Iran Says It Has Brought Down Another Foreign Spy Drone

Tyler Durden's picture

Back in December 2011, a US RQ-170 Sentinel drone was either brought down or crash landed smack in the middle of Iran, allowing the local military and scientists to reverse engineer it furthering their own understanding of possible countermeasures, as well as selling the underlying technology to China and other countries eager to peek inside America's remote-controlled "oppression liberators." All this happened because someone during the drone design phase forgot to add a self-destruct option. Now, over a year later, we will see if someone finally thought of adding this simple feature following news that Iran has just brought down another (just modestly antagonizing) foreign spy drone over its territory.

From Reuters:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have brought down a foreign surveillance drone during a military exercise, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said on Saturday.

 

"We have managed to bring down a drone of the enemy. This has happened before in our country," the agency quoted war games spokesman General Hamid Sarkheli as saying in Kerman, southeast Iran, where the military exercise is taking place.

 

The agency gave no details on who the drone belonged to.

 

In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said he had seen the reports. He noted that the Iranians did not specifically claim that the drone was American.

 

In the past, there have been incidents of Iran claiming to have seized U.S. drones.

 

In early January Iranian media said Iran had captured two miniature U.S.-made surveillance drones over the past 17 months.

 

Several drone incidents over the past year or so have highlighted tension in the Gulf as Iran and the United States flex their military capabilities in a standoff over Iran's disputed nuclear program.

In other disturbing drone-related news, Michael Krieger reports that when it comes to targeted killings...

It's OK if Obama does it"

 

In a YouGov poll of 1,000 voters last August, Tesler found significantly more support for targeted killing of suspected terrorists among white “racial liberals” (i.e., those liberal on issues of race) and African-Americans when they were told that Obama supported such a policy than when they were not told it was the president’s policy. Only 27 percent of white racial liberals in a control group supported the targeted killing policy, but that jumped to 48 percent among such voters who were told Obama had conducted such targeted killings.

- Joan Walsh’s recent article at Salon:  Targeted killings: OK if Obama does it?

 

Think about how troubling the above passage is.  Basically, a reasonably large percentage of the population of America will simply allow Barrack Obama to do whatever he wants because he is black and a member of their “Democrat” football team.  The irony is incredible, but believe me this fact is not lost upon the elites that want to perpetuate the warfare state indefinitely. They fully understand that Obama essentially neutralizes a large part of the “liberal” resistance simply because he is black and ostensibly “liberal.”

 

I came across the above information while reading Glenn Greenwald’s article about how MSNBC has finally make the total transformation into official government propaganda arm by hiring Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod.  His article is a scathing must-read.  Here are my favorite excerpts:

 

Last month, MSNBC’s Al Sharpton conducted a spirited debate about whether Obama belongs on Mount Rushmore or instead deserves a separate monument to his greatness (just weeks before replacing frequent Obama critic Cenk Uygur as MSNBC host, Sharpton publicly vowed never to criticize Barack Obama under any circumstances: a vow he has faithfully maintained). 

 

A Pew poll found that in the week leading up to the 2012 election, MSNBC did not air a single story critical of the President or a single positive story about Romney – not a single one – even as Fox aired a few negative ones about Romney and a few positive ones about Obama.

 

“Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has become a contributor for MSNBC. Rachel Maddow introduced Gibbs as a new member of her network’s stable in the final minutes before President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night. . . . Gibbs was White House press secretary from 2009 to early 2011, when he left to become a senior campaign adviser for Obama’s re-election.”“David Axelrod, the former White House senior advisor and senior strategist for President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, has joined NBC News and MSNBC as a senior political analyst, the networks announced today. . . . Like Gibbs, Axelrod will appear across the networks’ programming.”Finally, American citizens will now be able to hear what journalism has for too long so vindictively denied them: a vibrant debate between Gibbs and Axelrod on how great Obama really is.

 

That you can cover what political officials do more effectively when you act adversarially and without their “cooperation” doesn’t seem to occur to them. Moreover, getting to sit for personal interviews with the president usually produces anything but adversarial questioning. As even Politico admits: “some reporters inevitably worry access or the chance of a presidential interview will decrease if they get in the face of this White House.”

