Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Secret To Iranian Drone Technology? Just Add Photoshop

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the innocent-whistling-of-tail-fins dept.

The Military 183

garymortimer writes "Earlier this month, Iran's news agency provided visual evidence that its government had figured out to make a fancy new drone that could take off and land vertically. What they didn't tell us is that they used Photoshop to make it stop taking off from the roof of Japan's Chiba University, which built the aircraft and never had anything to do with Iran's alleged version of it."

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129481)

Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.

But seriously, everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this. That's why I don't worry about them nuking Israel of any of that nonsense. They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.

Look at it from their perspective. George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" (and that speech one of the worst diplomatic blunders in the 21st century IMHO). Then he proceeds to invade one of the three members of said Axis, right next door. And this was just after the U.S. had invaded the country on the OTHER SIDE of them. It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election and really started ramping up their nuke program immediately following (or that North Korea followed suite). Let's face it, about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade you is to have nukes.

Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Funny)

zeroryoko1974 (2634611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129535)

Could have been shopped by the Chinese for them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129547)

They "they went a little nuts" and hardliners took power right after we brutally ransacked the country [wikipedia.org] via a violent puppet regime.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (4, Insightful)

AntiBasic (83586) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129927)

Oh yes, The shah was sooooo horrible compared to mossadegh who was friendly with the USSR. The islamists took power in 1979, not the decades prior. Your ilk is merely a cabal of useful idiots without a shred of historical perspective. Look at how the idiot liberals in Iran got "betrayed" by Khomeini right after taking power.

Stop blaming America for everything. Try to understand that history is more complicated than your cute little wikipedia articles.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130049)

What give the United States the right to decide who rules a country?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130121)

Being a player in geopolitics does, as it did the Soviet Union at the time. You have to remember during the Shah the US was embroiled in a deadly cold war with the SU. Every move in that war, including Iran, was a counter to some move the SU made. You can't look at the US as some lone power-hungry king maker in a vacuum, at least at that time.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130853)

Being a player in geopolitics does, as it did the Soviet Union at the time. You have to remember during the Shah the US was embroiled in a deadly cold war with the SU. Every move in that war, including Iran, was a counter to some move the SU made. You can't look at the US as some lone power-hungry king maker in a vacuum, at least at that time.

It was only a deadly cold war in the eyes of the paranoid retard leaders in the US and USSR. In reality, it was all a load of bollocks. Neither country could ever have invaded or destroyed the other. It was the worst sort of hysterical political theatre, and it lasted for forty five years. In the meantime, people in other countries were dragged into the stupidity when they should have been getting on with running their own countries.

I know the USSR was far from faultless, but when you read about the US deliberately overthrowing democratic regimes that they believed might be "communist" it makes very unpleasant reading indeed.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0, Flamebait)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131009)

you have no damn clue what you're talking about. if this is what passes for history being taught these days we're in for a load of hurt in the coming years.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131153)

you have no damn clue what you're talking about

Oh? Well, enlighten me, oh scholar?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

camg188 (932324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131385)

That dude, Dulles? I think they named an airport after him.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1, Redundant)

Lithdren (605362) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131187)

Then point to something that gives the whole story. Throwing your arms into the air and declaring everyone else an idiot hardly makes you look good. Just makes you look like a loonie.

Honestly I cannot imagine a source that would allow you to justify what the US has done in the middle east in general. But, i'm open to it, if such a thing exists. You wont be supplying one, of course, since none actually do.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Interesting)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131097)

It was only a deadly cold war in the eyes of the paranoid retard leaders in the US and USSR.

