near the passenger airport? Flight paths would matter too. A plane from Kerry to London might get hit by a missile being launched from Cork, but not if the missile was being launched from Dublin to Belfast, for example.
@PMBinARG: considering even our own pro-US media are making it clear that the only diplomacy is coming from Iran, of course the narrative coming from Tehran is a lot more credible than the one from Washington. Then again, anybody that’s already passed their teen years should already know this by now.
@John Hazelnut: They took off from Tehran, its pretty much a given than the Iranian military will have AAA stationed around their capital city.
@Jonathan Morgan: Would the ballistic missiles being launched towards the US bases have been launched from Tehran, and would ballistic missiles have a hestseeking or radar ability to lock onto commercial aircraft?
@Jonathan Morgan: Commercial aircraft also have transponders, I would need to know if Iranian SAM crews had equipment to detect this. Commercial aircraft would be well lit as well. It seems peculiar, given the timing, but maybe it was in fact, an accident.
We live in a strange time when ‘liberals’ are using any opportunity they can to bash an open society USA and support a country where it’s illegal to be gay and women are forced to wear the hijab
@richiecranium: yep, cause interfering in the past has lend to such great outcomes for those oppressed populations.
@richiecranium: you’re not much better off being gay in the USA. You can be fired from your job for being gay in 37 states. You can be denied the right to enter a business based on your sexuality in most southern states. So yeah its not illegal to be gay in the USA but if you want to be treated as an equal its best to keep it quiet. Iran is a dump, we all know that. No one is “defending” Iran. Its possible to dislike the regimes in both countries at the same time you know.
@Ger: you do know New York was the birthplace of the LGBT movement and had the largest LGBT parade in the world this year? San Francisco, Denver all incredibly open cities to homosexuals. But yeah, some guy lost his job one time so let’s focus on that.
@richiecranium: since 1979 between 4,000 and 6,000 people have been executed in Iran for their sexual orientation. Don’t compare. You’ll lose this one.
@richiecranium: stop with your bull!!
@Ger: “you’re not much better off being gay in the USA”- Seriously? Apart from the fact that gay persons are not publicly hung in USA. Or beaten to death as a court punishment. Cop on and at least research gay life in Iran before making such a ridiculous statement. On your last point, you are correct. Both regimes are despicable but for gays, Iran takes the trophy.
@richiecranium: liberals don’t want a war caused by an impulsive idiot president who hasn’t thought through the consequences.
@Dave Harris: and they’re not getting one? They got a dead terrorist instead
@richiecranium: you have named 3 cities in 3 states. You do know that there are 50 states, right? So in the vast majority of the United States you can legally be discriminated against including losing your job but you want to focus on the minority of places that are ok? And more than one guy has lost his job and if you cared enough to look up the stats instead of being flippant you’d see that.
@Ger: that’s a disingenuous comment ger. The laws don’t state “it’s okay to discriminate against gays”. They allow private companies to make their own decisions based on religious and civil liberty. Thankfully there is no US law that you can explicitly say is created to oppress homosexuals. May I remind you that they legalized gay marriage before we did.
@Ger: I know where I would rather live…
@Ger: Outrageous false equivalence. Do your reading on Iranian LGBT rights (or lack thereof) before making such a scandalous comparison again. Jesus wept.
@Ger: There’s a reason the journal comment section is famous and it’s this.
Iran has outlawed activity between members of the same sex as a crime punishable by death.
Stop with the hyperbolic statements because you dislike the US.
@richiecranium: Criticising the USA doesn’t mean supporting Iran. I would think it is stranger to believe the right care about homosexuals and women of colour
@KalEll: I never said it did. Just don’t criticize the USA if you can’t back it up.
Well they would say that, wouldn’t they.
@Kendra Jackson: They would.
@Kendra Jackson: they did so they did
@Kendra Jackson: Do we know if the missiles that were being fired at US bases were being launched from near the airport? Think about flight paths, like a plane from Kerry to London might be hit by a missile being launched from Cork, but probably not if the missile was being launched from Dublin to Belfast, that type of thing.
@John Hazelnut: Seen a report that Iranians would have automatic missile defense systems setup around airports ready for a tit for tat response. Too much of a coincidence to occur by chance within hours of attacking the American airport.
@Watchful Axe: That seems a plausible explanation.
If true that is highly embarrassing for Iran. Coupled with the relatively poor showing for their missile strikes, it does not indicate good quality conventional defence capability.
@Jurgen Remak: or maybe shot down by the Americans and passing the buck.
@Jurgen Remak: The damage pictures I saw showed very accurate hits.
@Jurgen Remak: no comment on the proxy war Israel is waging on Iran Jurgen? Seeing as you are the major Israeli proponent on here.
@Tom: hits to some rocks and maybe a bunker or two. They told the Iraqis when and where the rockets were targeted and that was passed to the personal on the base. They wanted to be seen to “strike back” but not actually kill anyone which would likely have forced Trump to retaliate.
@Dermot Foley: I had no idea you were awaiting comments from me. I do apologize.