 

Well looking at the bright side, the more the mainstream media continues to screw up, the greater the opportunity they are creating for people like me.

 

Full article here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GMadScientist's picture

One down...how many hundred still in the air?

(guess we're gonna need something stronger than WPA2 on these puppies...lol)

kaiserhoff's picture

This seems like a fun new sport.

Bet those suckers would fetch a pretty price on Ebay.

mudpuppet's picture

that would be funny

 

Im relisting this drone because the last ebay buyer never payed.  If you have zero stars please contact me before bidding

BKbroiler's picture

they'll never get it in the air.  They'll just let khomeni drive it around town with the top down, blastin.  check out my new ride, amah-dino.

francis_sawyer's picture

They must have been reading the "22 ways" thread on ZH yesterday...

Zer0head's picture

Never underestimate the CIA.  What better way to intoduce Stux II than with a drone named honeypot. As the Iranians plug their shit into the thing to try and decode it,  Stux II will be running amok in their 'closed' networks.

Xibalba's picture

The CIA isn't that smart.  But perhaps when Iran returns it.....

flapdoodle's picture

It would be naive to believe that the Iranians aren't getting a bit of cyberhelp from their neighbors to the north and their other neighbors a ways east...

DaveyJones's picture

I vote for this theory. Lots of folks have stakes in that place

TruthInSunshine's picture

Iran is reportedly about to release incontrovertible proof that this was indeed a U.S. military drone as they've discovered it was completely engineered & constructed in China.

thisandthat's picture

I bet they're pretty much aware of that danger, now - doubt you could pull that one again. Also there's that thing called offline computers - you don't need them all on a closed network any more than in an open one.

indygo55's picture

China pays WAY more, and GOLD yoo.

 

CH1's picture

All the polling numbers prove one thing: Politics is brain poison.

prains's picture

fuck me once.....call me a tool

fuck me twice.....call me a mule

fuck me three times....call me 

 

 

again

Cortez the Killer's picture

Who says its their territory?

ownership is transitory

Jack Burton's picture

Ideed! Iranians have no ownership of the territories of Iran, they are simply a caretaker government until Israel and the USA take possession of their legititamate rights to ownership of Iran and the underlying oil. In a globalized world, the US and Israel have every right to any property they can obtain ownership of, the people may be allowed to stay on as workers and paid security forces to protect the US and Israel's property rights. This system of free markets worked well with America's Indian populations who ceeded their land rights to a new and more legitimate ownership. The same system worked in Palestine when European jews arrived to take over their rights to the lands. There is every reason to believe that Iranian lands can be obtained by Israel and the USA in a free and fair manner. Nobody should assume that nations and their populations hold any rights to land that can not be negated by the US and Israel using their devine rights.

BooMushroom's picture

Interestingly, Mexico is working on taking ownership of parts of the USA in the same, non-military way.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Actually, Iran has a catastrophically bad birth rate, but they don't have an immigration problem, say, of Americans and Israelis moving there, importing their family members and outbreeding them.   Because of the tyranny and poverty and buzz-kill harshing-my-mellow islamic fundamentalism stuff.     Other than that you are exactly right.

DaveyJones's picture

...and they're more effective

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

The armed colonizing of attractive real estate by 'civilized' people will continue until the 'savages' stop attacking.  Even if it is a counter-attack.  Notice throughout history how it is ALWAYS the 'civilized' societies doing the colonizing, all the while blaming the 'savages' for their attacks on colonial settlers and settlements?

/ "Their nerve... to defend themselves against our more 'enlightened' modes of living!" /sarc

DaveyJones's picture

it's almost as if ... they have an agenda 

JR's picture

Your article deals with two primary points: Number one, the aggressiveness of the U.S./Israel cabal in the world, and, two, the relationship between the Indians and the white settlers of America.

One wonders, do you bring up the Israeli question to hammer again the age-old subject that the American continent belonged to the Indians when the truth is they clearly were in constant warfare with each other and were not even the first occupants of America.