You seem to believe that the cold war could have been avoided had the US (and I supose the USSR) "done things differently"? Of course. But you types seem to be perfectly happy to rest the fault of that era soley on a very simplistic view of the world at that time. And it is, but to colour the US as wholly or mostly complicate is to completely misunderstand the cold war and how it started.
The Cold War is completely and wholly the fault of one Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. His meglo paranoia led him to slaughter whole regions of his own country, swallow up whole countries out of eastern europe, and start fucking with other countries' politics behind the scenes. If you look at the stance and shape of eastern europe right after WWII its most obviously the stance of a defendable fortress whose enemy is directly from the west. This is the construction of an increadibly paranoid mind that controls the entire economy of the east. As proof I offer history as well as the outcome of the cuban missle crisis. Can you imagine the soviet ships turning back had Stalin still been in power? The cold war for the west was a response to a very diseased, paranoid mind armed with nukes, that's all. The US is not blameless, but less blameful than you seem to think.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131205)

Being a player in geopolitics [give the US the right to decide who rules a country],

No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with.

Please stop doing that.

Aside from being wrong, it blinds you to why other countries resent the US, and why they feel they have legitimate reasons to act against US interests.

Our rights-free meddling has almost entirely stripped the legitimacy from our foreign policy.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130181)

Their military might?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130229)

The same thing that's always given people the right to decide who rules a country...guns and money.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130275)

The fact that some countries can't seem to do a good job at it and 'elect' despots and dictators who indiscriminately kill their own. That's what give the United States the right. Hide back under your anti-war rock, you numb fuck.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130641)

Waah mommy mommy I whacked the hornets nest again and they came out and stung me kill them kill them

QFT.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130875)

This is the kind of thinking that allows evil to triumph; good men doing nothing. What right does a good man have in dictating to any other man? No right, except when dictators, tyrants and despots rule. There is a fine line between good and evil, and it is waged on the line of wants to verse has to. I don't want to be in a fight, I don't go looking for a fight, but I will kick the living shit out of bullies who are threatening me or my loved ones. And while I am kicking the shit out of the poor sod, I look exactly like them, if you go by appearances and results.

And if it is a choice between a dictator that is friendly to us, or one that is not friendly to us, I'll support the one who is. Shaw of Iran was NOT a nice guys, but he was a thousand times better than the idiots running the place since, although it is not saying much. Some places need a dictator to rule, because the people and culture expect it.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42131083)

Right. We're on the Good Guy Team and they're on the Bad Guy Team! It's all black and white, and we're the Holy Crusaders of this world!

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130985)

Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131283)

Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?

There's a significant difference between "support" and "install by force."

As to why, once you really annoy them by imposing your will by force, they tend to respond. Not necessarily in ways you will see as reasonable or balanced. Like flying into buildings, killing thousands of people. At which point tertiary consequences arise, such as your own government going dumb-fuck-insane, stomping all over your constitutional rights, impeding travel, and generally fucking up life for everyone.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130299)

If they quote Wikipedia, they are hoping someone else know what they are talking about, because they don't.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130379)

'Can't we all just get along'

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42131045)

No.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130441)

It is you who suffers from a lack of historical perspective, especially when you think you're so cute and intelligent for calling other people useful idiots. You imply the Mossadegh was a bad guy because he was friendly with the USSR, but you miss the fucking point that him being friendly with the USSR might be bad for the US, but it might have been good for Iran, you know, the country that he was leading.

The Shah was propped up by the United States, and his regime was brutal and corrupt. The Iranians supported Khomeini because of his anti-Western sentiment, which was there because, you know, we propped up a brutal and corrupt regime that had screwed their country over.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131073)

The Iranians supported Khomeini because they thought he would just fade into the background, which is basically what he promised. When he arrived in Iran, he used his influence to squash any notion of a democratic and modern state and used the same kinds of goons the Shah had used to continue, and in fact deepen the oppression.

One can say a helluva lot of bad things against the Shah, but at least the man had a progressive vision. Khomeini, on the other hand, was a power hungry religious fanatic determined to turn back the clock. I doubt there are many Iranians of the Revolution generation who probably feel inviting Khomeini back to Iran was a very good idea.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131143)

Diplomacy and foreign policy are not about what's good for the other guy.
We don't go to a place and talk and persuade them in order to make their lives easier and give them things.