@Jurgen Remak: hmm , they managed to hit the US bases in another country with missiles fired from Iran – they actually warned ahead to the Iraq to warn of the targets too – there is also satellite images of the bases been hit – the fact there was no casualties is not the same as not being able to hit – but hey don’t let the actual facts get in the way of your ramblings
@Dave Hammond: Ramblings? That’s a bit harsh. I’ve no doubt Iran pulled their punches but it also appears maybe 4 of the missiles failed to reach their target. The strength of Iran is in its proxy militias, intelligence networks, ability to use small forces (esp Quds). Those forces are formidable and I’m not questioning their overall strength. Sure they will inflict damage with missiles, but in a full scale war their conventional capability will be limited when the US strikes launch sites or other conventional assets.
@Tom: thank god the black box survived though.
TBH it was the first thing that came to mind , and the fact they are reluctant to handover both black boxes kinda says this presumption ain’t rocket science .
@Seosamh Snr Nolan: Why would they hand over the black box to Americans? They likely suspect Americans may have shot it down and would hardly hand over the evidence to the suspects.
We likely won’t know what happened to it, just hear two versions of events blaming the other side.
@Seosamh Snr Nolan: hope you’re not on the jury if I ever go to trial.
And you’re presumption actually means it is rocket science
@Seosamh Snr Nolan: Or it could be that the Iranians don’t trust the US not to fiddle the data to make it look like a missile strike.
It was done before with the mobile WMD systems in Iraq that didn’t exist.
Iran shooting down non-combatant aircraft would be a nice excuse to launch strikes on Iranian air defences???
@Seosamh Snr Nolan: why would they hand over the black boxes to a nation who doesn’t recognise international law and who relies on false flag events being believed for invasions!?
@Rochelle: TheJournal comment section is amazing.
Black boxes/flight recorders are not held by any state, the manufacturer and the International Civil Aviation Organization review them after incidents. That’s how we have transnational flights and agreements.
Only on the journal is there such utter nonsense about countries keeping black boxes.
A website where everyone is an expert in everything.
@Rochelle: I think the news and videos coming out this morning clarifies it was shot down by a Iranian missile & furthermore it is there obligation to hand over the black boxes .
@Pablo: Hope your eating pie .
@Mill Lane: Enough of pie for you as well ! Double helping .
Well if the US are sure….
@Shane McGettrick: well if the EU are sure, let Iran continue to process Uranium! Clearly it’s in very safe hands. I wouldn’t take a blind bit of notice of yer man Trump, what could possibly go wrong? Great bunch the EU!
Shhhhuuuureeeee
As I commented over on the other article on this, the professional pilots network were strongly suggesting that it was an internal or external explosion (bomb or missile). Few there thought such a catastrophic failure was likely in a 737 even if the engine failure was uncontained (this is based on decades of data of plane accidents). It was inevitable that this speculation would become more public and they have a lot of data to back it up. Doesn’t mean for sure it wasn’t a a massive technical failure on the aircraft (e.g. possibly engine catastrophic failure followed by a tank explosion) but the evidence to date suggests some abnormal explosion. A US strike so far inside Iran is not really credible and an accidental strike by Iranians is the more likely cause.
Don’t know why the media keep reporting that the Iranians won’t hand the BBs to Boeing. that isn’t how it happens normally anywhere. Boeing have skin int he game and so they won’t run the downloading of the data but will observe it and assist where required. Responsibility is with the national investigative agency who may request a larger one to do it on their behalf when they don’t have the skills.
Quotes from two unnamed US officials…… I call Bull€hit
@Mel Fitzpatrick: yet you supported the horse crap spouted by unnamed sources during the Russia- and Ukraine-gate hoaxes!
Reports are coming from US intelligence services who are reporting the activation of an anti-aircraft/missile system shortly before the aircraft started its rapid descent. US would have Iran under constant satellite surveillance so it is likely they have the data. This is the most likely cause given the evidence to date and the external circumstances surrounding this crash.
If this was the case wouldn’t the Ukraine be jumping at the chance to say it was. A few more misiles for them may be if they did. I rather wait till the black boxes are ecamined
“Highly Likely” is the evidential threshold nowadays for the Court of Media.
Hopefully they will hand the black boxes to a credible neutral organization to be checked
@Pat Joffre: maybe the North Koreans – no one neutral – quid pro quo.
@Pat Joffre: probably will be the French air accident investigative agency.
@Hop Lite: or the Germans I would think that’s if they hand them over
If anyone would know about shooting planes down in Iran it would be the US.
Well of course they’re going to say that but doesn’t mean it’s true!
Strikingly similar to July 1988 when USS Vincennes shot down a civilian Iranian jetliner.I wouldn’t be surprised!
Is this the same type of 737 plane whose engine shattered a few years ago killing a woman on board?
@wankstatic: It’s the 737 800 type that’s ubiquitous for medium distance flights. It has an excellent safety record and is designed to continue flying even in the event of sudden catastrophic engine failure. The one who’s engine shattered was a 737NG. Boeing redesigned the engine cowling after that event.
