The blow back from targeted drone attacks

The blow back from targeted drone attacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 12:08:29 PM)
Imagine a drone over your neighborhood and it comes in at several hundred MPH stikes the offices of a known military contractor. Evidence confirms it is a Iranian drone possibly bought and fired from Yemen...or who knows where. a “.....the United States could be on a slippery slope” into a form of perpetual warfare that invites other nations to follow suit and never explain themselves. “The United States should not conduct a long-term killing program based on secret rationales,” the panel cautioned in a 77-page analysis released by the Stimson Center. “blow back” from unintended civilian killings in places like Pakistan and Yemen is becoming “a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations,” "..... no indication that drone attacks on suspected terrorists had advanced “long-term U.S. security interests.” The report also calls for the creation of a nonpartisan, independent commission of specialists to review drone policy and make sure it is not trading short-term gains for longer-term strategic setbacks. Obama should shut them down now...period. Here

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 12:28:47 PM)
Well, it must be said that drones seem to have become the 'miracle weapon' which will solve everyone's problems, which has always been dangerous thinking. I suspect their great charm is both in casualty avoidance and in deniability, both of which have become hallmarks of US interventionist policy. Keep in mind that we do have to continue to prosecute the war against international terrorism, and drones will have a valid place in that, but the big issue is that terrorism has become the new blitzkreig, and we are still trying to meet it with outdated methods much like the Polish lancers going up against German tanks. My concern about Obama is that like Clinton before him (Don't Ask Don't Tell), he is knuckling under to the hard-line fanatics and trying to appease them by apeing their methods. This can't end well. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

mnottertail -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 12:52:27 PM)
We have placed our faith in these 'miracle weapons' for far too long, and China has shown us very starkly; these emperors are wearing no clothes in a real war.

cloudboy -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 1:28:48 PM)
Part of the problem with Americans is that we simply can't fathom what's happening in other countries. If another nation was flying drones into our airspace, we'd be beyond hostile. Anyway, the goal of the military industrial complex is constant war. Witness the void experienced by the fall of the USSR and its quick replacement with the WAR ON TERROR. The last thing the defense industry wants is peace. Take heart, the House Republicans have allocated $3.3 Million Dollars to conduct post Benghazi hearings.

kdsub -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 2:01:27 PM)
Too late the cat's out of the bag... what good would it do to stop now? Butch

PeonForHer -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 6:18:31 PM)
quote: If another nation was flying drones into our airspace, we'd be beyond hostile. Comprehensive, ongoing trauma, it seems: "Interviewees described emotional breakdowns, running indoors or hiding when drones appear above, fainting, nightmares and other intrusive thoughts, hyper startled reactions to loud noises, outbursts of anger or irritability, and loss of appetite and other physical symptoms. Interviewees also reported suffering from insomnia and other sleep disturbances, which medical health professionals in Pakistan stated were prevalent." http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/25/drones-causing-mass-trauma-among-civilians-major-study-finds/

DesideriScuri -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 7:21:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Imagine a drone over your neighborhood and it comes in at several hundred MPH stikes the offices of a known military contractor. Evidence confirms it is a Iranian drone possibly bought and fired from Yemen...or who knows where. a “.....the United States could be on a slippery slope” into a form of perpetual warfare that invites other nations to follow suit and never explain themselves. “The United States should not conduct a long-term killing program based on secret rationales,” the panel cautioned in a 77-page analysis released by the Stimson Center. “blow back” from unintended civilian killings in places like Pakistan and Yemen is becoming “a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations,” "..... no indication that drone attacks on suspected terrorists had advanced “long-term U.S. security interests.” The report also calls for the creation of a nonpartisan, independent commission of specialists to review drone policy and make sure it is not trading short-term gains for longer-term strategic setbacks. Obama should shut them down now...period. Here Defining a "defense contractor" to a "terrorist" isn't exactly right. I do get your point, though, and agree that we need to shut down the drone strikes. If we aren't actively engaged in war, they should probably not be used for military purposes.

joether -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 8:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I do get your point, though, and agree that we need to shut down the drone strikes. If we aren't actively engaged in war, they should probably not be used for military purposes. Problem is logistics. Something happens. The drone crew can have that bird up in the air in under 30 seconds, while getting their mission from the commanding officer(s) in the same room. A sniper team has to suit up, bring the right gear, go to a briefing, get in the vehicle and haul off down the road. A drone is a harder target to see then what ever transport the sniper teams will use. A drone can be on station and dealing with a threat with very minimal risk to US Military personnel. Compare that to a sniper team. They have to get there, set up, acquire the target then flee the area for extraction. All sorts of things can go wrong. What happens if either is eliminated before, during or after the completion of the mission? Well, we hear about the drone's destruction from CNN. While those two snipers? They will be in an 'extended hotel stay' for a few months if not years. Don't be so quick to rule out a tactic....

