View Full Version : Satellite Image Shows Star of David on Iranian Airport Building's Roof
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/30/report-star-david-spotted-iranian-airport/?test=latestnews
http://images.alarabiya.net/82/28/436x328_61857_127842.jpg
Only took them 32 years to notice. And it is on the headquarters of their national airport Iran Air.
:laugh:
Belmont31R
12-01-10, 01:16
First it was the news and and now Iranian airports. Damn joos....:mad: :D
WOW!
And that wouldn't be hard to photoshop!!!!!:rolleyes:
WOW!
And that wouldn't be hard to photoshop!!!!!:rolleyes:
no it would not, but I hope Fox News would have checked that, although I can imagine someone at Google Earth could have done that.
GermanSynergy
12-01-10, 08:49
In another life, Israel and Iran were allies, so it's certainly plausible.
Once the throat cutters took Iran over in 1979, everything changed.
That building was designed and built by an Israeli firm during the Shah's reign...
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=197395
GermanSynergy
12-01-10, 09:02
I long for the day when Israel and Iran are friends again.
The Persians once had leaders like Cyrus the Great, now they have a little Hitler in platform shoes. :mad:
The Iranian regime gets along OK with jews. It is "zionists" they don't much like. There is a jewish community in Teheran and they don't get hassled much. President Tom even donated some money to their hospital.
GermanSynergy
12-01-10, 11:28
There is nothing wrong with Zionism, and the anti-semites love to use that word in the pejorative sense (not talking about you, Chadbag).
The regime in Tehran actively persecutes religious minorities, including Bahai, Zoroastrians, Sunnis and other faiths.
FWIW, there is a tiny Jewish community in Baghdad, but that doesn't mean they aren't living under the proverbial gun.
The Iranian regime gets along OK with jews. It is "zionists" they don't much like. There is a jewish community in Teheran and they don't get hassled much. President Tom even donated some money to their hospital.
no it would not, but I hope Fox News would have checked that, although I can imagine someone at Google Earth could have done that.
Are you serious? Fox News is so far from a reliable source that it is laughable that people even apply the word "news" rather then "infotainment" to the end of the title. This is the same company that manipulates camera angels at Tea Party Rallies in order to make them look bigger then they are, and that uses footage from past events when the turn out at the event they are covering wasn't high enough.
Are you serious? Fox News is so far from a reliable source that it is laughable that people even apply the word "news" rather then "infotainment" to the end of the title. This is the same company that manipulates camera angels at Tea Party Rallies in order to make them look bigger then they are, and that uses footage from past events when the turn out at the event they are covering wasn't high enough.
And the other news networks are any better? The only difference is that Fox, in general, errs on the side of conservatism and traditional American tradition over the neo-liberal agenda.
SSDD.
And the other news networks are any better? The only difference is that Fox, in general, errs on the side of conservatism and traditional American tradition over the neo-liberal agenda.
SSDD.
Just out of curiosity was it Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity that taught all of you the Art of Deflection? It's a pretty traditional Fox tactic. If you can't win an argument, deflect to a different subject.
We weren't talking about the other News outlets, because the other news outlets weren't the source of this article. Get it?
p.s. there is no such thing as a "traditional American tradition" that can be codified and deemed either left, center, or right.
Just out of curiosity was it Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity that taught all of you the Art of Deflection? It's a pretty traditional Fox tactic. If you can't win an argument, deflect to a different subject.
We weren't talking about the other News outlets, because the other news outlets weren't the source of this article. Get it?
p.s. there is no such thing as a "traditional American tradition" that can be codified and deemed either left, center, or right.
Actually I focused heavily on debate, logic, and argumentative writing in college. I also continue it as an avid past-time. That being said, you're creating a strawman, because there was no "deflection."
For deflection, there must first be an issue. That issue, per you, is that Fox news is "far from a reliable source," end quote. If Fox News is far from a reliable source, then there must be a "reliable source" for your argument to have weight, otherwise you are simply presenting a flawed and agenda-based argument that applies to every other network, making your point null and void.
If then, there are other "reliable sources," then you must name them for your initial statement (Fox News being "unreliable") to hold weight. Please, name those other reliable news sources. If you can't, you're simply being biased and your little rant about "deflection" is for naught (but we all know that already)...
That's why you probably won't even bother responding to this.
If you have evidence* that the photo in the OP is doctored to show something that isn't there, produce it. Otherwise, why are you posting in here again? To light up Fox?
Speaking of deflection...if your entire line of posting in this thread isn't deflection, I sure as hell don't know what is. You are ranting about Sean Hannity and someone apparently named Glen Beck...what does that have to do with an airport in Iran?
*The below highlighted portion of the URL does not qualify as evidence.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11...est=latestnews
thopkins22
12-01-10, 12:26
There is nothing wrong with Zionism, and the anti-semites love to use that word in the pejorative sense (not talking about you, Chadbag).