Ironically, the question of land rights for the Indians that keeps coming up is promoted by the very people that you describe, tongue-in-cheek, as having a right to all of the world’s property –namely the Jews. But in reality, they make no apologies that their transcient culture benefits from open borders, mixed cultures (except for the Jews themselves) and revisionist history of the culture that America’s Founders used in writing the Constitution and its early laws.

“The Indians that the white man met were no more the original inhabitants of the country than were the Normans and Saxons the original inhabitants of England. Other peoples had come and gone before, leaving only their shadows upon the land…” –Louis L’Amour, Haunted Mesa

And there were rumors among the Indians of a dark-skinned people who lived  before them in secluded valleys in North America who were neither Indian nor African... "Even the Utes on the western slopes of the Rockies never saw North America until about the year 1000, when they came down from the north. They came, they conquered whoever was here, and they settled down.”

And the Utes talked of ghost houses along the sides of the mesas (we know it as Mesa Verde National Park) who preceded them.

L’Amour was an accurate chronicler of the American frontier, using extensive research and thousands of original papers by authenticated sources for his more than 200 books of mainly western fiction.

 And it must be remembered that the Indian, free-roving as he was, could not compete with the farmer in his hunting and food-gathering existence, “for the Indians needed thousands of acres for even a small group to exist (North to the Rails).” And much of the land the settlers acquired was bought legally from the Indians.

America’s history is not as depicted in modern-age, revised, politically-correct textbooks. Rather it is L’Amour’s story of the victory of expanding civilization over the wilderness, conquering the untamed Wild West.

And just as the Indians were forerunners to the Spaniards, the latter also feared the Indians such as the Komantsi, those fierce men who loved to fight and took no prisoners, except women, and wanted none. They wanted the Spaniards’ horses but they attacked all they saw, while seeking horses and stealing women

To read L’Amour is to know that the West’s history has been revised to misrepresent the white culture, that it is not a one-sided venture as depicted by the revisionists. His stories portray the numerous Indian tribal nations that dwelt on the continent, how they fought and, yes, how they annihilated other Indian tribes. For war for many Indians was their way of life. In short, the American Indians did not live as one peaceful tribe in harmony with each other and Mother Earth.

 “Often the migrating tribes remained for many years in one general area, and then, pushed out by others or because of a drought or the scarcity of wildlife, they moved on. Their warriors went on raids or were raided.

“And the Indians who lived near the white men came to desire the white man’s things and sometimes did not wish to live in the old way. Many of the tribes acquired guns…”

And it should be recorded that “the regulations laid down by the Spanish king forbade enslavement of the Indians,” although to some extent it was done, and vice versa.

So when you think of the “Indians” think of the Natchee, the Conjeros, the Pawnees, the Kiowas – the most feared of all the tribes of the southern plains - and the other hundreds of tribes—all with varying traditions and mores. And remember that “what happened here has happened in every land on earth. Men, animals and plants tend to seek out a place where they can develop. Before the coming of the white man, who is the last of the invaders up to now, there were invading Indians from the North or South, attacking the settlements of those before them.” And before them there was Kennewick man – a white man.

And remember that “in almost every war the white man fought against Indians, he was aided by other Indians who joined to fight against traditional enemies.”

That though the Natchee in general avoided wars and fighting, “their young men were eager for war…to take scalps, to count coup, to win honors.” That the Conjeros, a branch of a fierce people called Apache with their camps of squalor, had a bloody reputation for fighting other Indian tribes and destroying any other Indians they came upon, and were always on the war path, as were the Seneca of the Iroquois League, a league of several tribes that came together to fight as one north beyond the Hudson river, destroying the tribes that lived near them. That the Seneca were enemies of the settlers because the settlers were friends of the Catawba who were their enemies… And so on...

It is time to stop repeating nonsense about the Indians.

Almost Solvent's picture

Exactly. And some of the highest rate of alcohol/drug abuse among those who reside on a reservation.

 

Now they can't open enough casinos or provide 5k% interest loans without trippin over each other.

kaiserhoff's picture

They didn't build that...,

and you belong to the gubbermint.

                         Rufus, the First (gay president)

Cortez the Killer's picture

Absolutely

You dont own anything unless you can stand over it with a rifle and defend it.