tj444 -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 8:58:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Don't be so quick to rule out a tactic.... well,.. you realize that that "tactic" (drones) will be used on Americans at some point in the future, don't you? not just for use against "terrorists" either, any public protest like OWS, any event where Americans exercise their right to free speech, any event where the govt wants to watch you...

joether -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 10:11:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Don't be so quick to rule out a tactic.... well,.. you realize that that "tactic" (drones) will be used on Americans at some point in the future, don't you? not just for use against "terrorists" either, any public protest like OWS, any event where Americans exercise their right to free speech, any event where the govt wants to watch you... Your the third person I've commented on, that displays either 'almost' or 'total', irrational fear on a subject. Do you belief drones hide just outside your window at night? Waiting until you sleep to sneak into your house and tie your shoe laces together? Or switch your pills for laxatives? Or repaint your house neon-pink and up-chuck-green? People have as much understanding of drones as they do of the full wording within the Affordable Care Act. Which is to say "barely none" at best. Full on ignorance at worst! Drones have many physical limitations. They have many mechanical, electronic, and other dynamics that could nullify their ability to operate. Like any military technology, there is usually a counter for it before long. Perhaps a 'Directed EMP blast' Rifle? Sounds Sci-Fi right? Well, so was the B-2 Bomber in the '80s. You assume the government should not have the right to watch a crowd of people? And who gets blamed when that crowd of people get blown up, because some nutcake infiltrated the group and hates their view's? The Government. On that basis, I do believe the government has a right to observe the crowd. The problem here is not the drones, nor government. Its that a growing number of people in this country are being manipulated, conditioned, and dare I say it, brainwashed to view their fellow Americans with out-right animosity and fear. The ones controlling the drones are US Citizens. Those police officers? US Citizens? Plain-clothed law enforcement? US Citizens. The EMTs, nurses, and medical doctors often called in to help some of the larger demonstrations? US Citizens. Why EMTS? Well, when its 90 degrees and high humidity, not everyone packs spare drinking water. Heat stroke is no laughing matter. And who are the people treating you for your heat stroke? The Government. For some strange reason, you NEED and enemy. You CRAVE an enemy. You have an addition to make some entity your enemy, otherwise you do not know how to operate. The US Government, in your mind, is that enemy to fight 'tooth and claw'. Without our government, you would most likely not have freedom of speech. Since the US Constitution establishes the framework with which our government is to operate under. Over 238 years, the US Government, composed of tens of millions (and now hundreds of millions) of US Citizens has to grapple with the concept of drones in use. Without a good deal of thought, consideration, education and wisdom what happens? People start listening to the raving lunatics that flail their arms around, run around in mindless circles, foaming at the mouth, and babbling incoherent crap that no one can rationally understand. 'Drone' as a technology can be used for a good purpose and a bad purpose. A drone could be used to monitor a crowd, not to collect information of 'who is there'; but used as an aid to protect those people from harm by others trying to sneak into the center of them. A drone could be outfitted with scanning equipment to help farmers regulate the limited resource of H2O on their property; Or scanning people's faces to catalog them for future harassment. You look at this technology through ignorant and negative lenses. Your limited viewpoint is your fault. Not mine, nor anyone else and least of all, the US Government's.