You go there to get things favorable to you, not the other guy.

If that results in their lives being easier or them getting things in return, so be it. If not, so be it.
Sometimes they make the decision to shortchange a long term benefit in favor of a short term one. Sometimes they make a decision because of an overriding demand ( such as "oppose communism at all costs").

Point: It's not about them, the other guy, and what's best for them. It's about you, and what's best for you.
That is the reality.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130717)

US and UK did not overthrow anyone in 1953. First of all, the government was not elected. Mossadegh was appointed to become PM by the Shah of Iran according to the Iranian constitution from 1906.

The origin of this whole story is from CIA. Since when does CIA count as a reliable source? Do you believe everything CIA says? Everytime there is article about governments, CIA, NSA or anything similiar on Slashdot the majority of the people who comment are against these and always write bad things about them. But suddenly, in this one case, CIA musy say the truth!

There are many books, articles, documents, audio that proves otherwise. Iranian and foreign historians say otherwise. You guys who frequently visit Slashdot should know that this is the age of Internet and lots of new information exists.

Some goodies:

Ardeshir Zahedi, whos father according to CIA played a huge role in this, wrote in his book "The CIA and IRAN - What Really Happened" : "My father never had any meetings with any CIA agents. One operative has claimed that he spoke to my father in German, ostensibly during secret meetings. The fact is that the only foreign languages my father ever spoke was Russian and Turkish, not German or English."

Mossadegh was opposed by his own close friends, for example Hussein Makki and Mozzafar Baqai, who supported him a lot in the beginning. A leading member of the Majlis (parliament) Hassan Haeri-Zadeh, who had been one of Mossadeghâ(TM)s strongest supporters until then, even cabled the United nations secretary general to appeal for help against Mossadeghâ(TM)s increasingly despotic rule.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.'''

Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose ''secret report'' has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.

Barry Rubin writes âoeIt cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah⦠Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.â

In closing, Mossadegh was an asshole. I can not remember exactly now, but he either closed the parliament or threatned to close the parliament if they did not give him dictatorial powers. He broke the economy of Iran. He forced women to wear hijabs again and so on. But that's another discussion.

Take care.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Isao (153092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131053)

The SAVAK were a lot of fun for the population. And they had help from the CIA. The educated and wealthy classes liked the Shah, as their life was good under him (at least until the country ran out of jobs for them). The poorer, less educated citizens mainly got the boot, if they interacted with the regime at all. Since the US and Britain put the Shah on the throne, those countries weren't loved by the rebellion. And yes, I think Khomeini made a mistake letting the student rebels put the embassy hostages between him and the West. Iran has been on the short end of that stick ever since.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130083)

Define "they". The US had a role in the Shah, primarily as an attempt to combat what they saw as a communist friendly regime, but the primary instigators of the Shah were the British who were trying to protect British Petroleum (formerly the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) oil rights and revenues. Most of the worlds present conflicts tie back to historical meddling by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. US meddling started with the attempt to control the spread of communism and has persisted in various forms since but the primary conflicts of the present day are due to the former European actions.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130117)

The argument could be made that by supporting the Shah we were saving them from themselves. A look at where they are now supports this argument.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130791)

Maybe. Honestly, I think the action we took was entirely legitimate as a course of action against the Soviet Union, and you can be sure that the Soviet Union would never have had a qualm about it. Nevertheless, valid actions for one purpose can have long term consequences that cannot be adequately foreseen at the time.

The Shah's regime was better than some, worse than others. They had a brutal secret police and persecutions of various left wingers and such. On the other hand, Iran had a very decent economy, more or less equal rights for women, and a Western outlook. If the Shah had been a better ruler, Iran could have probably eventually ended up like a South Korea or a Taiwan (other Western-aligned but not-quite free states in the past) and pulled out of their strongman state into something more constitutional and democratic.

