Surveillance/Attack Drones... Coming to an area near you. Wonderful world.

[Oxymoron]

Drones, drones and more drones...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/rand-paul-is-not-alone-57-percent-think

Rand Paul is not alone in his concern about the government's drone program and the assassination of Americans without due process. According to a recent Reason-Rupe poll, 57 percent of Americans say it is unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists. Thirty-one percent believe it is constitutional. (Mike Riggs writes about these results here.)

Fifty-nine percent of Americans are also concerned the government may abuse its power when it comes to its use of drones to kill American citizens who are terror suspects.

http://www.networkworld.com/communi...choosing-targets-what-could-possibly-go-wrong

[h=2]Insect assassin drones, swarm drone surveillance and armed drones that pick their own targets: What could possibly go wrong?[/h] By Ms. Smith on Wed, 02/20/13 - 9:27am.

inShare2​

Last year, I wrote about the future of drone surveillance and swarms of cyborg insect drones. That article was full of MAV (micro aerial vehicles) that looked like they should be in a B-grade sci-fi flick. In particular, after seeing a freaky video, I'd like to remind you of the U.S. Air Force's bug-sized spies, or "tiny a bumblebees," that would not be detected when flying into buildings to "photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists."

MAVs: Bumblebee-sized surveillance swarms and assassin drones

Then we have 'Anonymous Drones'. But do these matter, 'its only Pakistanis after all'?

http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/anonymous-drones-us-pakistan-seek-to.html

The US is denying accusations it's behind deadly drone strikes in Pakistan last month, saying Pakistan's own military could be to blame. With the US enjoying a virtual drone monopoly, phantom anonymous strikes are becoming a real problem - not least for the nameless victims of the attacks.

No doubt this is all politically/morally acceptable even applauded.

 

[Mick West]

There are obvious concerns about the use of this technology. But there are also concerns about a whole bunch of technologies - phone tapping, sniper rifles, GPS tracking, . This is is just a new one.

When you ask if "this" is morally acceptable, I think you need to be a bit more specific. I have no problem with drones being used to look inside a house in a war-time situation, or by LEOs (no more than I have a problem with robots being used to defuse bombs), but I'd have a big problem with being spied on in my own house without a warrant. But that's not really a function of the technology.

 

[SR1419]

Drones are becoming ubiquitous now...I see many hobbyists these days with their personal drones out flying around complete with cameras- I imagine the laws will have to catch up.

 

[Cairenn]

I am more concerned about private drones.

Just a couple of days ago, one came near a commercial airliner. I can see one getting sucked into the turbines and causing a major crash.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-use-raises-privacy-safety-concerns/1969653/

 

[Pete Tar]

Drones are becoming ubiquitous now...I see many hobbyists these days with their personal drones out flying around complete with cameras- I imagine the laws will have to catch up.

The thought occurs that those who are quick to decry government use of Drone surveillance will be quick to use and possibly abuse civilian versions themselves.
(edit. I mean the more vociferously paranoid ones, once they find out they can 'spy on the spyers' , will take it up, then gradually abuse that ability, according to the laws of irony.)

Drones as a military weapon are a very distasteful trend. It reeks of cowardice and complete domination.
And what is so urgent that drones must be used to survey your own population?
There could be some scientific or rescue-response validity to them though.

 

[Grieves]

My local police have adopted a Drone program. They didn't spring for the version armed with a tear-gas launcher and a rubber-bullet shotgun (nice way of saying a grenade launcher and a shotgun which can be loaded with non-deadly ordinance), but I wager that had more to do with budget than desire. Remote control planes and other flying machines have been around for decades and decades. Its their use by authorities as unmanned surveillance, policing, and urban pacification tools that concerns me. I'm all for keeping people safe. That's not what's being discussed though, and its not the issue people have with drones. The issue is with how long it's going to be before drone strikes become an employable tool in police-work... how long its going to be before killing Americans, albeit criminal Americans, in drone attacks on domestic soil becomes 'ok'. Rand Paul strikes me as something of a tool, but on this issue I have to agree with him. America shouldn't be stroking its chin over new and different ways to execute criminal citizens. If anything it should be working on putting an end to the Death Penalty, which in the end is as nonsensical a policy as it is barbaric, dangerous, and ineffective.

