Iran puts captured RQ-170 on display

[Tornado]

So, what, it's just somehow better to assume that American stealth technology is indestructible? That secondary and tertiary powers cannot possibly ever overcome the weapons of the primary powers?

This is clearly what has been happening in this thread. Because remember:

There are countries that could probably jerry-rig something together to detect American spy equipment (if only by exploiting loopholes in it, like countries used to do against the F-117 to try to shoot it down) and try to down it. There are even countries in that region that don't particularly like America who could probably do it.

No one EVER said this. Not even when I said that exact thing.

That there's no possible way that the drone could have been brought down by who the towel head cave men?

Grow up. That's all I can tell you. I explained in detail why I found Iran's claims unbelievable. Far greater detail than Eon did when he said (basically) that everyone in this thread was being stupid for not believing what Iran said about the matter. If the only thing you can come up with in response is "stop being so racist" and shitty strawman arguments, then you really have no reason to act as if you were right all along.

Arrogance in the face of a wily and resourceful opponent is hardly any better than giving credit to them without solid justification.

I don't think it is too much to ask for an explanation behind an opinion when:

1. Iran completely changed their mind about how they even got the thing, which also throws the validity of this "oh, we hacked the GPS signal of the drone" statement into question. I'd have a far easier time believing what they are saying if the first thing they said wasn't such an obvious lie.
   
2. The U.S. government said Iran didn't do what Iran said that they did. Not the most objective of sources, I know; but neither is Iran.
   

No one; not you, not Eon; had actually explained (until you stealthed it into your post) why one should believe Iran possessed the capability to do what they said they did (as soon as they got around to choosing the story they wanted to tell). You just repeated a variation of "stop being so arrogant" and expected everyone to assume that was enough to justify "Iran can totally do this."

And I'd really prefer it if, in these political topics, you'd stop using your moderation powers to make those who disagree with you look foolish (even though you are probably doing it on accident). It is getting rather annoying trying to debate you on something, only to have you delete the post I'm responding to or greatly change the overall contents of the post after I finish up a response through a stealth edit.

Edited December 18, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Delta Starfire]

Grow up. That's all I can tell you.

Yeah, because a picture of Captain Haddock is such a grown up response.

I explained in detail why I found Iran's claims unbelievable.

You did, only after my post in which I was critical of the attitude I was seeing in this topic. Prior to that, you gave no such explanation and just said “Iran can’t do this”.

Far greater detail than Eon did when he said (basically) that everyone in this thread was being stupid for not believing what Iran said about the matter.

Talk about misquoting people.

First of all, I never accused anyone of being “stupid”. Second, I didn’t even suggest that everyone was being arrogant; I just said that I was getting that feeling from some of the responses, that certain people were arrogantly assuming that state-of-the-art American technology simply could not be bested by the Iranians and the only possibility they were willing to accept was that there had to have been a technical fault with the UAV itself.

When did I say that Iran should necessarily be believed? I don’t think you’ll find that in my post, but I did say that it was unwise to underestimate them. Far be it from me to say “I told you so”, but it looks as if I’ve been vindicated.

For future reference, I wouldn’t trust the Iranian authorities as far as I could kick them. But neither would I trust the American ones, not on issues like this.

If the only thing you can come up with in response is "stop being so racist" and shitty strawman arguments, then you really have no reason to act as if you were right all along.

Talking of logical fallacies, nice red herring. No one has accused anyone of racism in this topic. If you’re planning on quoting the phrase “towel heads” back at ether myself or Patticus, I have a lovely picture of Captain Haddock I can show you.

I don't think it is too much to ask for an explanation behind an opinion when:

Why do you expect an explanation when you only gave one after someone criticised your own arrogant appraisal of the situation?

1. Iran completely changed their mind about how they even got the thing, which also throws the validity of this "oh, we hacked the GPS signal of the drone" statement into question. I'd have a far easier time believing what they are saying if the first thing they said wasn't such an obvious lie.

That’s a very good point. It does cast into doubt Iran’s credibility that they would claim to have shot the UAV down when it was obviously undamaged. To then change their story to say they hacked it doesn’t do them any favours either.