The regime in Tehran actively persecutes religious minorities, including Bahai, Zoroastrians, Sunnis and other faiths.
FWIW, there is a tiny Jewish community in Baghdad, but that doesn't mean they aren't living under the proverbial gun.
As I understand it, the Iranian Jews had(have?) opportunities and incentives to emigrate to Israel which most of them have chosen not to do.
I don't know what reservations the Iranian Jews have regarding Zionism, but while I've tried to learn more, the word itself is like "liberalism" here. There are all different brands of self described liberals, sometimes on polar opposites of the political spectrum. I would generally agree with some factions of these "Zionists," and completely disagree with others.
But I think the point being made is that the biggest issues between the governments and peoples of Israel and Iran are largely political or ideological, not theological.
I suggest watching Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. It's available on Netflix DVD and streaming.
Shhhhhhhh, Irish, they want to keep pretending. ;)
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-01-10, 12:35
Actually I focused heavily on debate, logic, and argumentative writing in college. I also continue it as an avid past-time. That being said, you're creating a strawman, because there was no "deflection."
For deflection, there must first be an issue. That issue, per you, is that Fox news is "far from a reliable source," end quote. If Fox News is far from a reliable source, then there must be a "reliable source" for your argument to have weight, otherwise you are simply presenting a flawed and agenda-based argument that applies to every other network, making your point null and void.
If then, there are other "reliable sources," then you must name them for your initial statement (Fox News being "unreliable") to hold weight. Please, name those other reliable news sources. If you can't, you're simply being biased and your little rant about "deflection" is for naught (but we all know that already).
Must... get... duct... tape... for ... head. Logic and reasoning in the GD? What heresy is this!
Dude, how was the job market when you got out? Did you get a BS in Truth? :D
Actually I focused heavily on debate, logic, and argumentative writing in college. I also continue it as an avid past-time. That being said, you're creating a strawman, because there was no "deflection."
For deflection, there must first be an issue. That issue, per you, is that Fox news is "far from a reliable source," end quote. If Fox News is far from a reliable source, then there must be a "reliable source" for your argument to have weight, otherwise you are simply presenting a flawed and agenda-based argument that applies to every other network, making your point null and void.
If then, there are other "reliable sources," then you must name them for your initial statement (Fox News being "unreliable") to hold weight. Please, name those other reliable news sources. If you can't, you're simply being biased and your little rant about "deflection" is for naught (but we all know that already).
Honestly?
Alright I'll bite.
While it can be theoretically argued that any human being anywhere that writes ANYTHING about ANYTHING is essentially "biased" in that they will ultimately have an opinion about what they are writing about, there are still actual standards of journalism that reputable News sources follow in order to insure a certain amount of dignity. For example they don't re-write American History, or manipulate imagery and documentation in order to lead a reader/viewer down a path of false pretense. These news agencies may hold a political slant, but they aren't in the industry of blatant information manipulation, and fabricated lies for the purpose of political/material gain. While they may have an "agenda" due to the political leanings, what we are doing now is comparing an C student who wrote an essay he worked his own to research and create, to a C student who got his grade by cheating.
If you can't grasp the difference then I really feel sorry for you. Despite your attempts to push me into a corner, your not going to be able to win this one in any venue other then a conservative peanut gallery, so I suggest we get back on topic. It saddens me that someone as intelligent as yourself defends Fox News and can't see what they're doing.
VooDoo6Actual
12-01-10, 13:16
Target Indicator...
I saw this story this morning as I was doing my "daily news fix" round up.
I chuckled. No one probably pointed it out to them earlier, otherwise it would have been taken down by now.
I bet with in 2 months, that sucker isn't there anymore. . .
And oohhhhh the irony of people turning something that is purely, well ironic (given Iran's stance on Israel), into a debate about different news stations, their owners, or any other issue than what was presented in the OP, well typical.
Newsflash people, everyone has an agenda. Deal with it.
Double-tap... not sure how.
I hate splitting replies into segments because it splinters the debate and detracts from the overall intensity of the subject at hand. That said, let's try to focus on the original topic. Unless you feel I'm gravely wrong, please don't splinter the topic further by focusing on a non-issue.
While it can be theoretically argued that any human being anywhere that writes ANYTHING about ANYTHING is essentially "biased" in that they will ultimately have an opinion about what they are writing about, there are still actual standards of journalism...
By definition, TRUE journalism relies on facts and facts alone; therefore any deviation from facts alone, be it opinion or an non-comprehensive review, fails that standard and results in biased, inaccurate reports.
Example: Reporting that crime is on the rise based on absolute values, while disregarding that crime has actually decreased based on a ratio to the population (Crime cases may have doubled from 10,000 reports to 20,000, but the population has quadrupled). This is VERY common in virtually every network, except Fox News.