 

[Oxymoron]

Drones are becoming ubiquitous now...I see many hobbyists these days with their personal drones out flying around complete with cameras- I imagine the laws will have to catch up.

I think you are likely confusing 'remote control' with 'drone technology'. Remote control is local like an RC, car, plane helicopter... yes years old but definitely more refined now.

Drone technology is used over large and extremely large distances as well as local.

Our old friends Raytheon are at the head of this technology.

http://www.raytheon.com/technology_today/2012_i1/eyeontech_voip.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/631251-how-to-play-the-growth-in-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-market

One class of anti-terrorist weapon that will prevail over the long term, regardless of budget deficit concerns: unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). For defense strategists, pilot-less aircraft outfitted with ultra-sophisticated sensors are a vital tactic in fighting the asymmetrical guerilla wars of the 21st century.

These UAVs are the darlings of reformers in the Pentagon, and Raytheon (RTN) is the leader in the field by virtue of its unparalleled expertise in sensor technology.
UAVs are aircraft that fly

Obviously speculation, but sometimes people object to how the military use their technology and there were a number of Raytheon execs that met an untimely end on 9/11 and they were apparently on every hijacked plane.

 

[SR1419]

I think you are likely confusing 'remote control' with 'drone technology'.

Its possible...but other than distance, what is the difference? Are not drones controlled remotely? Both are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - UAVs.

 

[Oxymoron]

Its possible...but other than distance, what is the difference? Are not drones controlled remotely? Both are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - UAVs.

Well yes they are both remotely controlled but the technology on the drones is all about being in control from afar and accuracy and controlling as if you were there, i.e the controllers of the M.E drones are in the U.S... that's pretty clever stuff I think.

The Raytheon sensors are cutting edge and key to the success.

 

[Mick West]

Well yes they are both remotely controlled but the technology on the drones is all about being in control from afar and accuracy and controlling as if you were there, i.e the controllers of the M.E drones are in the U.S... that's pretty clever stuff I think.

The Raytheon sensors are cutting edge and key to the success.

Since "drone" covers everything from a $200 Parrot AR drone to a $36 Million MQ-9 Reaper, maybe we should use more specific language when discussing the problems?

 

[jvnk08]

Regarding Rand Paul's questioning, he received a response today:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ponds-to-paul-about-drone-strikes-on-u-s-soil

Safe to say we won't be seeing lethal drone strikes on American citizens within the US happening anytime soon(not like we have seen one in the decade it's been technically feasible anyways, not sure why people are making a fuss now).

probable cause warrant[/URL] before using a drone in an investigation. [/ex]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/status-domestic-drone-legislation-states

Well yes they are both remotely controlled but the technology on the drones is all about being in control from afar and accuracy and controlling as if you were there, i.e the controllers of the M.E drones are in the U.S... that's pretty clever stuff I think.

The Raytheon sensors are cutting edge and key to the success.

If you want to really nitpick what is a largely a hazy definition, Wikipedia defines a drone as any robot. Regardless of the vast gradient between hobby UAVs and military UAVs, the principles are largely the same. It's really just a matter of how much you can invest in the equipment.