However, you’re operating under the erroneous assumption that I actually believed Iran’s story. I can’t speak for Patticus, but it doesn’t follow from saying “it’s possible ABC could have actually done XYZ” that one is saying “ABC necessarily did do XYZ”. Personally, I didn’t know what actually happened. I’m not sure I do now or that I necessarily ever will. The truth tends to be the first casualty of warfare and both sides have a vested interest in people accepting their version of events, with little more to go on than their word. What bothered me was the arrogance of people, like you, who were saying “No. The Iranians could not possibly have done this.” I don’t pretend to have any special knowledge about Iran’s military capabilities, but that kind of arrogance really pisses me off. The fact that you’re defending that attitude, even after you’ve been proven wrong, is even worse.

2. The U.S. government said Iran didn't do what Iran said that they did. Not the most objective of sources, I know; but neither is Iran.

Exactly. Why should I believe either of them? Especially when they both have a vested interested in their particular version of events being accepted? Of course the Iranians wants us to believe them; they want us to believe that they gave the Great Satan a black eye. And of course the Americans want us to believe them, because if the Iranians actually succeeded in grounding one of their prized UAV’s, then it’s a national embarrassment; how could these people, with technology thirty years out of date, actually succeed in grounding one of the Greatest Country in the World’s most sophisticated pieces of military hardware?

Both sides have enough reasons to lie, so until some actual evidence is presented, I would tend to withhold judgement and not just automatically side with the country I prefer. And this may surprise you, Tornado, but out of the two, I prefer the United States. A lot.

No one; not you, not Eon; had actually explained (until you stealthed it into your post) why one should believe Iran possessed the capability to do what they said they did (as soon as they got around to choosing the story they wanted to tell). You just repeated a variation of "stop being so arrogant" and expected everyone to assume that was enough to justify "Iran can totally do this."

Already explained my position above. I’ll leave Patticus to do the same for himself, if he cares to.

And I'd really prefer it if, in these political topics, you turn the "Edit By" note back on before you go back and double your post length.

I would tend to agree with you there. I don’t have a problem with folks editing their posts, unless they’re doing it in a way that is intellectually dishonest. Out of curiosity though, do you have the full original post…? Only, if you don’t, I’m sure you’ll understand how it may be difficult for folks who are new to the topic (and even some who aren’t) to necessarily believe you.

[Badnik Zero]

There's no reason to take Iran's word for anything honestly. Their propaganda campaign is ridiculous. If they had someone talk to Western press it's because they wanted him to send a specific message. I believe this man however, because what he is saying doesn't sound complicated at all. They changed some settings and had the drone think its home base was in Iran based on GPS. You could probably do this to someone's personal GPS and have a good laugh. Isn't most hacking just exploiting loopholes? And no person here is calling them towel heads for fuck's sake.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Sufganiyah

[Patticus]

Grow up. That's all I can tell you. I explained in detail why I found Iran's claims unbelievable. Far greater detail than Eon did when he said (basically) that everyone in this thread was being stupid for not believing what Iran said about the matter. If the only thing you can come up with in response is "stop being so racist" and shitty strawman arguments, then you really have no reason to act as if you were right all along.

The cavemen bit was extreme and uncalled for, but you really do seem to me to believe that just because a country might use very old weapons technology, that it is therefore quite incapable of advancing on any other technological fronts. On its own, that may be true, but everyone knows that Iran is buddies with countries far more powerful who wouldn't mind giving the US a black eye by proxy once in a while; China and Russia, for example, can provide Iran with expertise and technology capable of detecting US spy drones. And wasn't there a Russian nuclear scientist who, it recently emerged, allegedly worked for the Iranians after the fall of the Soviet Union? If that story was false, there still exists the possibility that expertise and technology that would prove helpful in a cyber-conflict might wash up on Iranian shores once in a while.

I don't think it is too much to ask for an explanation behind an opinion when:

Iran completely changed their mind about how they even got the thing, which also throws the validity of this "oh, we hacked the GPS signal of the drone" statement into question. I'd have a far easier time believing what they are saying if the first thing they said wasn't such an obvious lie.

As I said, they were probably trying to raise their prestige higher than a hacking event would have done. Once the images of the drone came out, and it was undamaged, they clearly couldn't keep up the pretence of the first story, so they've either made up a new one which sounds more plausible but which is equally erroneous, or are telling a story much closer to the comparatively dull truth of the situation.

I'm not sure what could be duller than hacking though.

