5 ms·

Whenever I hear something about US drone Strikes I always think how long until the other side starts getting drones developed and and easy way to mass produce t

• gonvaled 10y ago
  Which of course is the only bad thing about drone strikes, right? That they could ever hit the "right guys"? Who cares that hundreds of innocent civilians are killed, if they are not american citizens? Disgusting, really. EDIT, for the downvoters you'll have to justify what in my comment you do not like. The parent is making the case that what worries him/her is that drone strikes will eventually be used to attack american targets, and by implication suggesting that the current targets are not really something to worry about. Or he/she is at least suggesting that is not as serious, since what he really is worried about are american targets. Which, if you ask me, is a very widespread opinion, thus my comment.
  • spacecowboy_lon 10y ago
    Compered to the previous method of carpet bombing?
    • gonvaled 10y ago
      Who is comparing what to carpet bombing? My comment is directly referring to the fact that american targets are something that worries the parent, but foreign targets (civilians) seem to not worry him/her that much. What do carpet bombs have to do with all this?
      • spacecowboy_lon 10y ago
        Its how before drones and smart munitions they used to use air power to attack targets - luckily my father was out of the house when the Luftwaffe bombed it in WW2 - House was close to the biggest spitfire plant in the UK.
  • Fuxy 10y ago
    No if that ever happens i would just think karma is a bitch. I'm not a US citizen and I don't agree with the use of drones if even one civilian get hurt by it. What's the point of precision strikes if you're still get innocent people involved.
    • gonvaled 10y ago
      > No if that ever happens i would just think karma is a bitch. Don't follow you. > I'm not a US citizen ... You still seem to be specially worried that drones will target "US persons of interest", which is what my comment was highlighting. I do not care a little bit more about drones targeting "US persons of interest" than they targeting innocent civilians. Actually, I might care less, since "innocent civilian" by definition is a person with no responsibility whatsoever in a conflict, and that connotation is not lexically present in the phrase "US person of interest".
      • Fuxy 10y ago
        See this is where you're wrong I'm no worried. You need to see it from my point of view as an outside observer. They only thing determining the side I choose being my sense of morality no self interest involved at all.
  • rottyguy 10y ago
    Black and white decisions are a luxury that not all people are afforded. Yes it's terrible that innocent lives are lost but it's at least equally terrible, many would argue even more so, that innocent lives of your clan are lost. For many decisions outside the obvious, it is often the case that you're selecting from a pool of bad choices.
    • gonvaled 10y ago
      > Black and white decisions are a luxury that not all people are afforded. Specially if you are in a hurry for dinner with your pals and you need to press that "yes, do drone strike" button in your mobile phone while you are getting dressed, even though you never heard about this "Abdulah" guy whose photograph you are seeing in the screen right now, but he is unshaven and looks dirty, and is not looking friendly to the camera, so yes, please just strike, and could I have fries with that, please? > innocent lives of your clan are lost No, there are right things, and wrong things, no matter what members of what clan they affect. Repeat with me: all human lives have exactly the same value.
      • rottyguy 10y ago
        I assure you not everyone shares your opinion (as not everyone shares mine). I'll just state there are lots of inconvenient truths in life and, until, you encounter them, you may not fully understand. The trick is to realize the possibility and not hold an absolute stance when in discussion. We are always learning.
        • gonvaled 10y ago
          > I assure you not everyone shares your opinion (as not everyone shares mine) I know. And the only thing I would like from you american leaders is to state this openly: we are only interested in defending our way of life, with wherever means it takes. This is what is happening all around the world right now, but you are hypocritically pretending that you are trying to uphold an specially pure moral standard in your multiple conflicts around the world. That's something going for Trump: he does not seem to be hypocritical.
  • kristiandupont 10y ago
    >and by implication suggesting that the current targets are not really something to worry about I didn't downvote you, but this is your extrapolation and doesn't necessarily imply what you suggest it does. And I am guessing that some people downvoted you because they dislike the idea that you have to add disclaimers to every statement in order not to expose yourself to judgements like yours.
    • gonvaled 10y ago
      He is technically wondering how long until the first strike hits the US. He is highlighting the risk that the use of drones can get out of control. Sorry, but he is implying that the fact that currently so many innocent civilians are being killed is not as worrisome. That's what I read: "look what horrible things could happen in the future". It could be that he is not really implying that, but this is what I read, and I think that this is an extremely widespread opinion, specially among american citizens. If he is not implying that, sorry but I need a disclaimer. That's what disclaimers are for: to clarify formulations which are not obvious.
  • imgabe 10y ago
    Showing concern for one group of people does not imply a lack of concern for another group. You're drawing conclusions that are not supported by the original comment and being needlessly antagonistic. That's why you're getting downvoted.
    • gonvaled 10y ago
      Sorry but western media (of which this forum is a subset, whether you like or not), is strangely always extremely affected by all attacks performed against western targets, but usually completely oblivious to the attacks that western powers are performing on foreign targets, usually civilians. This does not look to me like it "does not imply a lack of concern for another group". Once is ok, twice is ok, but whenever you see that "not lacking concern for another group" actually means "not giving a sxxt about them, because they are just second class people and who the hell knows where they live anyway", sorry but I need to point it out. Because being good on paper means nothing if you are actually pulling the trigger like a madman all around the world.