My local police have adopted a Drone program. They didn't spring for the version armed with a tear-gass launcher and a rubber-bullet shotgun (nice way of saying a grenade launcher and a shotgun which can be loaded with non-deadly ordinance), but I wager that had more to do with budget than desire. Remote control planes and other flying machines have been around for decades and decades. Its their use by authorities as unmanned surveillance, policing, and urban pacification tools that concerns me. I'm all for keeping people safe. That's not what's being discussed though, and its not the issue people have with drones. The issue is with how long it's going to be before drone strikes become an employable tool in police-work... how long its going to be before killing Americans, albeit criminal Americans, in drone attacks on domestic soil becomes 'ok'. Rand Paul strikes me as something of a tool, but on this issue I have to agree with him. America shouldn't be stroking its chin over new and different ways to execute criminal citizens. If anything it should be working on putting an end to the Death Penalty, which in the end is as nonsensical a policy as it is barbaric, dangerous, and ineffective.

I largely agree with your sentiment here. I think there is a significant benefit to having UAVs for emergency services among other public works such as checking for environmental compliance(amusing example here, though done by a private citizen). On the other hand I'm concerned about their use on people that are innocent. Police agencies have already been caught using thermal imaging cameras to look for drug operations(in the process peering into everyone's homes). With that said, I hear a lot of hubbub about "non-lethal" drones for police forces, but there is still no picture or video evidence of their existence beyond the claims from the company Vanguard. Grenades are one thing, but I'd be amazed if even a moderately expensive drone could accurately fire a projectile like a rubber bullet from any meaningful range.

 

[JRBids]

How come no one complained about drones while Bush was president?

 

[Oxymoron]

https://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/aboutdrone/

The US has two separate 'squadron' of armed drones – one run by the US Air Force and one run by the CIA. Using drones, the USAF Air Force has increased the number of combat air patrols it can fly by 600 percent over the past six years; indeed at any time there are at least 36 American armed UAVS over Afghanistan and Iraq. It plans to increase this number to 50 by 2011. CIA Director Leon Panetta has recently said that drones are "the only game in town." The CIA have been using drones in Pakistan and other countries to assassinate "terrorist leaders." While this programme was initiated by the Bush Administration, it has increased under Obama and there have been 41 known drone strikes in Pakistan since Obama became President. Analysis by an American think tank The Brookings Institution on drone attacks in Pakistan has shown that for every militant leader killed, 10 civilians also have died. Drones UK
The UK has several different types of armed and surveillance drones in Iraq and Afghanistan and others in the production or development stage. The UK began using armed drones in Afghanistan in Oct 2007 after purchasing three Reapers from General Atomics in 2007 at a cost of £6m each. The MoD confirmed in June 2008 that a British Reaper UAV had fired its weapons for the first time, but refused to give any details. In March 2009, the Daily Telegraph reported that British drones had been used ten times in armed strikes.

Serious Concern
Thes UN's Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, has said that the use of drones is not combat as much as 'targeted killing'. He has repeatedly tried to get the US to explain how they justifies the use of drones to target and kill individuals under international law. The US has so far refused to do so. In a report to the UN he has said the US government (and by implication the UK government) "should specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals …. and should make public the number of civilians killed as a result of drone attacks, and the measures in place to prevent such casualties".

A further question is the extent to which operators become trigger happy with remote controlled armaments, situated as they are in complete safety, distant from the conflict zone. Keith Shurtleff, an army chaplain and ethics instructor at Fort Jackson, South Carolina worries "that as war becomes safer and easier, as soldiers are removed from the horrors of war and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is very real danger of losing the deterrent that such horrors provide."

 

[jvnk08]

https://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/aboutdrone/

The US has two separate 'squadron' of armed drones – one run by the US Air Force and one run by the CIA. Using drones, the USAF Air Force has increased the number of combat air patrols it can fly by 600 percent over the past six years; indeed at any time there are at least 36 American armed UAVS over Afghanistan and Iraq. It plans to increase this number to 50 by 2011. CIA Director Leon Panetta has recently said that drones are "the only game in town." The CIA have been using drones in Pakistan and other countries to assassinate "terrorist leaders." While this programme was initiated by the Bush Administration, it has increased under Obama and there have been 41 known drone strikes in Pakistan since Obama became President. Analysis by an American think tank The Brookings Institution on drone attacks in Pakistan has shown that for every militant leader killed, 10 civilians also have died. Drones UK
The UK has several different types of armed and surveillance drones in Iraq and Afghanistan and others in the production or development stage. The UK began using armed drones in Afghanistan in Oct 2007 after purchasing three Reapers from General Atomics in 2007 at a cost of £6m each. The MoD confirmed in June 2008 that a British Reaper UAV had fired its weapons for the first time, but refused to give any details. In March 2009, the Daily Telegraph reported that British drones had been used ten times in armed strikes.