Unfortunately, the more liberal elements, which could have been easily been influenced by the overthrow of Mossadegh, had their own Iranian Spring, and it turned out that they were betrayed by Khomeini and the religious leaders. In many ways, there are parallels between Iran and what is happening in Egypt right now, where relatively liberal protesters overthrow one dictator, only to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Obviously, it doesn't have to go down the same way, but the same off-ramp to a sharia state has now appeared in front of the Egyptians just like it did for the Iranians in 1979.

There are plenty of people who are mad at the US for supporting dictators, but the reality is that sometimes the only thing keeping a country's own population from turning their country into a pariah state is someone whose hand is on the wheel keeping it in line. Even in the developed world, we're only one or two bad democratic elections away from turning into aggressively expansionist or aggressively isolationist states. Usually the people are against wars like that in a democracy, but you beat them down enough and make them wish for control and the glory of victory over some external enemy, and it wouldn't take much for the armies to start marching.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1, Troll)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130889)

The argument could be made that by supporting the Shah we were saving them from themselves. A look at where they are now supports this argument.

Yeah, that's the White Man's Burden. Gotta protect those folks with brown skin from their own childish inability to see what's best for them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129571)

They're not crazy ... It's little surprise that they went a little nuts ...

Contradict yourself often?

A false narrative about how little danger your enemies pose to you is a danger in and of itself. No one is saying Iran is going to launch nukes but you appear to be an uninformed armchair analyst who has never set foot in Tehran nor spoken a word of Farsi.

Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.

I dare say you are unaware of just how conflated those two entities are in the Middle East. Attacking Israel is attacking the United States in the eyes of both sides.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129593)

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129639)

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

No one is parading around "looking to attack." Why cough up the element of surprise when that's the best weapon you've got. Have you ever considered that Iran is actively attacking other nations like Turkey through it's Syrian proxy? Do you read Farsi news all day? Do you have any citations or proof that Iran isn't looking to attack? Are you even aware of their financial crisis? Sounds like they need a war ...

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129813)

Have you ever considered that Iran is actively attacking other nations like Turkey through it's Syrian proxy

Their Syrian proxy is on its last legs, and has too much of their own serious worries to be actually attacking Turkey. Alleged attacks are just NATO building a case to overrun Syria, as soon as Russkies sells them out (which they most likely already did, if I understood well their latest statements regarding Syria).

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131057)

Do you have any citations or proof that Iran isn't looking to attack?

Hard to prove a negative. Do you have any proof that the US isn't run by alien lizard overlords?

Are you even aware of their financial crisis? Sounds like they need a war ...

What, so they can be bombed back into the Stone Age by the US, then get gloriously lifted up again by some Marshall Plan style charity?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130983)

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

Iran is definitely looking to attack. They're already attacking Israel with their own rockets by using their proxies in Hamas to do it.

Yes, Iran is not looking to start a war with the US or NATO. That would be moronic, and their leaders are not stupid. However, they are plenty interested in regional dominance, and they can't play that game until the US and the West can be deterred from a war with them.

Right now, Iran has the ability to shut down the Persian Gulf to shipping with anti-shipping missiles at the Straits of Hormuz, and the only thing preventing them from using that leverage against the Arab states and the West is the US guaranteeing the free passage of international waters through there. That is why the US has a very powerful naval presence in the Gulf. If Iran started firing on ships now, the US would probably launch air strikes on the missile sites and bomb Iranian military bases to end the threat. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the US would have to think at least twice about that course of action. The tension would be similar to something like the Cuban Missile Crisis because the US could not allow Iran to hold the world's oil hostage, but at the same time, they don't want to see mushroom clouds over Israel (or even the US, if Iranian ballistic missiles get to that point).

