Whaddya know? Drones DO bother people after all

[rambone]

Being spied on by foreigners really goes over well overseas too.

U.S. drones deeply unpopular around the world

The new multi-nation poll finds that “in predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular.” Beyond Muslim nations, “in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes.” Specifically, “in 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks.”

"We hate the drones because they are free."​

 

[rambone]

 

[IndyDave1776]

You may be right, but I personally have no trouble imagining the more esoteric means of surveillance since I've seen Mission Impossible, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Spy Kids, Die Hard I, II, & III, The X-Files and Person of Interest. When drones begin to be widely used for surveillance of our civilian population, I may be forced to worry about them as well.

This is all true, but you have already proven yourself to be in the top 10% of the class. The other 90% come with mixed reviews.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I probably should have left this well enough alone, but I just had to add this:

EXCLUSIVE: Drones vulnerable to terrorist hijacking, researchers say | Fox News

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I probably should have left this well enough alone, but I just had to add this:

EXCLUSIVE: Drones vulnerable to terrorist hijacking, researchers say | Fox News

(I have to say it)
I thought the terrorist were the ones already using them.

 

[manwithnoname]

Where Is the Outrage? by Andrew P. Napolitano -- Antiwar.com

A good article on the matter from Judge Napolitano.

(BTW, the good news is that I am well practiced in hitting a golf ball at 100 yds. Who knows? It may well be a skill that comes in handy some day.)

 

[rambone]

 

[rambone]

DRONE HACKING - "DRO-HACK"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSFGfuoHBSQ

 

[handgun]

Installing something that can shoot rubber bullets or tear gas is still arming an unmanned aircraft. People need to wake up. I can buy rubber bullets can you? Do they work in guns that shoot regular bullets you bet.. people are nieve.

Glad to see there is starting to be an uproar.

This crap everyone reads about the police or schools or gov is doing for the children is a load of crap. Test scores whwre higher before all this free love thinking of the 1970s crap came along.. stop buying the bull****.. just buy the bull instead.. that way the crap is free!! To power your smart car..

 

[IndyDave1776]

I probably should have left this well enough alone, but I just had to add this:

EXCLUSIVE: Drones vulnerable to terrorist hijacking, researchers say | Fox News

Who would have ever thought of such a thing? It isn't like Iran (leading state sponsor of terrorism) hasn't already proven that this can be done.

 

[rgrimm01]

For the sake of discussion....(playing devil's advocate here)



...Is it the shear number of drones that can be placed in the air that has people alarmed now? ...

Is it possible that the drone's success is at the heart of the anxiety? Seemingly everyday, we read/hear of another high value target being eliminated by a drone. Are we coming to associate the word drone with airstrikes not surveillance?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(I have to say it)
I thought the terrorist were the ones already using them.

Would you care to outline your thinking when you made this statement?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(I have to say it)
I thought the terrorist were the ones already using them.

Would you care to outline your thinking when you made this statement?

I'm going to assume you mean that our practice of using armed drones to kill terror leaders is a terrorist act instead? If so, here's my rebuttal:

We're at war, whether we call it a War on Terror or not. Various folks who don't like us have openly sworn to destroy our way of life and make us subject to their way of belief, or to be outright slaves, or to be dead. They intend for the whole world to be in submission; this isn't a secret, they broadcast it all over the internet, though not in English when it doesn't suit their purposes. Having established their agenda, they've used any means, including deliberately killing innocents to create a climate favorable to their aims. They've eschewed the formal trappings of war; they don't fight in uniforms; they don't obey internationally-recognized Rules of Warfare, and they don't meet their enemies on the field of battle, but act in secret, inflicting casualties on enemy soldiers and their own people indiscriminately.

In order to combat them, we could do what the Russians and Germans did during WWII and level city blocks, go house to house and kill everyone we suspected of being involved in the death of one of our own. But we don't choose to do that; instead we tailor our response to the minimum amount of directed violence we can use to kill the bad guys. This war is a whole lot more about using information and selective assassination than it is about carpet-bombing. Armed UAVs give us the capability of tracking, gathering intelligence, and where other means are not feasible, eliminating terror leaders who would otherwise disappear into the woodwork of their society. As a tactic of war, this is not much different than using a sniper's bullet or an aerial bomb or a planted explosive mine to kill enemies. By using drones in this fashion, we're bringing the "terror" back to the "terrorists" much more effectively and with much less risk than if we were using intelligence agents or SOCOM forces to do it.