Serious Concern
Thes UN's Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, has said that the use of drones is not combat as much as 'targeted killing'. He has repeatedly tried to get the US to explain how they justifies the use of drones to target and kill individuals under international law. The US has so far refused to do so. In a report to the UN he has said the US government (and by implication the UK government) "should specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals …. and should make public the number of civilians killed as a result of drone attacks, and the measures in place to prevent such casualties".

A further question is the extent to which operators become trigger happy with remote controlled armaments, situated as they are in complete safety, distant from the conflict zone. Keith Shurtleff, an army chaplain and ethics instructor at Fort Jackson, South Carolina worries "that as war becomes safer and easier, as soldiers are removed from the horrors of war and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is very real danger of losing the deterrent that such horrors provide."

It is terrible, but realistically the alternative is magnitudes more costly to innocent civilians(particularly when the enemy is prone to using civilians for cover in firefights). Drone strikes have actually gone down in the last few years:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

 

[Oxymoron]

It is terrible, but realistically the alternative is magnitudes more costly to innocent civilians(particularly when the enemy is prone to using civilians for cover in firefights). Drone strikes have actually gone down in the last few years:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

I cannot subscribe to that. The inference is that if someone commits what is considered a crime in the U.S, and they hide amongst innocents then it is ok to take out the innocents, as collateral damage, in order to take out the criminal.

The prime directive is/should be, to take the person into custody with minimum force and then for that person to be tried and a sentence given.

It matters not whether the innocents are killed by drone or conventional methods, it is unacceptable, especially at those levels or anywhere near.

To be honest, I think it even worse that it happens/happened on foreign soil. If the British Army had used such tactics in Ireland... would that have been justified in your and Cairenn's opinion.

I see it as dehumanising the victims on grounds of ethnicity.

I do not agree that the west should even be militarily in Afghanistan or Iraq. I believe it makes the world a less safe place and builds understandable hatred toward the west.

In even looks like the Taliban will be elected back into government so it was all a waste of time. Parallels can be drawn with the IRA, they know it is only a question of time before they are in the majority and a political victory will be obtained... shame they did not see that earlier but we should learn from past mistakes, our own and others.

IMO

 

[Grieves]

How come no one complained about drones while Bush was president?

They were too busy complaining about the illegal wars.

 

[David Fraser]

The UK police have been using drones for a while but the CAA has licensed plenty if private companies to use them. http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/25/who-can-fly-drones-uk-airspace Privacy is a great concern especially as the UK is apparently the most heavily cctv'd country in the world. I really don't like been watched when sat in my back garden watching my hot neighbour get undressed for bed.

 

[Critical Thinker]

I cannot subscribe to that. The inference is that if someone commits what is considered a crime in the U.S, and they hide amongst innocents then it is ok to take out the innocents, as collateral damage, in order to take out the criminal.

 

[Oxymoron]

View attachment 1984

Yet.

But it is ok to kill a non American abroad... why?

 

[Mick West]

Yet.

But it is ok to kill a non American abroad... why?

Because that's the interpretation of the law. If by "okay" you mean "lawful".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

It's also "okay" to kill american citizens in their homes, the police do it all the time when they are being shot at. It's "okay" to strap an American citizen to a chair and fry him with electricity, or shoot him up with poison. This does not mean we will go around doing such things at whim.

 

[David Fraser]

Yet.

But it is ok to kill a non American abroad... why?