I don't think it is too much to ask for an explanation behind an opinion when:

The U.S. government said Iran didn't do what Iran said that they did. Not the most objective of sources, I know; but neither is Iran.

Asking the US government for the truth behind the apparent downing of one of its latest spy drones would be like asking China about the truth behind its human rights violations - you'll only hear what they want you to hear. I suppose asking Iran is no better; in the interests of making them look more powerful than they really are, or making America look weaker than it is, they'll want to give you the story which most damages America.

That doesn't mean we can discount their version of events once the story has been changed though, but they only changed the first story because the lie was exposed. Who knows how many layers this onion of deceit has? Regardless though, if the possibility exists that Iran can bring down spy drones, no matter how implausible it may seem, America has a problem on its hands.

No one; not you, not Eon; had actually explained (until you stealthed it into your post) why one should believe Iran possessed the capability to do what they said they did (as soon as they got around to choosing the story they wanted to tell). You just repeated a variation of "stop being so arrogant" and expected everyone to assume that was enough to justify "Iran can totally do this."

If America wasn't so arrogant, it wouldn't have got involved in Vietnam, or if it did it would've conducted a war that could've been won. If Britain hadn't been so arrogant, it would've foreseen the Revolutionary War and taken all appropriate steps to avoid it. If Russia hadn't been so arrogant, it would've stayed well clear of the quagmire that is Afghanistan.

Arrogance gets great powers into trouble. I'd just rather not see America make a big mistake by underestimating Iran or any other country's ability to fight back just because of their perceived invulnerability when compared to secondary and tertiary power militaries right now.

[Tornado]

The cavemen bit was extreme and uncalled for, but you really do seem to me to believe that just because a country might use very old weapons technology, that it is therefore quite incapable of advancing on any other technological fronts.

Edited December 18, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[Tenordream]

No one; not you, not Eon; had actually explained (until you stealthed it into your post) why one should believe Iran possessed the capability to do what they said they did (as soon as they got around to choosing the story they wanted to tell). You just repeated a variation of "stop being so arrogant" and expected everyone to assume that was enough to justify "Iran can totally do this."

[The Weeb with No Name]

We should make Iran our friends and stuff.

[Patticus]

We should make Iran our friends and stuff.

[Tornado]

One of the main problems is that Iran is not a crackpot crazy dictatorship, regardless of how much Western governments occasionally like to portray it is. Almost all the power is held by Khamenei, and much like Khomeini before him, he is a cunning, intelligent person. For all of Ahmadinejad's frequent wackiness, there really isn't much to worry about from a Western perspective because of how little of an influence he has on anything; and years and years of painting the opposite picture isn't helping relations any.

[Patticus]

Ahmadinejad's not a threat to anyone outside Iran; his office cannot by their country's laws wield their country's nuclear launch codes (or any other military codes IIRC). Only the Ayatollah can do that, and as far as I know the current one is a moderate who is hell bent on maintaining peace. That said, there is a divide evidently opening up within Iranian politics, putting the Ayatollah and his allies on one side, and Ahmadinejad on the other with his friends. I'm not entirely sure which camp is more a threat, to be honest. The Sauron Eye of America is watching them.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So if Iran's Supreme Leader is much more friendly than they're made out to be, why the fuck are we antagonizing them as the bad guys here in the West? I'd like to say that's because of the Bush Administration painting a bad picture of them, but that's all too easy a scapegoat to make and could be completely off the mark.

[Tornado]

Because it is much easier to act as if Iran is the North Korea of the Middle East and bully through things than it is to actually tackle the issues at hand as they apply to the country, and the average person is ignorant enough to believe it. And because that happens, Iran reciprocates back similar feelings.

And it's not a Bush thing, really. It's an "every President since Carter" thing, albeit in differing amounts depending on the political climate at the time.

Edited December 22, 2011 by ChristmasJack

[SuperStingray]

It's amazing how I get better political analysis from SSMB than from most major news sources.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Because it is much easier to act as if Iran is the North Korea of the Middle East and bully through things than it is to actually tackle the issues at hand as they apply to the country, and the average person is ignorant enough to believe it. And because that happens, Iran reciprocates back similar feelings.

Geez, politics sounds like it's becoming worse than two kids fighting over a piece of candy. To think of the strides that could be made if folks actually applied things instead of taking the easier way out...and that's just me be general.