As with any new technology, armed UAVs are going to be subject to "re-purposing", but for now, they're a legitimate weapon of warfare in a war we didn't start, but which we must fight if we want to survive as a society with our traditional freedoms.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm going to assume you mean that our practice of using armed drones to kill terror leaders is a terrorist act instead? If so, here's my rebuttal:

We're at war, whether we call it a War on Terror or not. Various folks who don't like us have openly sworn to destroy our way of life and make us subject to their way of belief, or to be outright slaves, or to be dead. They intend for the whole world to be in submission; this isn't a secret, they broadcast it all over the internet, though not in English when it doesn't suit their purposes. Having established their agenda, they've used any means, including deliberately killing innocents to create a climate favorable to their aims. They've eschewed the formal trappings of war; they don't fight in uniforms; they don't obey internationally-recognized Rules of Warfare, and they don't meet their enemies on the field of battle, but act in secret, inflicting casualties on enemy soldiers and their own people indiscriminately.

In order to combat them, we could do what the Russians and Germans did during WWII and level city blocks, go house to house and kill everyone we suspected of being involved in the death of one of our own. But we don't choose to do that; instead we tailor our response to the minimum amount of directed violence we can use to kill the bad guys. This war is a whole lot more about using information and selective assassination than it is about carpet-bombing. Armed UAVs give us the capability of tracking, gathering intelligence, and where other means are not feasible, eliminating terror leaders who would otherwise disappear into the woodwork of their society. As a tactic of war, this is not much different than using a sniper's bullet or an aerial bomb or a planted explosive mine to kill enemies. By using drones in this fashion, we're bringing the "terror" back to the "terrorists" much more effectively and with much less risk than if we were using intelligence agents or SOCOM forces to do it.

As with any new technology, armed UAVs are going to be subject to "re-purposing", but for now, they're a legitimate weapon of warfare in a war we didn't start, but which we must fight if we want to survive as a society with our traditional freedoms.

If the highlighted is the goal of winning this war, we've already lost a long time ago. Can we bring the boys back home now?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

If the highlighted is the goal of winning this war, we've already lost a long time ago. Can we bring the boys back home now?

There's a chance of keeping what we have and getting the rest back, but not if these folks have their way.

 

[churchmouse]

If the highlighted is the goal of winning this war, we've already lost a long time ago. Can we bring the boys back home now?

I hear everyday of more souls lost to this and wish them home as well. We will never get the region to change no matter how hard we try or how many die.

 

[manwithnoname]

I hear everyday of more souls lost to this and wish them home as well. We will never get the region to change no matter how hard we try or how many die.

History shows time and time again, we will never win a war "managed" by politicians.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the highlighted is the goal of winning this war, we've already lost a long time ago. Can we bring the boys back home now?

I know what you're saying, I think. But to blackhawk's point, we're not yet required to convert to Islam, its customs, tenets, its traditions, and its shiria law or die (or pay the infidel's tax).

We will not change their minds or hearts. But we can bomb them into a mud puddle when they attack us. But this also gets back to blackhawk's point: when attacked again, how will we know against whom to retaliate? It's not like they'll be flying airplanes with a red dot on the side or tanks with a red star.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm going to assume you mean that our practice of using armed drones to kill terror leaders is a terrorist act instead? If so, here's my rebuttal:

We're at war, whether we call it a War on Terror or not. Various folks who don't like us have openly sworn to destroy our way of life and make us subject to their way of belief, or to be outright slaves, or to be dead. They intend for the whole world to be in submission; this isn't a secret, they broadcast it all over the internet, though not in English when it doesn't suit their purposes. Having established their agenda, they've used any means, including deliberately killing innocents to create a climate favorable to their aims. They've eschewed the formal trappings of war; they don't fight in uniforms; they don't obey internationally-recognized Rules of Warfare, and they don't meet their enemies on the field of battle, but act in secret, inflicting casualties on enemy soldiers and their own people indiscriminately.

In order to combat them, we could do what the Russians and Germans did during WWII and level city blocks, go house to house and kill everyone we suspected of being involved in the death of one of our own. But we don't choose to do that; instead we tailor our response to the minimum amount of directed violence we can use to kill the bad guys. This war is a whole lot more about using information and selective assassination than it is about carpet-bombing. Armed UAVs give us the capability of tracking, gathering intelligence, and where other means are not feasible, eliminating terror leaders who would otherwise disappear into the woodwork of their society. As a tactic of war, this is not much different than using a sniper's bullet or an aerial bomb or a planted explosive mine to kill enemies. By using drones in this fashion, we're bringing the "terror" back to the "terrorists" much more effectively and with much less risk than if we were using intelligence agents or SOCOM forces to do it.

As with any new technology, armed UAVs are going to be subject to "re-purposing", but for now, they're a legitimate weapon of warfare in a war we didn't start, but which we must fight if we want to survive as a society with our traditional freedoms.

Good post.

 

[hornadylnl]

There's a chance of keeping what we have and getting the rest back, but not if these folks have their way.

How do you figure? It's our government that's stripping our liberties, not some Afghani villagers. What rights have we lost in the last 200 years and have since been returned?