US Condemns Bomb Attack on Iran Nuclear Scientist

Aslan · Post by **Aslan** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:16 pm

ladajo wrote:Aslan,
How do you see this as false pretenses?
The article speaks to a 100,000 pound fine imposed for broadcasting an Illegal Interview and also speaks to failing to meet the directive that the Editorial Control be in the UK where the license is held.
It states that they failed to comply with both issues, and thus have lost the license. What was manufactured or false about this?

Editorial Control is not in the UK. They did broadcast the interview.

???

ladajo; Please visit it.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/222122.html

Britain could not compete with PressTV and so took it down. Many TV sets here have Internet TV, like Samsung TVs. PressTV could make an app for Samsung. Retards like BBC and AOL and many others have such apps and Press TV can let us watch directly through PressTV app in Samsung TV or over the Youtube chanel (should be updated in real time).

That is how their(UK and etc....) democracy works and how they will bring 'democray' to countries 6000 kilometers away from them by bombing children and women.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:20 pm

ladajo wrote:SCUDs are much easier to shoot down when they are aimed at you. It is when they are aimed at someone else it gets harder.

And, if it is aimed at you, and you have the right kit, it is not that hard to defeat/control.

Please provide examples: SCAD vs. Patriot in the first gulf war. As I know (heard) the inefficiency of SCAD has been caused by its extremely bad accuracy, instead of system effectiveness of defence. The Patriot vs. SCAD has shown low probability of kill. Have you statistic saying "easy to kill"? Something like number of Patriot missiles launched vs. number of SCAD shot down.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:21 pm

Aslan wrote:That is how their democracy works and how they will bring 'democray' to countries 6000 kilometers away from them by bombing children and women.

As well as bombing of people going to kill children and women in UK or financing killers.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:35 pm

Aslan,
I have checked you link. Unfortunately it reads alot like a child pointing to other "issues" to deflect/self deny guilt.

The bottom line (which was even admitted by Press TV):

Yes we did air the interview.

Yes we do not control content.

He further pointed to Ofcom's “glaring contradiction” in its dealings with Press TV. “Ofcom wants to revoke the broadcast license because it has determined that Press TV Ltd. does not have control over the broadcast. Yet at the same time, Ofcom sentences Press TV Ltd. to pay a financial penalty for the broadcast of something Ofcom says it has no control over! How can you possibly explain your paradoxical performance?”

My answer is that he should take up the money issue with those that made him broadcast the interview. It is not Ofcom's problem. Nor is the fact that PressTV is controlled by Tehran. Both issues are against the rules of the license PressTV applied for, and agreed to, that was issued to them by Ofcom. The burden of compliance for the license is PressTV's, not the issuing authority.

Any other red herrings, real or not, in the malfeasance of Ofcom are not related, no matter how hard they may try to make them. The fact that the traffic officer that issued the parking ticket is corrupt has no bearing on the validity of the parking violation and the consequences of the ticket. Again, a tactic employed daily by the children of the world as they attempt to resist learning personal accountability and responsibility.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:37 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Aslan wrote:That is how their democracy works and how they will bring 'democray' to countries 6000 kilometers away from them by bombing children and women.
As well as bombing of people going to kill children and women in UK or financing killers.

Joseph,
that one did not come across clearly in intent. You may want to reword.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:43 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:SCUDs are much easier to shoot down when they are aimed at you. It is when they are aimed at someone else it gets harder.

And, if it is aimed at you, and you have the right kit, it is not that hard to defeat/control.
Please provide examples: SCAD vs. Patriot in the first gulf war. As I know (heard) the inefficiency of SCAD has been caused by its extremely bad accuracy, instead of system effectiveness of defence. The Patriot vs. SCAD has shown low probability of kill. Have you statistic saying "easy to kill"? Something like number of Patriot missiles launched vs. number of SCAD shot down.

The Patriot was improperly employed in that period. As a result of that knowledge, as well as other lessons, the Patriot on the ground today is another animal entirely, much more capable and effective.

Please recall that Patriot was designed as a medium to high altitude Air-Defense system. It was not intended for Anti-Missile work. It has since been adapted (several times), and is currently very effective.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:50 pm

Please also understand that there are other systems now available for terminal (point) defense.

Early Patriot could only function well against a small defended footprint. This was the genesis for PAC2, PAC2/GEM and PAC-3 where the defended area has been significantly increased.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:00 pm

Aslan,
This sort of behaviour is not at all helpful for your government. Why would your government back one that is systematically killing its own citizens?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/19 ... l-embargo/

I am hoping you will not casually dismiss it as lies and international conspiracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/n ... 677272.stm

where the Syrian Government itself admits the foreign conspiracy stuff is made up:

At the Foreign Ministry, spokesman Jihad Makdissi tells me that should not have happened. People have now been told, he says, to let the monitors work freely.

And he is also keen to stress that the president's talk of a conspiracy was "for internal consumption". Syria wants the mission to continue, he says.

With friends like your government has currently, there is no need for enemies.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:30 pm

And then there are these absolutely draconian sentences that are completely unjustified by anything:
http://gizmodo.com/5877722/iranian-prog ... e-software

I am not a big fan of porn myself, but this is really harsh!

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:44 pm

By the article it looks like he didn't even know the porn site used his software.

Nope, not helpful at all for Iran. The internet needs to rise up in his defense, although it is probably too late.

My guess is that they are killing him because he is now Canadian.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:01 pm

Yeah, where is Anonymous when you need it.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:09 pm

Not doing anything constructive.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:25 pm

Not doing anything constructive.

I am not sure what to think about this right now. I dont sympathisize with either side very much. I definitely dont like the big media corps though.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:28 pm

I am all for removing the profit motive from Media. I think it is a large part of the issue.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:55 pm

I am all for removing the profit motive from Media. I think it is a large part of the issue.

I have no problem with media corporations making profit. They have to live of something and making profit is good, but I dont think it is about profit. I read that media corporations have made larger turnovers in 2011 than they did in any previous year. There are many reasons why I have come to believe that the large media corporations and those running them are part of a group that aims to (and effectively is) control public opinion. It is very clear that the internet and especially social media have been a thorn in their side in this regard. People do get their news, news that the large news outlets refuse and fail to report from other sources now. They hate that. It means that they are loosing control. If they cant control what news we hear or see, they cant control what we think or who we vote for. And that urge to control our opinions and the elections is something that I do have a big issue with.