5 ms·
>Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. Anywhere I can find info on this?
by rscoots 5y ago
>Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.
Anywhere I can find info on this?
- sp332 5y agohttps://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-failed-afghan-drone-campaign-against-taliban https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa... This link was posted in another thread and seems to be the source that broke the news today.
- rscoots 5y agoYea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target". This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes. Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- detaro 5y agoYou could try to explain what you think the difference between > US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. and the policy described in the article is, attempting that will likely lead you to why you are downvoted.
- rscoots 5y ago1. The US did not make any sort of declaration 2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guidelines, as they could be a spotter. 3. They are not defacto a "target" as described above^, although that is what the poster claimed. The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.
- detaro 5y agothey said "a legitimate target", not "everyone was targeted".
- rscoots 5y agoThat's not the US military's position and the linked article doesn't even make that claim. (Had to wait since I was silently barred from posting due to 'karma'/downvotes. Not a great algo for public discussion imo, although I acknowledge this thread is now in the weeds. At the very least it should be made public and obvious that I cannot reply.)