tj444 -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/8/2014 10:59:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Don't be so quick to rule out a tactic.... well,.. you realize that that "tactic" (drones) will be used on Americans at some point in the future, don't you? not just for use against "terrorists" either, any public protest like OWS, any event where Americans exercise their right to free speech, any event where the govt wants to watch you... Your the third person I've commented on, that displays either 'almost' or 'total', irrational fear on a subject. Do you belief drones hide just outside your window at night? Waiting until you sleep to sneak into your house and tie your shoe laces together? Or switch your pills for laxatives? Or repaint your house neon-pink and up-chuck-green? People have as much understanding of drones as they do of the full wording within the Affordable Care Act. Which is to say "barely none" at best. Full on ignorance at worst! Drones have many physical limitations. They have many mechanical, electronic, and other dynamics that could nullify their ability to operate. Like any military technology, there is usually a counter for it before long. Perhaps a 'Directed EMP blast' Rifle? Sounds Sci-Fi right? Well, so was the B-2 Bomber in the '80s. You assume the government should not have the right to watch a crowd of people? And who gets blamed when that crowd of people get blown up, because some nutcake infiltrated the group and hates their view's? The Government. On that basis, I do believe the government has a right to observe the crowd. The problem here is not the drones, nor government. Its that a growing number of people in this country are being manipulated, conditioned, and dare I say it, brainwashed to view their fellow Americans with out-right animosity and fear. The ones controlling the drones are US Citizens. Those police officers? US Citizens? Plain-clothed law enforcement? US Citizens. The EMTs, nurses, and medical doctors often called in to help some of the larger demonstrations? US Citizens. Why EMTS? Well, when its 90 degrees and high humidity, not everyone packs spare drinking water. Heat stroke is no laughing matter. And who are the people treating you for your heat stroke? The Government. For some strange reason, you NEED and enemy. You CRAVE an enemy. You have an addition to make some entity your enemy, otherwise you do not know how to operate. The US Government, in your mind, is that enemy to fight 'tooth and claw'. Without our government, you would most likely not have freedom of speech. Since the US Constitution establishes the framework with which our government is to operate under. Over 238 years, the US Government, composed of tens of millions (and now hundreds of millions) of US Citizens has to grapple with the concept of drones in use. Without a good deal of thought, consideration, education and wisdom what happens? People start listening to the raving lunatics that flail their arms around, run around in mindless circles, foaming at the mouth, and babbling incoherent crap that no one can rationally understand. 'Drone' as a technology can be used for a good purpose and a bad purpose. A drone could be used to monitor a crowd, not to collect information of 'who is there'; but used as an aid to protect those people from harm by others trying to sneak into the center of them. A drone could be outfitted with scanning equipment to help farmers regulate the limited resource of H2O on their property; Or scanning people's faces to catalog them for future harassment. You look at this technology through ignorant and negative lenses. Your limited viewpoint is your fault. Not mine, nor anyone else and least of all, the US Government's. really? has the NSA and what it & the govt has illegally done not shown you what the f'n future will be? there are police depts. now wanting drones & state laws are now being passed on its use by them.. If there is anyone that is ignorant look in your own mirror.. "U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas." https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

DesideriScuri -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 12:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I do get your point, though, and agree that we need to shut down the drone strikes. If we aren't actively engaged in war, they should probably not be used for military purposes. Problem is logistics. Something happens. The drone crew can have that bird up in the air in under 30 seconds, while getting their mission from the commanding officer(s) in the same room. A sniper team has to suit up, bring the right gear, go to a briefing, get in the vehicle and haul off down the road. A drone is a harder target to see then what ever transport the sniper teams will use. A drone can be on station and dealing with a threat with very minimal risk to US Military personnel. Compare that to a sniper team. They have to get there, set up, acquire the target then flee the area for extraction. All sorts of things can go wrong. What happens if either is eliminated before, during or after the completion of the mission? Well, we hear about the drone's destruction from CNN. While those two snipers? They will be in an 'extended hotel stay' for a few months if not years. Don't be so quick to rule out a tactic.... That all depends, Joether. It depends on what the situation is. Near constant drone coverage of an area is certainly not the same as sending in the drones in response to something. We're sending in drones in response to something that happened almost 13 years ago. I think we might need to tighten up the definition of a "threat," too. Or, maybe only use them (outside of active military fighting) for "imminent" threats. The President has already had the determination made, that US Citizens can be targeted outside the US.

blacksword404 -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 6:16:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I do get your point, though, and agree that we need to shut down the drone strikes. If we aren't actively engaged in war, they should probably not be used for military purposes. Problem is logistics. Something happens. The drone crew can have that bird up in the air in under 30 seconds, while getting their mission from the commanding officer(s) in the same room. A sniper team has to suit up, bring the right gear, go to a briefing, get in the vehicle and haul off down the road. A drone is a harder target to see then what ever transport the sniper teams will use. A drone can be on station and dealing with a threat with very minimal risk to US Military personnel. Compare that to a sniper team. They have to get there, set up, acquire the target then flee the area for extraction. All sorts of things can go wrong. What happens if either is eliminated before, during or after the completion of the mission? Well, we hear about the drone's destruction from CNN. While those two snipers? They will be in an 'extended hotel stay' for a few months if not years. Don't be so quick to rule out a tactic.... That all depends, Joether. It depends on what the situation is. Near constant drone coverage of an area is certainly not the same as sending in the drones in response to something. We're sending in drones in response to something that happened almost 13 years ago. I think we might need to tighten up the definition of a "threat," too. Or, maybe only use them (outside of active military fighting) for "imminent" threats. The President has already had the determination made, that US Citizens can be targeted outside the US. Out? In? To a man who can sanction the killing of his own countrymen without a trial. What difference does geography mean? Dead is dead. And no trial is no trial.