Let's be clear, two big states with nuclear weapons did not end wars in the 20th Century, all they did was move the wars away from the major powers into the smaller countries that were used as pawns. Iran doesn't purely want "safety" from the US, it wants a free hand to act.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129665)

A false narrative about how little danger your enemies pose to you is a danger in and of itself.

As much of a danger as a false narrative about how much danger your enemies post to you?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129697)

A false narrative about how little danger your enemies pose to you is a danger in and of itself.

As much of a danger as a false narrative about how much danger your enemies post to you?

What false narrative are you talking about? The OP was just talking out of his ass like he was some big shot Iranian expert. The reply called him out on it. Claiming someone doesn't know a damn thing about the topic at hand does not constitute a false narrative.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130969)

you appear to be an uninformed armchair analyst who has never set foot in Tehran nor spoken a word of Farsi

I tell you what, I've never set foot in Mecca nor spoken a word of Arabic, same with Beijing and Chinese or New Delhi and Hindi. So I suppose I have no right to read about these countries in English and form opinions based on varying (translated) sources?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129613)

Actually it's not targeted at other nations at all. The Iranian governement just doesn't want their people to realize they're ruled by crazy idiots who regularily piss off half the world with absolutely no viable defenses.

Iran has been "weeks away from getting the nuke | secretly has it already" for about 40 years now.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129797)

THIS is exactly what I believe as well. They do not do this to entertain the rest of the world, but to promote confidence of their people in their government. Iran has little defense from the likes of Israel or the US. But it would be unseemly for the US or Israel to attack Iran at the moment. So Iran's primary concern is its own people and they need to remain calm, productive and confident. Quite a problem considering the economic pressures on them at the moment.

It all reminds me somewhat of N.Korea.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (3, Insightful)

Stickerboy (61554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129663)

Well, they're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, then.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did the same shtick, bluffing for years that they had weapons stockpiles that really didn't exist (anymore). The US military went into the Iraq War expecting that chemical and/or biological weapons would be used against their soldiers on the ground. Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

The problem with Iran's government is they're being run by two opposing camps; the religious right-wing extremists pitted against the military nationalist right-wing extremists. Buffoonery and penis length comparing naturally comes with *right-wing extremists of any sort, it seems to be a universal truth.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129807)

Well, they're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, then.

crazyjj is talking out of his ass, provides no citations and should just generally be ignored on foreign relation topics.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130925)

what makes you a pundit in this area? why should we ignore him and listen to you?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129909)

you know, I agreed with you up until "right wing extremists".

Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists. I realize they weren't entirely caused by the actions of the anarchists, but the actions of the left wing extremists acted as the catalyst to throw Europe into war.

And I know how common here it is to equate anarchy with libertarian, and libertarian is a form of conservatism, but look it up. Anarchy is considered an extreme leftist view, not an extreme rightist view. Conservatives wants to keep things the way they were, and completely eliminating government is hardly a conservative view. Keeping it small is.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130033)

Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists.

You have serious mental problems if you believe that.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130689)

Yah no shit.

Those anarchists killed 1 guy, in the most inept fuckup got lucky assasination of ALL TIME. They had already failed their attempt when the Archduke's car went down a street right by one of the bungling assasains. If not for this random set of circumstances, it would have been little more than a failure.

To blame the entire WW on such an event is ludicris. Throwing a match into a powder keg may START an explosion, but, does a lit match alone cause an explosion? The system of alliances that had built up had allowed the entire european region to turn into a powder keg, just waiting for something to touch it off. And we are not talking about a powder keg deep in a safe ammo dump. We are talking about a powder keg out in front right next to the sign that says "smoking area".

No left wing philosophy built those military alliances. No left wing philosophy caused them to fall into war like a house of cards into disorder.

To use an analogy.... imagine some guy was mad at you and kicks your newly built house. Now imagine the house actually collapsed after he kicked it. Who is to blame? The guy kicking the house, or the people who designed and built a house that couldn't withstand one asshole kicking it?