@Paraic: Didnt they just rebrand after the accident? ng and 800 are the same…https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/business/boeing-iran-crash/index.html
maybe I read the article incorrectly.
@wankstatic: More than a rebrand. It was an evolution step between the 800 and the MAX.
@Paraic: Do we know if Ukraine Airlines replaced it’s engine cowlings though? The directives for things like this don’t always say ‘do it by next week’ they often give them an extended period if it’s related to an event with low frequency occurence (e.g. fan disc disintegration)
@Tim Hourigan: problem was only flagged in Nov 2019…according to CNN…..’But the 800 version of the jet, also known as a 737 Next Generation or NG, has had its own problems. Boeing has delivered about 6,700 of these jets to airlines around the world.
In April 2018, parts of the engine on a Southwest Airlines (LUV) flight hit the side of the plane and shattered a window after a fan blade broke. The cabin depressurized and the woman sitting next to the window was killed.
In November 2019, the US National Transportation Safety Boardrecommended that Boeing redesign the outer covering of the planes’ engines to prevent it from flying into the plane should a fan blade break on a future flight. It said that all Boeing 737 Next Generation series airplanes should be retrofitted with whatever fix Boeing comes up with.
Boeing said in November it is working on a fix for the jet covers.
But the 737 NG has other problems. Cracks have been discovered on structural supports that hold the wings in place, and several dozen have been groundedas a result. But while the FAA has ordered inspections, most of the 737 NGs have continued to fly’.
Wouldnt be the first time the United States shot down a passenger plane in Iranian territory. :(
More blood on Trumps hand
I would say they were angry with the US and they responded with their usual cave man antics and hit the first thing they saw in the sky. Accidental: I do not think so.!
Even St.Justin now thinks it was an Iranian missile…oh dear, all the blame US merchants will have to eat humble pie…
CNN, Jesus wept.
Black boxes damaged and some data lost
Very convenient
I see all the Putin lackeys are out in force on this one!
If Trump is saying it was an accidental hit by the Iranians and is not looking for revenge, I wonder what really did happen
@Anne Marie Devlin: How about: A US stealth UAV looking to counter further Iranian missile launches, mistook an ascending in the dark passenger plane for yet another missile and shot it down?
@Paraic:
Day/Night doesn’t make much difference to a UAV
UAV would be hundreds of KMs East of origin of Iranian missile launches. (Unless US has UAVs hovering over every possible launch site in a country twice the size of France)
Damage to the aircraft does not support air-to-air scenario.
Multiple videos (some not all verified location/perspective) strongly suggest SAM attack.
@niall quinn: Trudeau must have pretty solid info if he’s confident enough to go on TV and declare it looks like a shoot down. The most recent video is pretty damning but I’d still like see the CVR and FDR data. With MH17 both stopped at the same instant strongly suggesting the plane had been hit by a large SAM. The TOR system is much smaller but would still have likely killed the cabin crew. The turn to the right may have been caused by aerodynamic pressures or yaw due to the left engine having more thrust than the right.
@niall quinn: the Newsnight segment tonight was pretty convincing. Took off heading in the direction of a military area, was struck by a SAM 15 at 8,000 ft as it was climbing out (video footage appeared to show this) immediately veers right and hits the ground shortly afterwards. This wasn’t mechanical failure.
@GrumpyAulFella: I’ve been wrestling with the turn to the transponder going dead apparently before the strike, the turn to the right and the second missile. If the first missile did it’s job there’d be no radar set for the second missile to lock onto.
I’m starting to think the Iranians may have been technically telling the truth albeit a partial truth -so a lie by omission of pertinent material fact. The plane may have suffered a ‘mechanical failure’ -it’s transponder conked out for whatever reason. Unfortunately that rendered the plane an unidentified flying object in an area where the local military are on red alert for air raids. It’s possible those missiles may have been triggered automatically due to an ill-conceived setting.
@John Hazelnut: Yes, the propaganda arm of the US!
@JackSimpson: You can compare the WikiSpooks entry with the Wikipedia entry on Bellingcat. :)
@JackSimpson: Curse them what with their track record of finding actual buttressed evidence of state sanctioned murder of innocent civilians. Would’ve gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for these pesky bellingcat kids.
Ahhhh the perfect reason to start another middle eastern proxy war.
bullshite more crap from the US!!
Two words leap out of this horror story :Trump & Ukraine…
Is this “Whoops Apocalypse 2″…seriously…
Commented on here and bbc, after Iran declared hostility last week, that a “disaster” would happen and be blamed on Iran by USA, it’s old tricks now but the worlds media all gov controlled spew it constantly and joe public fall for it every time…..
Plane shot down by Iranian missile, “no indication of foul play “? Guess all’s fair in love and war then !
Awful
Dreadful, they should be punished.
Can you all unwrap your tin foil hats now, given Iran has acknowledged that they shot the plane down……???
Korean airliner shot down by the Russians… Iranian airliner shot down by the U.S. The games people play.
Human error or cyber warfare?
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say