--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Name a single incident where they actually fired a weapon > > > > rather than locked their radar on. > > > > > > Oh, gee, Lawson, they fired at the planes all the time. > > > They never *hit* them, but they certainly fired at them. > > > We were constantly bombing them in retaliation. > > > > > > > Nope. The "act of agression" was to lock a weapons radar onto the > plane. We bombed the > > radar site whenever this happened. IIRC, they never fired on a > plane with an actual weapon. > > So all the newspaper reports about our planes being > fired on were wrong or lying? >
Please find such a report. The term used by the military was "acti of agression." That some newspaper goes ahead and calls it an attack is just the reporter not understanding the situation. The rule of engagement for the no-fly zone was that any aircraft was shot down. Any radar unit in the area was destroyed. Any radar unit outside the area that "painted" one of our planes was destroyed. As far as I know, there was NEVER any firing upon. We never let it get that far.