Example: Using non-qualified or irrelevant experts as witnesses or commentators during news pieces. Just last week, an ATF agent was on the local NBC news stating how dangerous and maniacal "self-declared sovereign citizens" (citizens who go through the same channels that newly formed countries do to establish their "sovereignty" from the US) are to society solely because of their views, nothing else. What authority does an ATF agent have on the matter? His direct authority is in the laws regarding alcohol, firearms, tobacco, and explosives. But wait, the ATF agent is already against people having sovereignty (and owning firearms, for that matter), so they chose a biased, non-qualified expert to bolster their story.
Example: The same story about sovereign citizens (above) failed to address that these "citizens" were actually going by the official laws to qualify themselves as sovereign. That's a pretty important detail. I'm not arguing for or against sovereignty, I'm simply pointing out that they purposely left out the most relevant factor of all... on purpose. That's not news, that's agenda.
I can keep posting examples. Not a single news network today does true journalism, nor do ANY of them lack an agenda. Therefore, no news network can be classified as journalism.
that reputable News sources follow in order to insure a certain amount of dignity. For example they don't re-write American History, or manipulate imagery and documentation in order to lead a reader/viewer down a path of false pretense.
Here's something relevant to us all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8
That right there is 1) misrepresentation of the truth, 2) using a false witness (an LEO of all people) to lie about the credibility of your story, and 3) masking of the truth once confronted. And that's just one video, I can post multiple for every news network (and there are far more for the "liberal" networks than for Fox News). By all counts, every news network fails based on your own requirements.
These news agencies may hold a political slant but they aren't in the industry of blatant information manipulation, and fabricated lies for the purpose of political/material gain. While they may have an "agenda" due to the political leanings, what we are doing now is comparing an C student who wrote an essay he worked his own to research and create, to a C student who got his grade by cheating.
So this is not a political slant? (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=7&ved=0CGcQtwIwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2010%2F02%2F24%2Fkeith-olbermanns-emotiona_n_475973.html%3Fshow_comment_id%3D40966976&rct=j&q=keith%20olberman%20healthcare&ei=jaD2TIqBMoO88gaL3oiVBw&usg=AFQjCNFderEr-2Bgmp0wduIXu3C-LvaoLg&cad=rja).
And neither is this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgrFkoNHUpI)
Yeah, this was just a mistake. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8)
You're right, those aren't slants; those are blatant, purposeful misrepresentations and lies. Those same networks had no problem showing AARP in a positive light when they backed Obama, in fact they even applauded it. Yet when they denounce healthcare, they're immediately portrayed as senile Americans out of touch with today's world. I'm not going to touch on Mr. Olbermann as he makes Glenn Beck look righteous. And I don't think the NRA video needs ANY explaining.
I can keep posting more, if you'd like.
Any network that leans, endorses, or even favors a political party is no longer a news network, nor is it journalism. It's a business with a political agenda.
If you can't grasp the difference then I really feel sorry for you. Despite your attempts to push me into a corner, your not going to be able to win this one in any venue other then a conservative peanut gallery, so I suggest we get back on topic. It saddens me that someone as intelligent as yourself defends Fox News and can't see what they're doing.
The burden of proof rests with the person bringing the case, not the one defending it, though I have still taken my time to prove my initial statement.
Fox News presents stories from a conservative perspective. Virtually every other network presents their news stories from a liberal perspective. Their differences end there. They are all businesses with a mission. They all slant, twist, lie, and fabricate to prove their points, however different their approaches might be.
Fox News, being chiefly conservative, tends to not alter the actual facts (as that doesn't appeal to the general conservative crowd), but instead uses those facts to reach slippery slope conclusions (i.e. extreme conservatism - e.g. Sarah Palin's healthcare "Death Panels", Obama and "redistribution of wealth"). Liberal networks, on the other hand, approach reporting from the opposite end of things, modifying the facts to fit the politics (compared to the conservative approach of modifying the end result given the facts). They therefore tend to twist/bend/manipulate the hard facts to support their stance on the topic ("the sunset of the AWB would allow for full-auto AK47's" [even though full-autos were banned in 1986], "Healthcare will save your dying father" [even though it won't kick in until 2013], etc). Same agenda, different mechanics of doing so.
As I said, there was no deflection.
WOW!
And that wouldn't be hard to photoshop!!!!!:rolleyes:
Not hard to research and verify either.
:laugh:
Heavy Metal
12-01-10, 13:55
Lets not forget the whole Dan Rather memo fraud on CBS either.
"Fake but Accurate"
That does it.
From now on any story I don't like I'm just gonna post, "And that wouldn't be hard to photoshop."
:laugh:
That brilliant tactic is gonna save me hours of research and I will no longer have to use logic or reason or anything else.