thishereboi -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 7:05:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: If another nation was flying drones into our airspace, we'd be beyond hostile. Comprehensive, ongoing trauma, it seems: "Interviewees described emotional breakdowns, running indoors or hiding when drones appear above, fainting, nightmares and other intrusive thoughts, hyper startled reactions to loud noises, outbursts of anger or irritability, and loss of appetite and other physical symptoms. Interviewees also reported suffering from insomnia and other sleep disturbances, which medical health professionals in Pakistan stated were prevalent." http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/25/drones-causing-mass-trauma-among-civilians-major-study-finds/ It's a shame that they had to do a study to figure out that flying bombs over people's heads on a regular basis would be bad. It's a bigger shame that most people here will never see that or understand what is going on over there and most people over there will think we do and agree with it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 7:15:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 Out? In? To a man who can sanction the killing of his own countrymen without a trial. What difference does geography mean? Dead is dead. And no trial is no trial. While everything you've stated is true, the military is not supposed to fight on US soil, except to defend the nation.

joether -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 10:13:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 really? has the NSA and what it & the govt has illegally done not shown you what the f'n future will be? there are police depts. now wanting drones & state laws are now being passed on its use by them.. If there is anyone that is ignorant look in your own mirror.. Try to imagine how the country would react if George W. Bush, rather than President Obama had to come forward and place 'lipstick on the pig' of events with the NSA? His two terms in office were not noted for being 'friendly and honest' with 'secret-spy-stuff'. The fact is, no one US President could help the public understand the weighing of 'secrets to protect the country' fairly and evenly with 'being honest to one's citizens'. Its not his fault the NSA was being the way it was. Given circumstances at the time, he has to take the flak that's been growing under previous US Presidents. The last three of the four were Republican.... Again, your arguing from a place of 'FEAR' rather than 'open mindedness'. Drones are not being used solely to allow government to side-step the 4th amendment of citizens. They are used for plenty more operations then worry whether farmer bill rotates his crops every season. They use them for 'Search & Rescue', as additional 'eyes' during criminal moments (i.e. a DEA raid), and to get a quick handle on traffic jams without traveling out to the location. But you only see through a tunnel and ignore the other 99% of the reality of drone technology and usage. So you argue from a place of fear, and I'm calling you on your total bullshit. And you don't like that. You demand government be held accountable and responsible with power; until your part of that government. Hate to break it to you. But if your a US Citizen, your part of that government. When you vote, attend jury duty and pay taxes, your reaffirming that your a US Citizen. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 "U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas." https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones With each new technology, comes with it the questions on how best to use it for good reasons, while finding ways to penalize the negative reasons. The same issue came up with 'Stem Cell Research', 'Nuclear Energy', 'Aircraft', and yes, even 'Muskets'. There are plenty of laws/rules in effect for handling the Internet, yet how much of that was around in 1994? Back when only a tiny handful of US Citizens were using the World Wide Web? With drones, comes the questions on how best to use them. And hopefully those guidelines and laws are made by sensible, intelligent, and wise individuals. Rather than paranoid, schizophrenic, conservative types. Can a drone have a weapon attached to it? 'Yes', if part of "A well regulated militia....", i.e. law enforcement groups. Should we explore the commercial applications of drone technology for civilian use? Yes. Should we explore how to handle air traffic as it relates to drone usage? Of course. The folks in the ACLU understand all of these things. You don't apparently!

RemoteUser -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 3:40:54 PM)
I think this should be viewed in simpler terms. I do not want to visit New York, and be shot to death by a machine that swoops out of the sky, as collateral damage. When drones are made available on American soil, people are going to leave, because a potential, fully armed executioner could blast them apart for no good reason whatsoever. Think Judge Dredd and Robocop; then ask yourself what purpose drones serve. If they become fully automated, things will only get worse. I would like to say that drone use is going to be curtailed, but I don't think that's how this is all going to play out.

PeonForHer -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 3:48:50 PM)
It's not going to happen, RU. Pakistani tribesmen in remote areas don't matter because they're not proper humans. They live far away, are the wrong colour, wear weird clothes, don't speak English and aren't Christians. They probably don't even eat good honest food like McDonalds and a suspiciously large proportion of them aren't obese. All Americans, on the other hand, obviously are proper people. Nobody's going to countenance drone attacks on Americans in the USA.

Musicmystery -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 3:51:31 PM)
What about the UK drone program? http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/un-investigates-us/510156a978c90a6ae00001b1

Musicmystery -> RE: The blow back from targeted drone attacks (7/9/2014 3:52:40 PM)
Or the UN drone program? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/05/un-drones

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875