Paul Bradley Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I recently saw the appellation "Su-15 Boeing Killer," presumably in reference to KAL007. I was shocked and dismayed. Am I alone in thinking this is insensitive? (Incidentally, I should hasten to add this was not related in any way to my connection to SAM Publications) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 It sure is. But at the same time other similar things have been as insensitive and we never even noticed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngstROM Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Not particularly insensitive -there's no 'nice' way to say it, and it is factually correct. As an aside, anyone concerned about the 'New World Order' (and any passing conspiracy-fanciers) should find a shudder or three here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald The first entry under 'Quotations' makes me wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 He was a fruit cake nut job.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) "Factually correct." In the strictest sense, you are correct, too. "...no nice way to say it.." - as my mum used to say, "if you can't find anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I do wonder what the families of the 269 civilians who were killed would make of the appellation. You will recall that most of the bodies were never found, and the body parts that were recovered were not able to be identified. Clearly, I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Edited April 19, 2014 by Paul Bradley 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I would agree it is insensitive. Can you say in what way it was put across. If say it was on a model box or an article? Its not nice but a lot does depend on the context? Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidelvy Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 It seems insensitive to me also. So no Paul, you're not barking up the wrong tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 Julien, it was an internet review of a kit. Seems to me that if people think this is acceptable, then perhaps we should label the Boeing 767 the "WTC Destroyer." After all, that's "Factually correct", eh? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 If that is the case then I don't find it acceptable to use in that context. Not to promote a model. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 It's in a Russian website, now that's a surprise:.... http://scalemodels.ru/articles/551-Trumpeter-1-48-su-15tm---Boeing-Killer-Su-15TM.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 The problem is that we often forget that the subjects of many of our models are in the end machines designed to destroy and kill. And too many times we get carried away by the feats of these machines and their pilots forgetting that the same machines and pilots are in those moments destroying and killing. Sometime the enemy to destroy is another military aircraft, sometime the enemy is an enemy soldier, sometime the enemy is an airliner and sometime the enemy is an innocent civilian. The ones on the side of the aircraft will glorify the destruction of the enemy, the ones on the side of the victim will be outraged at this glorification. In the end in the same moment we decide to look into the history of combat aircrafts (or ships, vehicles, guns), we have to accept that some may use a language that to us is a punch in the stomach and that others may take honour in events that we see as disgraceful 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngstROM Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 He was a fruit cake nut job.... Always good to have an in-depth psychiatric evaluation from a qualified professional... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted April 19, 2014 Author Share Posted April 19, 2014 I understand what you mean, Giorgio; the issue as I see it is that this was a civilian aircraft, not a military one. I have no real objection to the Phantom being called a "MiG Killer" because both machines were military, both piloted by military personnel, whose job is to put themselves in harm's way and recognize that they might die in their chosen service. Those aboard KAL007 were civilians going about their normal business, including 20 children under 12, who probably had no idea why they were going to die. Big difference in my view and not something that warrants 'celebration' or 'catchy' nicknames. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Vor!!! Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 If you look at Takom,s Mercedes car it comes complete with IED in the boot and mobile phone to detonate it. Far more insensitive and likely to cause offence at a model show How many people have being lost thru car bombs round the world A step too far by a model company 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Those aboard KAL007 were civilians going about their normal business, including 20 children under 12, who probably had no idea why they were going to die. Big difference in my view and not something that warrants 'celebration' or 'catchy' nicknames. BTW the text in that link also "celebrates" the shoot down of a KAL Boeing 707 by Su-15s on April 20, 1978. Exact text (translation by Google; apologies if it doesn't make sense in some parts): As you know, it was one of the most successful air defense interceptors: -20 April 1978 was shot down and sat on the emergency plane - the invaders "Boeing 707" South Korean airline KAL, of the 108 passengers on board lost two (according to other sources - 123 and 3 respectively). Interception implemented captain Bosov (Basov?) -18 iyulya1981, Captain V. Kulyapin freighter rammed argentiysky violating the border from Iran , Major G. Osipovich over Sakhalin knocked another intruder September 1, 1983 by staging a "Day of Knowledge" "by mistake" zaletevshshemu into the territory of the Union "747" of the same ill-fated company KAL, the most famous case in the history of interception "Cold War" - many murdered intelligence drifting balloons, was shot down last September 2, 1990. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimmer Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Exact text (translation by Google; apologies if it doesn't make sense in some parts) Am I the only one who sees inconsistency? How the text may be "exact" if it doesn't make sense? In fact, nobody celebrates anything in the linked topic, just pure facts mentioned, military plane intercepted airspace violators. Putting aside the disputable innocent nature of both KAL incursions in 1978 and 1983, interceptor planes are intended to protect airspace and destroy intruders. B-52 is a creature of Boeing as well - you may look at the mentioned article from this angle By the way, KAL007 shoot down was performed by ordinary Su-15, not "TM" version In the end in the same moment we decide to look into the history of combat aircrafts (or ships, vehicles, guns), we have to accept that some may use a language that to us is a punch in the stomach and that others may take honour in events that we see as disgraceful +100, can't be expressed better, Goirgio! USS Vincennes story is a good example 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 +100, can't be expressed better, Goirgio! USS Vincennes story is a good example When someone subtitles a kit of her "Airbuster", you just let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 So a model of the USS Carl (?) Vincennes should be celebrated as an airline killer ? That would be no more appropriate than the SU-15 being celebrated for shooting down Airliners packed with innocent civilians. I am clearly far too sensitive for all this, I really think that some elements in this world enjoy being seen as 'shocking'. Sorry but no need for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I understand what you mean, Giorgio; the issue as I see it is that this was a civilian aircraft, not a military one. I have no real objection to the Phantom being called a "MiG Killer" because both machines were military, both piloted by military personnel, whose job is to put themselves in harm's way and recognize that they might die in their chosen service. Those aboard KAL007 were civilians going about their normal business, including 20 children under 12, who probably had no idea why they were going to die. Big difference in my view and not something that warrants 'celebration' or 'catchy' nicknames. Paul, I think exactly as you do that it was a deprecable act. At the same time however we should keep in mind that we celebrate other actions that killed innocent civilians for no reasons and have no issue with this. How many villages in Vietnam were destroyed during bombing missions even if they were not a target ? How many times aircrafts strafed villages during the many colonial wars in the '50s ? Yet we have no problem in celebrating the aircrafts that were used in these actions. And going back in History, don't we celebrate this or that general or sovereign for what they did in building empires ? Yet these empires were built on the blood of milions of civilians and the enslavement of entire populations. Our heroes are somebody else's villains, we have to accept that others may see as legitimate certain acts that we find wrong in the same way as we find legitimate acts that others find wrong. Of course I believe we all the right to stand by our moral values and think or say "these guys are all wrong". Am I the only one who sees inconsistency? How the text may be "exact" if it doesn't make sense? In fact, nobody celebrates anything in the linked topic, just pure facts mentioned, military plane intercepted airspace violators. Putting aside the disputable innocent nature of both KAL incursions in 1978 and 1983, interceptor planes are intended to protect airspace and destroy intruders. B-52 is a creature of Boeing as well - you may look at the mentioned article from this angle By the way, KAL007 shoot down was performed by ordinary Su-15, not "TM" version +100, can't be expressed better, Goirgio! USS Vincennes story is a good example Sorry, actually no, the two situations are very different: USS Vincennes shot at an aircraft that was incorretly identified as a military target and as a result shot down an airliner. Nobody on the ship in that moment understood that they were shooting at an airliner, it was an error caused by an incorrect judgement from some of the ship command team during an encounter with enemy forces and it was recognised as an error by all the parties involved. KAL007 was shot down intentionally even if it had already been identified as an airliner, in this case the command chain decided that killing innocent lives was not an issue. While it's true that airliners often intruded into other countries airspace, the standard procedures usually do not involve shooting them down. Just to show that others do things differently, Soviet recce aircrafts often intruded into other countries airspace, for example in Italy we often had aircrafts bound for Lybia that entered Italian airspace to test the air defences reaction. In these cases the interceptors just had to make clear that they were there and the intruders left, but