Must... get... duct... tape... for ... head. Logic and reasoning in the GD? What heresy is this!
Dude, how was the job market when you got out? Did you get a BS in Truth? :D
Haha ;)
My major was aerospace science. I would have loved to do a double-major focusing on critical thinking studies, but I was too eager to get out of school after dragging it out for 6 years. I wished I would have pursued it more, looking back now.
Are you serious? Fox News is so far from a reliable source that it is laughable that people even apply the word "news" rather then "infotainment" to the end of the title.
What a load of garbage. Want to see what happens when the left owns the media and runs the government at the same time? Check out what's going on in Europe.
Hopefully through FOX and other legit outlets we have nipped their problem in the bud and are on our way back to sanity.
Those damn crickets are deafening...
SWATcop556
12-01-10, 19:10
The OP posted about the photo. Debates over news networks need their own thread. Feel free to start one.
RogerinTPA
12-01-10, 19:47
Not hard to research and verify either.
:laugh:
Agreed. It could have been photo shopped, but who ever did it is an absolute master at it. The photo looks like authentic overhead imagery to me.
RogerinTPA
12-01-10, 19:55
Are you serious? Fox News is so far from a reliable source that it is laughable that people even apply the word "news" rather then "infotainment" to the end of the title. This is the same company that manipulates camera angels at Tea Party Rallies in order to make them look bigger then they are, and that uses footage from past events when the turn out at the event they are covering wasn't high enough.
Wow...an extreme liberal pro gun lover on this forum, amazing us with his intimate and worldly insight on conservative news. You sound like my sister, who I want to throw out of a ****in window, every time I see her. This is quite disturbing to me...:sarcastic:
Agreed. It could have been photo shopped, but who ever did it is an absolute master at it. The photo looks like authentic overhead imagery to me.
Not to mention they could check Google Earth themselves.
:laugh:
Obviously a MSM conspiracy to plant altered images on Google Earth.
Wow...an extreme liberal pro gun lover on this forum, amazing us with his intimate and worldly insight on conservative news. You sound like my sister, who I want to throw out of a ****in window, every time I see her. This is quite disturbing to me...:sarcastic:
Really?!?! Comin' out of left field on this one.
militarymoron
12-01-10, 21:48
Not to mention they could check Google Earth themselves.
:laugh:
Obviously a MSM conspiracy to plant altered images on Google Earth.
well, i checked google earth, and the image is slightly different. there's actually some lettering up on the roof as well...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/davidstar.jpg
Little dicks with big balls, about sums up Iranians leadership... I humor myself :)
well, i checked google earth, and the image is slightly different. there's actually some lettering up on the roof as well...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/davidstar.jpg
Exactly lol
It's pretty easy to Photoshop something like that if you know the software. I could probobly do it rather quickly as I use PS extensively. Same as MM just did.
Clearly the image appears as such on Google Earth so if any Photoshop work was done it was by google and not Fox News.
MM- There is now a fatwah on you from TOS.
The_War_Wagon
12-02-10, 11:46
Wouldn't it have been hilarious, had they NOT discovered this, and their nuclear monkeys had hammered together a nuke, that locked on the Star of David with it's guidance system? Having outsmarted themselves, their reaction would've been priceless, as the rocket arched skyward, then turned back, and hit their own airport! :sarcastic:
http://doomsday.com/mushroom_cloud.jpg
Wouldn't it have been hilarious, had they NOT discovered this, and their nuclear monkeys had hammered together a nuke, that locked on the Star of David with it's guidance system? Having outsmarted themselves, their reaction would've been priceless, as the rocket arched skyward, then turned back, and hit their own airport! :sarcastic:
My thoughts exactly. In fact surely everyone knows that most modern nuclear missiles are designed to target the images found on a nations flag.
The_War_Wagon
12-02-10, 16:58
My thoughts exactly. In fact surely everyone knows that most modern nuclear missiles are designed to target the images found on a nations flag.
OK... so it would make a good episode of "The Simpsons" then! :p
By definition, TRUE journalism relies on facts and facts alone; therefore any deviation from facts alone, be it opinion or an non-comprehensive review, fails that standard and results in biased, inaccurate reports.
And in the case of Fox this is far from what they do. Thank you for proving my point for me, if you will notice in my original response I cited two examples of Fox failing to do this, and can offer you a million more. So now that we are in agreement, glad this thread is back on topic.
And in the case of Fox this is far from what they do. Thank you for proving my point for me, if you will notice in my original response I cited two examples of Fox failing to do this, and can offer you a million more. So now that we are in agreement, glad this thread is back on topic.
Totally agree. Like I stated in my original post, every network, including Fox, fails journalism; they are all equal in that regard. Glad we could resolve this.
SWATcop556
12-02-10, 20:29
Enough. Take it to PMs.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.