Lets face it simply because they are not American or European (just add a country). It seems that often a foreigners life has less value. You raised the issue of drones and if they had been used in Northern Ireland by the army. That struck a cord as I spent 7 years there in the army. Most soldiers would have loved to have seen a Predator overhead but for it to be armed would be anathema to them. A drone misses out on one thing "a personal touch". Boots on the ground make more aware decisions than a guy in an office. However if a guy in a block of flats opened up a patrol and a Predator killed him and 20 civilians the press spin would put that as acceptable. The mainland UK was getting bombed during that time so there was a bias by the population. However with Afghanistan and Iraq people do not care. All they care about are those they have sent over.

 

[Oxymoron]

Lets face it simply because they are not American or European (just add a country). It seems that often a foreigners life has less value. You raised the issue of drones and if they had been used in Northern Ireland by the army. That struck a cord as I spent 7 years there in the army. Most soldiers would have loved to have seen a Predator overhead but for it to be armed would be anathema to them. A drone misses out on one thing "a personal touch". Boots on the ground make more aware decisions than a guy in an office. However if a guy in a block of flats opened up a patrol and a Predator killed him and 20 civilians the press spin would put that as acceptable. The mainland UK was getting bombed during that time so there was a bias by the population. However with Afghanistan and Iraq people do not care. All they care about are those they have sent over.

I can relate to a lot of what you say.

It is largely about priorities and when it comes down to 'us or them' the priority is 'us'.

I am no pacifist but I think it wrong to instigate war.

Pre emptive strike argument... I don't buy it. Bush and Co wanted this war and Obama seems to have changed his tune since taking office.

This is not about conspiracy theories, it is about politics... trying to get under the 'spin' at what the real motivations are. In denying the motivations, we get into conspiracy theories as to what the true motivations are and how they are spinning the news and where they are heading with their plans, (conspiracies to some).

Who benefits?

When push comes to shove, we back our own but if our friends or family are wrong and instigating trouble they should be made to understand they are in the wrong, even if loyalty requires backing them in the moment.

This has gone on over ten years and it is getting worse as new regimes come under the scope.

Do people really support the way this 'war on terror' is conducted?

Do they really appreciate how it is ushering in this hyper surveillance society and how it will impact on them?

It seems to me that people are under so much pressure to survive themselves during this economic crisis that they hardly think about what is happening in the M.E, abdicating responsibility to 'those who know best', without realising the significance of the 'vested interests' or political motivations of the decision makers.

 

[Pete Tar]

...

Do people really support the way this 'war on terror' is conducted?

Do they really appreciate how it is ushering in this hyper surveillance society and how it will impact on them?

...

There were a lot of people who made it clear they didn't support pre-emptive invasion, but they were effectively sidelined as 'whinging liberals, students, left-wing academics' and portrayed as unpatriotic at the time.

 

[Mick West]

Speaking of drones, here's a nice (if slightly dangerous) usage a couple of miles north of where I live:

[video=vimeo;61155597]http://vimeo.com/61155597[/video]

And one from the hood:

[video=vimeo;34676743]http://vimeo.com/34676743[/video]

 

[TWCobra]

Here is an even more dangerous use. This idiot flew his toy drone around Perth Airport and in the vicinity of a 737 where it was spotted by the crew. He then posted on YouTube!!! I bet he is wondering...."What gave me away?"

[video=youtube_share;mZEgeTFFFDY]http://youtu.be/mZEgeTFFFDY[/video]

 

[Oxymoron]

There were a lot of people who made it clear they didn't support pre-emptive invasion, but they were effectively sidelined as 'whinging liberals, students, left-wing academics' and portrayed as unpatriotic at the time.

Yes you are undoubtedly right... obviously wasn't enough though but nice to know so many took part. Ashamedly, I wasn't one of them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/did-you-protest-iraq-invasion

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the largest day of global protest in history. On 15 February 2003 up to 30 million people marched in protest against the planned invasion of Iraq. In London alone, organisers estimated over one million people descended on Hyde Park to register their opposition to the imminent invasion, making it the largest protest in UK history.