Things that go bump's picture

So, back to the days when you could only own what you could defend with your own strong arms? That is a big leap backward in civilization.

Overfed's picture

It has never changed. The only difference is that many prefer to pay someone else to hold the rifle for them.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

Where's Gary Powers when they need him?

AssFire's picture

I hope we fail.

akak's picture

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Who's this "we" of which you speak?

It's they.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Who is "they" other than we? We allow this horseshit to continue.

Ima anal sphincter's picture

+1000, four little words that mean so much.

It really does suck to have to cheer against your government. Oh....excuse me. It's not "our" government. It's the Rothschild's.

I hope "all" those drone things crash or better yet, find the "proper" target.

McMolotov's picture

People love to say that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain. I point out that if you don't vote, it means you haven't given your tacit approval to everything a corrupt government does. As such, it's no longer my government at all because I choose not to legitimize it with a vote.

A government belongs solely to the people whose continued support allows it to wield authority. That includes the people who hide in the shadows, but it more importantly includes the vast swathes of voters who are under-informed, misinformed, or corrupt themselves. They're the biggest obstacle to overturning the system, which makes them the system's greatest asset.

francis_sawyer's picture

 "Their" government has yellow fringes around the flag... Mine doesn't...

JuliaS's picture

Absolutely right! Democracy implies compliance with the will of the majority, regardless of idiotic it might be. That's why I'm a constitutional republican. I belive that rights should not be voted on and cannot be voted away. I belive in "live and let live" prinicple.

LeisureSmith's picture

Ha Haw!

Nelson Muntz

NuckingFuts's picture

Worst. drone. ever.

-Comicbook Guy

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

The United States of America, defender of freedom, liberty, and private property...but only for us and not for them.

Watch this important lecture to gain some empathy for the brown people with the oil...your soul may depend on it.

Oceania has always been at war with pretty much everyone else.

Cortez the Killer's picture

let the "brown people" make their own fucking drones.

oh yeah, I forgot, they cant

BooMushroom's picture

Maybe not, but I hear they do pretty well with submarines: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2061931_2260135,00.html

I suspect with enough drug-war-enabled profits, drones will be forthcoming.

thisandthat's picture

Basically they are doing what many governments wished they could, but were never capable of doing. Private iniciative, bitchez!

Bandit und Buster's picture

let the "brown people" make their own fucking drones.

oh yeah, I forgot, they cant"...

AND Let the jews fight their own wars and pay their own way!

Oh yeah, I forgot, they can't

TBT or not TBT's picture

Iran is a brutal tyranny, as experienced by most iranians, within their own country.    

Also, persians are kinda...white, and not far off, genetically, to bad white people, of which one would have to guess hedgeless_horseman counts himself as one, the good kind of white person presumably.     Persians are not to be confused with arabs, for whom islam is a native ideology entirely in tune and intertwined with their tyrannical backward culture.

smlbizman's picture

i down voted you for this reason.....when i finally saw video of iraq, they had beautiful palm tree lined strrets...buildings and such. so they had a modern society , which would take plumbers, electrcians and you get my point.....then i saw the same kind of appearence in iran, people bustling in a modern looking city dressed like casual fridays...another modern society....so they should be considered exactly like us. which is to say, when their people have had enough than they will do something to change it....this countries hands (ussa) are so filthy fucking dirty, none of us has a right to critize any other govt until we get the balls and show the rest of the world how its done......it seems like everything has a reset button on it these days.....and i could be drunk or wrong ...

TBT or not TBT's picture

Iranians wait in lines to buy milk and bread.    The women MUST cover their hair in public or else be arrested.   There is no recourse for what the police do to arrested people, including fairly frequently just killing them.    Sure, there are smart people in Iran, ambitious people, skilled people, but they are controlled by a brutal dictatorship that is very effective, very pervasive.     Same thing existed in Iraq, with a brutal minority controlling all others, including the main ethnic/religious majority there.    These tyrannies will not reverse themselves.    We should kill their leaders and vaporize their republican guards, police of the police, and so on, all in one coordinated strike, blowing them up all at once.    No occupation needed as Iran is quite capable culturally of establishing a respresentative republic once the regime's repressive tools are elliminated.    Until then, no.