      • imgabe 10y ago
        The commenter you were replying to, as far as I know, is not a professional journalist and does not represent "western media". This is a private individual making a salient observation about the risks of low-tech drone weapons. I'm not disagreeing that all civilian deaths are a reason to be concerned, but you're coming out of left field and injecting your personal crusade to a completely unrelated comment thread. Make a new top-level comment with your view if that's the point you want to make instead of picking a fight with people who are talking about something else entirely.
        • gonvaled 10y ago
          We in the west are so convinced that we are speking from high ground, that we go to the extreme to conflate western citizens with "high value people". We are thus not really worried about what happens to the rest of humankind: we are good, and drones are killing some people somewhere, imagine how horrible if the bad guys came to the idea of using drones to kill us good people. That is just horrible! And you missed this part: this forum is a part of western media. The expressed opinion is not an isolated one, is an extremely widespread one. Call it media, or call it western society, the fact is that it is not a personal opinion: we value the life of "interesting american person" above the life of civilian bystanders in irak, and that is a reflection of what society we are living in. You call it misplaced rant, I call it pointing a very big fault of our collective opinion, one which is so intrinsically part of our nature that we are even unable to recognize it by what it is: a despicable lack of humanity.
  • return0 10y ago
    > you'll have to justify what in my comment you do not like. <rant> Off topic, but i see this line over and over all the time lately. Nobody has to justify anything. I get downvoted all the time, and would never dream to complain about it. We can disagree without being confrontational/preachy. </rant>
    • Veratyr 10y ago
      > I get downvoted all the time, and would never dream to complain about it. We can disagree without being confrontational/preachy. Aren't up/downvotes meant to reflect whether a comment contributes to discussion? Up/downvoting things based on whether or not people agree on them would turn this into a Reddit-like echo chamber.
      • lewisl9029 10y ago
        Ideally that's what I'd like to see as well, but in practice, downvotes are used overwhelmingly to express disagreement here, with little regards for the quality of the actual post. I'd love to see something in the official guidelines to discourage this toxic behavior.
• spacecowboy_lon 10y ago
  Well Deash and Al Queda don't seem to have much ability to get the good explosives required for that - Compare them to the PIRA and UDF during the troubles. I am surprised that they haven't tried the sort of improvised mortars the the IRA used an almost hit the Cabinet at no 10
  • kkarakk 10y ago
    just make a heavy enuff drone and stick glass/shrapnel on it with lighter fluid in it. fly it into the person you want dead and ignite. being near drones freaks me out
  • dogma1138 10y ago
    They don't need to improvise mortars, ISIS is riding on captured M1A1's and has access to pretty decent soviet and western arms including ATGM's and AA. Both AQ and ISIS and virtually any other terrorist organization in the world has access to pretty much "state of the art" arms the limit is usually lies in logistical operation not inaccessibility, look at the arm shipments that the Israelis have captures at sea over the years those included radar guided anti-ship missiles, terminally guided rockets, and Strela GTAM's. Compared to that getting good explosive is easy, you can buy military grade explosive on the civilian market for demolition C4, PETN and RDX are commonly used for suicide vests and IEDs nothing ever stopped anyone from stuffing an RC plane with them and run it into the white house other than intelligence and perimeter security.
    • spacecowboy_lon 10y ago
      So why did 7/7 use diy explosive?
      • dogma1138 10y ago
        The attackers of 7/7 used TATP which you can make if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry, you can also make RDX and PETN and even C4 at "home", this isn't "diy" explosives that kids make by mixing fertilizer and sugar over a hot plate, this is very potent stuff that requires quite a bit of expertise and experience to make. Because the UK might have stricter control over it? Because the attack was less funded? Hamas never had issues of manufacturing PETN and C4 for it's suicide vests. The brussels attackers used very high quality / commercial grade TATP and HMDT. BTW one of the main reasons to use peroxide based explosives like TATP and HMDT is because most "explosive detectors" look for a few specific signatures. TATP decomposes into hydrogen peroxide and acetone both of which are very common in cosmetics and various cleaning products which is a big problem as it would sound the alarm for every woman that just had her nails or hair done, so while it's technically not hard to detect practically it's virtually impossible to do so effectively unless you are screening very specific items. P.S. To anyone who've read this post welcome to the watch list :)
• ape4 10y ago
  By then we'll have anti-drone drones.
• return0 10y ago
  > easy way to mass produce them and smuggle them into the US assemble them and start launching drone strikes from within the US on US persons of interest like politicians and CIA officials Terrorists are a form of those drones.
• tremon 10y ago
  it's only a matter a time someone start using them as assassination tools Then how would you say they're used now?
• wslh 10y ago
  Drones are already being used by Hamas [1] and Hezbollah [2] and intelligence companies the problem is how to smuggle advanced UAV on US territory. [1] http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.605140?v=2AC06C74B24266C04F20662B7C816864 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.605... [2] http://www.haaretz.com/report-iran-admits-supplying-hezbollah-with-eight-drones-1.139916 http://www.haaretz.com/report-iran-admits-supplying-hezbolla...