(yes clearly they are both in the wrong, but one is clearly did far worst than the other)

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131295)

And cue more proof of the sig.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131303)

Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists

That is by far the most ridiculous political statement I've ever seen on slashdot, and that includes people defending the intellect of George W Bush.

Huge armies slaughtering each other in the name of patriotism but for no real purpose in WW1 (in particular) are about as far from anarchism as it's possible to get.

And I know how common here it is to equate anarchy with libertarian, and libertarian is a form of conservatism, but look it up. Anarchy is considered an extreme leftist view, not an extreme rightist view. Conservatives wants to keep things the way they were, and completely eliminating government is hardly a conservative view. Keeping it small is.

The philosophical basis of anarchism is the abolition of ALL forms of power or control by one human being over another, whether it's political, religious, social or economic. The problem with modern day US "libertarians" is that they don't agree with the last of these, and won't acknowledge that as long as you have a system with some people much richer and more powerful than others, you can never have equality, fraternity or true liberty.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2)

V for Vendetta (1204898) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130593)

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did the same shtick, bluffing for years that they had weapons stockpiles that really didn't exist (anymore). The US military went into the Iraq War expecting that chemical and/or biological weapons would be used against their soldiers on the ground. Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

Whoever rated this insightful should go back and read a bit about the alleged claims of WMDs. All knew the claims were false, Powell later admitted that the presentation he gave to the UN Security Council about those imaginary WMDs was an error. Some are even convinced he knew the claims were false at the time of the presentation [huffingtonpost.com] . So in reality there was nothing to be afraid of when sending troops in an GWB knew that pretty well.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42131007)

it was hard to watch his whole carreer blow away like smoke during that speech, in retrospect WATCHING his mannerisms and facial expressions during that speech speak volumes about how he felt lying like that. as far as i know he had a very distinguished carreer as far back as vietnam . he drank the kool-aid freely and voluntarily, just that one batch didnt taste quite right

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131015)

Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

The above is precisely why Iran feels the need to develop actual nuclear weapons -- because a nuclear deterrent is the only sure way to keep the US from invading Iran.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129831)

George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" =/p>

That's ok, I include George W. Bush as part of the axis of assholes.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129843)

They made a movie about their government too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645170/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 [imdb.com]

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129863)

Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.

You would be surprised how many Arabians do. They take the ban of pork seriously, but they drink a lot in the privacy of their homes. And polygamy means that there are lots of young men who can't get wives, and resort to each other or become the boyfriends of rich old men. Seeing men walk hand-by-hand is common in Arabian streets.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129965)

Seeing men walk hand-by-hand is common in Arabian streets.

That's not (always) because they're homosexual, men holding hands in Arabic culture is more an indicator of equality and that both are actually paying attention to what the other has to say than sexuality.

Not entirely unlike the behavioral difficulty when an Arabic person tries to confide in a foreigner, by getting REALLY up close, and the foreigner (who likes personal space or has had friends recently exploded) takes it the wrong way.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (2)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130227)

That doesn't necessarily mean they're gay. There's a different social custom in that culture where that is acceptable. I honestly thought that as well when I got to Afghanistan until someone explained it to me.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129887)

Why wouldn't they be gay or drink alcohol? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18504268

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131291)

Swoosh?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130971)

Everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this.

Makes sense if you look at it with Sun Tzu in mind. "Know your enemy" (and by induction, "All war is deception"; if you can deceive your enemy, they won't know you); But also, "Don't try to out-fight if you can out-wit" and "No state has ever benefited from prolonged war". Finally, "Avoid the strengths of your enemy; target their weakness".

They're already at war with the USA. They're just not fighting. And you've got to admit... it's working, too. The U.S. is a shadow of what it was just decades ago.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131379)

Right... but surely somebody over there has got to consider the fact that despite this showmanship, if they actually do get invaded and they don't have said drones / nukes to protect them, they will go the way of Iraq even quicker.