 

[Grieves]

This idiot flew his toy drone

RC planes and drones aren't the same thing, by a long stretch.
[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d7_1362740018[/video] relatively advanced long distance RC plane with a camera in it.

​
predator drone.

 

[Mick West]

RC planes and drones aren't the same thing, by a long stretch.

You can't just take the word "drone" and make it mean just what you want it to mean. The average person calls anything that flies with a camera a drone. Domestically a drone is generally a small surveillance tool

Even the army has small RC planes that are referred to as drones.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/new-bird-of-prey-hunts-somali-terrorists-raven-drones/

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2011/09/rise-of-the-drones/

Hummingbird drones fly at 11 mph and can perch on windowsills. The 3-foot-long Raven can be tossed into the air like a model airplane to spy over the next hill in Afghanistan. The Air Force's new Gorgon Stare aerial drone sensor technology can capture live video of an entire city. From the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-1 Predator to considerably smaller aerial drones in recent years, the Air Force has experienced an unmanned aircraft revolution in the decade since Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[jvnk08]

I'd just like to also point out that there is extensive negative media attention around drone strikes and their potential use in US airspace by government organizations, even from "mainstream" press organizations. I personally have not seen anyone condone it, but feel free to point out some that do.


I would much prefer a peaceful solution before any of the Afghanistan war started as I'm sure most reasonable people would. But seeing as things are they way they are, the simple truth that there is much less collateral damage with drone strikes. The fact of the matter is the enemy, however misunderstood they may be, are entrenched in mountainous terrain and quite well armed. They unflinchingly endanger civilians with indiscriminate IED placement in addition to using them as cover. The military didn't pick this method of warfare because it killed more civilians.

 

[Grieves]

The Air Force's new Gorgon Stare aerial drone sensor technology can capture live video of an entire city.

Once again, big difference between that and an RC plane with a camera in it, even if the sizes are similar. If you want to say the term 'drone' is synonymous with 'rc plane', you go right ahead.... but an RC plane with a camera in it isn't going to do what a Drone, designed for strategic or combat applications, is capable of. The technology gap between RC planes and strategic drones remains massive. Softening the image of drones by equating them to a toy/hobby-pursuit, and implying that the fact many private citizens fly RC planes, sometimes in exceedingly stupid ways, makes drone policing a less unsettling premise seems a little misleading.

the simple truth that there is much less collateral damage with drone strikes.

Collateral damage to Americans, sure. Drone strikes very often employ a 'double-tap' policy however; in which, after striking a target, they circle back and strike it again a few moments later, both to confirm the kill and vaporize any surrounding 'militants'. As good an advertising campaign as they've conducted convincing Americans the newer bombs and missiles are brilliant entities capable of avoiding civilian casualties, it doesn't change the fact that they result in rather massive explosions. Inherently civilians are bound to get caught in these massive explosions, and they very frequently do. With the double-tap policy, it became somewhat common for civilians who were simply trying to collect bodies/the injured to be killed in the second strike, and so when drone strikes occur in a civilian-populated area now, the wounded and dying are frequently left to suffer alone until the community can be certain the drone isn't coming back. Could you imagine living in such horror?

 

[Pete Tar]

Drone strikes very often employ a 'double-tap' policy however; in which, after striking a target, they circle back and strike it again a few moments later, both to confirm the kill and vaporize any surrounding 'militants'. ...

That's very morally disturbing.

The problem I have with drone attacks or using technology that makes one invincible and has no risk to the user is that it violates the most basic equaliser of violent conflict - putting yourself at risk in order to win the fight. An army is supposed to accept the idea of putting its life on the line. If there's a choice between keeping yourself safe or sacrificing yourself to keep civilians safe, as a member of a defense force you're supposed to put your own life last.

