Iran photoshops missiles into picture to appear powerful

[Bond]

Courtesy of the New York Times:

As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a point that had not emerged before the photo appeared on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news Web sites.

Agence France-Presse said that it obtained the image from the Web site of Sepah News, the media arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, on Wednesday. But there was no sign of it there later in the day. Today, The Associated Press distributed what appeared to be a nearly identical photo from the same source, but without the fourth missile.

As the above illustration shows, the second missile from the right appears to be the sum of two other missiles in the image. The contours of the billowing smoke match perfectly near the ground, as well in the immediate wake of the missile. Only a small black dot in the reddish area of exhaust seems to differ from the missile to its left, though there are also some slight variations in the color of the smoke and the sky.

Does Iran’s state media use Photoshop? The charge has been leveled before. So far, though, it can’t be said with any certainty whether there is any official Iranian involvement in this instance. Sepah apparently published the three-missile version of the image today without further explanation.

For its part, Agence France-Presse retracted its four-missile version this morning, saying that the image was “apparently digitally altered” by Iranian state media. The fourth missile “has apparently been added in digital retouch to cover a grounded missile that may have failed during the test,” the agency said.

Seriously Iran, kind of lame.

[birdman]

You know it's bad when governments are using photoshop to seem strong.

[KillerGremlin]

You know it's bad when our government and media are blowing this Iran thing up and trying to start stuff with them. It's not like all the outlying countries around Iran aren't allowed to have missiles. Missiles are not nukes.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

You know it's bad when our government and media are blowing this Iran thing up and trying to start stuff with them. It's not like all the outlying countries around Iran aren't allowed to have missiles. Missiles are not nukes.

Missiles are not a concern. Missiles plus a nuclear program (even Obama concedes they have one) a promise to wipe the US and Israel off the map? Concern.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Missiles are not a concern. Missiles plus a nuclear program (even Obama concedes they have one) a promise to wipe the US and Israel off the map? Concern.

If Iran so much as fires one nuke at us, it will
A) be a national tragedy
and
B) Iran will be reduced to a smoldering crator

Seriously...it would be a pretty desperate move on their part. This is simply dick waving at its finest. And, apparently, our media and government have an itchy trigger finger.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

If Iran so much as fires one nuke at us, it will
A) be a national tragedy
and
B) Iran will be reduced to a smoldering crator

Seriously...it would be a pretty desperate move on their part. This is simply dick waving at its finest. And, apparently, our media and government have an itchy trigger finger.

Well thats a very ethnocentric view of Iran's political policies. We think its sabre rattling because that is what we know. It is the idea that makes most sense. Its always been a mistake in the West to view them through the East's sensibilities. We made the same mistake when Rumsfeld thought that people would welcome us with open arms once Saddam was overthrown.

What if Iran's goal is to bring about the apocalypse? We already know that fundamental islamists welome the opportunity to die for the good fight, why should we assume a nation run by fundamentalists would care if they are destroyed in the process of cleansing the earth in blood?

[manasecret]

I agree, KG.

So have you heard Iran has a bunch of missiles and they like to wave their dick around? BREAKING NEWS!! ALERT THE MEDIA!

[Bube]

Ok, I'll admit that I didn't know all about that 12th Imam stuff. But I never said that they want world peace or anything.

The problem here isn't really Iran. That's why I always said "these countries". The US lost their credibility with the Iraq thing - the Iraqi War. Something they still haven't managed to put an end to. Something they started with something they couldn't prove - and still haven't proved. And this will continue, as long as the US play the Big Brother.

This isn't Minority Report. You can't see into the future. You don't know what people are going to do.

And just because Ahmedinejad says that he wants to save the world, but first has to lead it into chaos doesn't mean he's actually going to do it. And that certainly doesn't mean a country, which has had some incidents regarding world security, to see this as it's own job and step in (read: start another war in the mid-east).

[Bond]

This is the classic problem with Islamic fundamentalism. How do you combat an enemy on Earth that is fighting a war in Heaven and Hell?

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

How do you fight someone who wants to die for their cause?

I believe Japan can answer that question.




That was supposed to be mildly humorous. I'm not really for the whole mass genocide thing though.

Originally Posted by Bond

This is the classic problem with Islamic fundamentalism. How do you combat an enemy on Earth that is fighting a war in Heaven and Hell?

Through tyranny and dictatorship? Or...with Democracy and thousands of lives lost.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Through tyranny and dictatorship? Or...with Democracy and thousands of lives lost.

So the average of 50,000 Iraqi citizens per year that were killed or went "missing" under Saddam Hussein are so much more acceptable?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So the average of 50,000 Iraqi citizens per year that were killed or went "missing" under Saddam Hussein are so much more acceptable?

He never said it was more acceptable.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

He never said it was more acceptable.

I never said he did. I asked him if he thought they were.

I'd like him to clarify since his previous response attached deaths to democracy, but not the previous dictatorship, so I don't believe that is an unreasonable request.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Bond

This is the classic problem with Islamic fundamentalism. How do you combat an enemy on Earth that is fighting a war in Heaven and Hell?

This is why atheistic propaganda exists.

[Seth]

I thought this was a really interesting 3 part documentary. The Power of Nightmares
I think you can see it all on google video.