Why not just fall in line with the rest of the world and let the nuclear inspectors inspect their facilities when asked? Nuclear technology affects the world, not just Iran, so it's important to regulate it. Then again it sounds like a bunch of clowns are trying to run Iran and not a real government, if the do get invaded, they only have themselves to blame.

Alternatively, they can go invent everything the "West" has invented real quick, win a couple of world wars, acquire vast natural resources, forefront technology, and then maybe they can decline the inspection legitimately.

This reminds me of... (1)

sudden.zero (981475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129539)

...the Chinese fighter jet that turned out to be a clip from Top Gun. People are so ignorant. How does this thought process start. Iranian01: "Hey, we need some of those fancy drone things like the USA." Iranian02: "Yeah, I know but how can we get them?" Iranian01: "You have a cracked copy of Photoshop right?" Iranian02: "Works for me!"

Re:This reminds me of... (4, Funny)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130069)

Yeah, the Top Gun ones were funny! The level of gullability of some people is incredible.

But my favourites are the NASA moon landing ones! To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.

Re:This reminds me of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130557)

intensive purposes you say

Re:This reminds me of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130617)

Intents and purposes.

Re:This reminds me of... (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42131311)

But my favourites are the NASA moon landing ones! To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.

Care to elaborate?

Iran and China, Best Buds for Life (5, Funny)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129555)

Nonsense, that photo isn't doctored. I heard that in building their new drone, Iran licensed the same technology that China used to build levitating engineers [smashinghub.com] .

I call BS (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129565)

Pics or it didn't happen! Oh wait...

So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (4, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129573)

Iran's press service was probably given instructions to report on a new VTOL drone, without having been given actual images of said drone. So the press agency went online, found a drone image it liked, photoshopped out some wind turbines in the image, and ran the story that way... The "digital deed" in question may even be the handywork of a young intern at Iran's press agency, told to illustrate a story for which no real images exist. ---- Either way, I don't see why this is "big news" in any way. Its not as if the U.S. releases pictures of all its new military toys. Like the mysterious stealth chopper that crashed during the Abbottabad raid...

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129667)

Iran's press service was probably given instructions to report on a new VTOL drone, without having been given actual images of said drone.

This is exactly what happened. The Chinese did the same thing with their use of Top Gun footage in promoting some propaganda recently.

In fact, your breakfast cereal provider does this, McDonalds does this, anybody who puts out promotion materials includes photos "for demonstration only, may not represent actual product". Do you think that's milk and not glue in the cereal on the box cover?

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129755)

It's well known that product photos are usually a mock-up, but this is completely different. The big idea there is that they start from a finished product and recreate it in a more predictable, yet still visually accurate way.

How many times did you buy a box of Fruit Loops, only to open the box to find a bag full of Raisin Bran?

I'd say this is more akin to a fast food restaurant taking a picture of the actual food, and then when you order one, they serve you a plastic mock-up cheeseburger covered in Armor-All.

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (1)

imikem (767509) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129959)

Yum. Where can I find this cheeseburger? This gives new meaning to the term, "slider."

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130123)

Where can I find this cheeseburger?

White Castle.

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (1)

jjsimp (2245386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130691)

Try one of the burgers the US Airlines use.

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129761)

In fact, your breakfast cereal provider does this, McDonalds does this, anybody who puts out promotion materials includes photos "for demonstration only, may not represent actual product". Do you think that's milk and not glue in the cereal on the box cover?

So the next time my kids ask for their cereal to be made just like on the box....

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129771)

The USSR bluffed up its military by having dramatic parades of missile launchers (where the parade was just long enough that it could circle around 4 times to impress the spies in the crowd).

Iran bluffs up it military with photoshop.

North Korea skips the whole idea of bluffing up the military, but the Dear Leader is an excellent dancer.

China bluffs down their military, because some of them actually read "The Art of War." (makes sense, their ancestors wrote it)

The USA bluffs up, down and sideways its military without any effort by telling various press and blog factions "I am unable to confirm or deny that claim."