The reason that the US uses technology to kill others with no risk to itself is because dead soldiers create a political backlash.
But dying to protect your country is what being a soldier is about, not winning by any means necessary 'and sorry about the collateral damage'.
Now somehow it's become 'the threat justifies omnipotent force'.
Possibly I'm being naive about honour in conflict.

 

[Oxymoron]

Once again, big difference between that and an RC plane with a camera in it, even if the sizes are similar. If you want to say the term 'drone' is synonymous with 'rc plane', you go right ahead.... but an RC plane with a camera in it isn't going to do what a Drone, designed for strategic or combat applications, is capable of. The technology gap between RC planes and strategic drones remains massive. Softening the image of drones by equating them to a toy/hobby-pursuit, and implying that the fact many private citizens fly RC planes, sometimes in exceedingly stupid ways, makes drone policing a less unsettling premise seems a little misleading.

Bang on G. That is a definite deliberate ploy and it is reprehensible.

Collateral damage to Americans, sure. Drone strikes very often employ a 'double-tap' policy however; in which, after striking a target, they circle back and strike it again a few moments later, both to confirm the kill and vaporize any surrounding 'militants'. As good an advertising campaign as they've conducted convincing Americans the newer bombs and missiles are brilliant entities capable of avoiding civilian casualties, it doesn't change the fact that they result in rather massive explosions. Inherently civilians are bound to get caught in these massive explosions, and they very frequently do. With the double-tap policy, it became somewhat common for civilians who were simply trying to collect bodies/the injured to be killed in the second strike, and so when drone strikes occur in a civilian-populated area now, the wounded and dying are frequently left to suffer alone until the community can be certain the drone isn't coming back. Could you imagine living in such horror?

And not only that, not content with gunning down people with machine gun fire from helicopters, (who are obviously unarmed and wandering around), they then gun down anyone who who comes to try and help and take the injured to hospital, all the time whooping it up.

No wonder Bradley Manning was so sickened by it he had to whistle blow. Instead of being prosecuted he should get a medal. It just shows how systemic all this is.

Those who instigate this, (and it comes from the top), should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Subhuman, mercenary, profiteering politicians and corporations behind this

 

[Mick West]

Once again, big difference between that and an RC plane with a camera in it, even if the sizes are similar. If you want to say the term 'drone' is synonymous with 'rc plane', you go right ahead.... but an RC plane with a camera in it isn't going to do what a Drone, designed for strategic or combat applications, is capable of. The technology gap between RC planes and strategic drones remains massive. Softening the image of drones by equating them to a toy/hobby-pursuit, and implying that the fact many private citizens fly RC planes, sometimes in exceedingly stupid ways, makes drone policing a less unsettling premise seems a little misleading.

I'm not trying to soften anything. The meaning of a word derives from its usage. There are big drones and there are small drones. Of course they are vastly different, but they are both referred to as drones.

The military officially uses the term UAV, as a "drone" is generally a test target. But even they will call UAVs drones sometimes.

If you just want to focus on the large drones, then maybe you need to start being more specific with your language. Talk about Predator UAVs with Hellfire missiles, or whatever it is you actually want to talk about.

 

[Grieves]

If you just want to focus on the large drones, then maybe you need to start being more specific with your language. Talk about Predator UAVs with Hellfire missiles, or whatever it is you actually want to talk about.

I'm talking about drones usable in military, intelligence, or police operations to employ overwhelming force or high-level surveillance. It's not the size that matters after all, it's how you use it.

No wonder Bradley Manning was so sickened by it he had to whistle blow. Instead of being prosecuted he should get a medal. It just shows how systemic all this is.

I believe there's an effort being undertaken to have Bradley Manning nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Never going to happen, but good on them.

 

[Mick West]

I'm talking about drones usable in military, intelligence, or police operations to employ overwhelming force or high-level surveillance. It's not the size that matters after all, it's how you use it.