had a commander ordered one of these to be destroyed it would have been a legitimate act. Yet it was never done for the simple reason that everybody understood that it was a game of which every party knew the rules. Mentioning USS VIncennes makes no sense here, the two acts are totally different in the way they occurred. Anyone who thinks so either does not know History or is just looking for a justification for the cold blood murder of the passengers of KAL007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimmer Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 KAL007 was shot down intentionally no objections, correct it had already been identified as an airliner not correct, though inability to properly ID the aircraft is Russians' fault I see the similarity in two cases exactly in military's inability to put additional effort in proper identification in a situation where the threat was seemingly obvious. Nothing among zillions of official documents revealed to public (including ICAO investigation, US Senate Hearings, cockpit transcripts, official KGB reports revealed in 1993 in response to US Senate inquiry etc etc) confirms the plot of intentional "cold blooded killing of civilian airliner". And it's even without mentioning that airliner was 500 km into Russian territory, heading for 1mln population city. KAL007 case, being a very sad tragedy, still has its own "dark spots" to be revealed some day to public, but this discussion is out of scope of the topic, so I propose to everyone remain with it's own opinion, whether it's right or wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) Am I the only one who sees inconsistency? How the text may be "exact" if it doesn't make sense? In fact, nobody celebrates anything in the linked topic, just pure facts mentioned, military plane intercepted airspace violators Do I now have to apologize for not being a native English speaker? BTW How's your Greek? Presumably far better than my English... Edit: I saw from your profile that you are Russian, that makes your comment even more annoying... "it was one of the most successful air defense interceptors" Successful for shooting down two civilian airliners??? If that's not a celebration then I don't know what it is. Edited April 19, 2014 by Panoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimmer Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Panoz, I apologize if I sounded rude. Frankly, no offense meant English is not my native language either Being Russian does not necessarily mean being bloodsucking monster and in no way can be put as a humiliating label before you know the person or details. Only very sick person can "celebrate" (if that's the exact word you meant in your native language) the death of people, especially non-military. Nowhere near this content is attributed to the link that you delivered here. "Boeing Killer" - is quite irresponsible and stupid title, at the same time it's not necessarily has any hidden agenda behind (like "celebration" or being "proud of anything", like in a case of MIG Killers). IMHO. Just a fact that Su-15 destroyed a Boeing jet, which is undeniable. To be successful for military aircraft is to perform it's job, wether it's intercept or bomb or recon. B-52 may also be suggested by someone as a successful aircraft, as it has "linebackered" Vietnam to medieval ages and helped to achieve the strategic war tasks. Sounds awful, but that's the nature of war, isn'it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver66 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 There is no accounting for some peoples sense of propriety and their sensitivity to others. Sadly I find most who celebrate such sad failings of human beings are the first to desire empathy and sympathy when their world becomes damaged. Just a personal observation, not directed at anyone in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) Panoz, I apologize if I sounded rude. Frankly, no offense meant English is not my native language either Being Russian does not necessarily mean being bloodsucking monster and in no way can be put as a humiliating label before you know the person or details. Only very sick person can "celebrate" (if that's the exact word you meant in your native language) the death of people, especially non-military. Nowhere near this content is attributed to the link that you delivered here. "Boeing Killer" - is quite irresponsible and stupid title, at the same time it's not necessarily has any hidden agenda behind (like "celebration" or being "proud of anything", like in a case of MIG Killers). IMHO. Just a fact that Su-15 destroyed a Boeing jet, which is undeniable. To be successful for military aircraft is to perform it's job, wether it's intercept or bomb or recon. B-52 may also be suggested by someone as a successful aircraft, as it has "linebackered" Vietnam to medieval ages and helped to achieve the strategic war tasks. Sounds awful, but that's the nature of war, isn'it? Apology accepted. I'm happy that we agree that the title of the article was rather unfortunate. Not being familiar with the language means that we have to rely on Google Translation and since we don't know the complete story we can sometimes jump to conclusions. No one posting in this thread badmouthed the Russians. We just complained about the title. Regarding the B-52, it didn't bomb Vietnam to the middle ages, it did this: Edited April 19, 2014 by Panoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver66 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 What an absurd sticker/logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now