Japan just builds the giant robots "for peaceful purposes only."

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130549)

Exception is that everyone has seen the USA miltiary machine and knows the bluffing is minimal.

in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand (2, Funny)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129577)

in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand

Re:in soviet russia they did stuff like that by ha (3, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129815)

I thought that in that case the drone photoshopped YOU!

Re:in soviet russia they did stuff like that by ha (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130093)

in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand

And they were good at it. There were pictures of people standing next to Stalin who were later Sovietshopped out.

DUH GIMP IS TEH AWESOME! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129601)

At least they didn't "Gimp" the picture. *shudder*

When are they going to learn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129637)

They get caught doing this every time. No one believes any of their "achievements" inside or outside of the country.

What is the point? They get caught doing this so frequently that all of their announcements are automatically suspect

Re:When are they going to learn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129669)

They're the laughing stock of the international community. They've got nothing to lose.

Re:When are they going to learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129765)

So they're the Middle East's version of the United States?

Re:When are they going to learn (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130081)

Hardly.. They are the middle east version of Iran. Not to be confused with the US version of Iran.

They routinely Photoshop things and act as rough and tough as possible. Most of it is just propaganda, but there is enough truth mixed in to keep the average person guessing. Their whole point is to make it clear they are not to be trifled with, or at least make it seem likely would have a bad bite to go with the barking. But they know they are playing chicken on foot with a semi.

There is no doubt that Iran would not be easily defeated in a full on conflict. There is also NO chance they would prevail in a conflict with any US allies in the region unless the US decided to let them. The question really is how far will they be allowed to go before they get put back into their place. Right now, I don't think anybody has a clue, which is very dangerous.

As it stands, Iran is rapidly going to start looking more and more like North Korea and it's leaders are going to get more and more desperate to get the UN sanctions lifted. Caged animals are dangerous things.

Re:When are they going to learn (1)

V for Vendetta (1204898) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130715)

They get caught doing this so frequently that all of their announcements are automatically suspect

Well, that's actually their plot. It's so obvious that sooner or later noone bothers to check anymore ... that'll be the time the things are for really. Brilliant, don't you think? ;-)

TinEye (4, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129787)

So, basically the secret to uncovering this is http://www.tineye.com/ [tineye.com]

Re:TinEye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129871)

You do know google has a reverse image search now, right?

Re:TinEye (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129969)

Yup, it does. Tineye was around before Google, though, so I tend to still use it.

Hardly the first time (2)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42129855)

Don't tell me no-one else remembers the doctored artillery rocket photos the Iranians released back in 2008? They sparked a lot of (intentionally, this time) funny copycats.

No Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42129875)

Just wait till they get a load of our latest military footage after Spielberg finishes "borrowing" it for his Transformers movies ;)

Anybody have a link to the press release? (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42130813)

Honestly I'm not one to take anything a journalist says at it's face value. Even within the article linked it never specifically says the picture was purposefully meant as an illustration of what they built. Nor does it say anything about any claims that it is an Iranian design, all it says is Iran built it's first VTOL drone.

You know how sometimes people say here's what I'm building and show you the photo from the model car box?

Just seems like more of the same stupid propaganda that's always going on, haha, look how dumb and evil all our enemies are.

Lets not forget the fondant cake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42130955)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/12/downed-us-drone-looks-pretty-intact-iranian-tv/45935/

Why give real info to the international press (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42131067)

For a country like Iran, it probably may make sense to give fake pictures of (possibly) real achievements to keep morale high and provide a measure of transparency to the people, while not revealing too much information to the international press and western governments (from whom they must be trying to hide the R&D for these pretty hard)

I mean, don't get me wrong, it would also make sense to give fake pictures of fake achievements..

Im surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42131293)

That the iranians could even build something not made from mud and sticks, let alone even know what photoshop is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>