Maybe "non-civilan drones"?

Really I'm not trying to soften anything. The language problem is yours because the word "drone" is already soft, especially with the incredibly popular Parrot AR Drone popularizing the use for quadricopters. I recommend you use UAV, "military drone", or "police drone".

 

[Oxymoron]

Bang on G. That is a definite deliberate ploy and it is reprehensible.




And not only that, not content with gunning down people with machine gun fire from helicopters, (who are obviously unarmed and wandering around), they then gun down anyone who who comes to try and help and take the injured to hospital, all the time whooping it up.

No wonder Bradley Manning was so sickened by it he had to whistle blow. Instead of being prosecuted he should get a medal. It just shows how systemic all this is.

Those who instigate this, (and it comes from the top), should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Subhuman, mercenary, profiteering politicians and corporations behind this

I forgot to say, it really shoots some massive holes in the oft quoted false meme, "If there is a conspiracy, where are all the whistlblowers, they would be coming out the woodwork in droves".

No they don't... they keep their heads down and their mouths shut apart from extremely rare instances, 1) because they are conditioned to carry out these things and see nothing wrong in it as it is sanctioned and 2) they know the consequences.

 

[Mick West]

I forgot to say, it really shoots some massive holes in the oft quoted false meme, "If there is a conspiracy, where are all the whistlblowers, they would be coming out the woodwork in droves".

No they don't... they keep their heads down and their mouths shut apart from extremely rare instances, 1) because they are conditioned to carry out these things and see nothing wrong in it as it is sanctioned and 2) they know the consequences.

They see nothing wrong with killing 3,000 Americans in the WTC?

 

[Oxymoron]

They see nothing wrong with killing 3,000 Americans in the WTC?

Who sees nothing wrong in killing 3,000 people, many of whom were not American?

 

[Mick West]

Who sees nothing wrong in killing 3,000 people, many of whom were not American?

The non-whistleblowers involved in 9/11. You said: "they are conditioned to carry out these things and see nothing wrong in it as it is sanctioned"

 

[Oxymoron]

The non-whistleblowers involved in 9/11. You said: "they are conditioned to carry out these things and see nothing wrong in it as it is sanctioned"

No doubt if it was indeed an inside job, there would be those who would find it 'acceptable collateral damage', enabling the 'master plan' to become reality.

Those people would no doubt believe in what they were doing and the ends would justify the means in their eyes. It is not uncommon. i.e.Hitler etc knew full well that millions of Germans would die were he to carry out his plans. So did the core believers who numbered many thousands. The price was acceptable to them. Obviously Germany is only one example in a history littered with such aspirations.

Many would have a peripheral role of which they would not be aware; likely via the process of 'strategic compartmentalization'. I.e., the airforce pilots would be guilty of nothing more than following orders and would not be 'deliberately aiding an attack', the same can be said for many other relevant people including FBI agents with advance knowledge, as is well documented due to some leakage, it was not their fault the information was not acted on...'it was a communication breakdown or a failure to realise the relevance of information'.

http://www.truthmove.org/content/black-ops/

Black operations are almost never officially acknowledged, remaining the highest of secrets long after their completion. "Plausible deniability" and the compartmentalization of various duties are integral to this process.

Plausible deniability is the process by which a country, agency, or individual maintains the ability to deny involvement in an operation. For instance, if there is no record that you received a memo, you could read the memo but still profess ignorance. Compartmentalization of our government agencies allows secret project groups to set up exclusive lines of communication. In this way the most powerful people are able to coordinate the actions of many who have no knowledge of their role in a covert plan.
Black ops are inherently secretive, deceptive, and undemocratic—there is no oversight by the people; a small anointed few decide what to do and hide their role from the wider public. Deconstructing black operations is a centerpiece of the Truth Movement. Examining black ops can give us a more accurate understanding of how governments actually work. Because of the shadowy nature of black ops, one must seek out alternative sources, do active research, and think for oneself.