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.

[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!

[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?

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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?

You make valid points and I agree with you. I just hope the UN steps in, not the US, and I hope they step in with diplomacy. Anc, sanctions aren't diplomatic....I think if Iran was going to go out on one last Apocalyptic crusade they would just try to blow up Israel.

Anyway, Rumsfeld underestimated a region that has had thousands of years of turmoil...if you don't rule that region with an iron fist you don't rule at all.

The Middle East is like the theoretical physics of politics, so I'll shut up now.

[Bube]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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?

I don't think that's correct. Nobody would "welcome the opportunity to die for the good fight", or that they'd want "the earth cleansed in blood".

You're just assuming these. And so does the US.

This makes these countries hate the US, because it seems like they're just looking for a reason to attack them, with no evidence. And this is the main reason these countries seem like a threat to the US. It's a vicious cycle that the US starts, and usually gets to finish.

It's like going through somebody's house without a warrant.

I truly believe that instead of thinking "What if Iran's goal is to bring about the apocalypse", the US thought "What if this guy who buys so many weapons is a psycho", they'd solve a lot more problems.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bube

I don't think that's correct. Nobody would "welcome the opportunity to die for the good fight", or that they'd want "the earth cleansed in blood".

You're just assuming these. And so does the US.

This makes these countries hate the US, because it seems like they're just looking for a reason to attack them, with no evidence. And this is the main reason these countries seem like a threat to the US. It's a vicious cycle that the US starts, and usually gets to finish.

It's like going through somebody's house without a warrant.

I truly believe that instead of thinking "What if Iran's goal is to bring about the apocalypse", the US thought "What if this guy who buys so many weapons is a psycho", they'd solve a lot more problems.

The only person making assumptions here is you, and that is assuming that there is no evidence for Iran being run by an apocalyptic cult.

My evidence, that you claim doesn;t exist, is called the 12th Imam theory, the coming of the al Mahdi (islamic messiah), and its what those who rule Iran believe.

Remarkably, the 12th Imam theory plays heavily into the world’s current concerns with Iran. The Shiite Muslim President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is deeply committed to the Islamic Messiah, al Mahdi. There have been many through the years claiming to be the Hidden Imam but Ahmadinejad believes he is yet to come. He claims that he is to personally prepare the world for the coming Mahdi. In order to save the world, it must be in a state of chaos and subjugation. Ahmadinejad claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”. This apocalyptic directive includes some very scary proclamations.

And for the record, the destruction of the US and Israel is in Iran's CONSTITUTION.

This is why I talked about the mistakes of ethno-centric political thinking. You assume that because self-desctructive politics is insane to use, it is insane to them. These are the same types of people to look forward to dying in battle to that they can live forever in glory in death. Martyrdom is a way of immortality.

That is why Iran can be considered a threat. How do you fight a nation whose leaders believe it is their duty to bring about choas of subjudation because God told them so? This is exactly what makes fighting islamic terrorists so difficult. How do you fight someone who wants to die for their cause?

You are the one making blind assumptions, especially those that blindly blame the US for Middle Eastern behavior that has been consistent for the past 1,000 years.

[Professor S]

This is the source for the above quote:

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm

And KG, I agree that I hope the UN will do something, but it was the UN's utter inaction over the last 20 years that has helped create this nightmare. I don;t trust the UN to do much but maintain the power and profit of old, impotent empires who have little place determining world events and issues.

[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?