9 ms·

Wait, ANOTHER wedding? Didn't we do this a year or two ago also? We just wiped out 15 completely innocent people? Destroying their lives and their families for

by ck2 13y ago

Wait, ANOTHER wedding? Didn't we do this a year or two ago also? We just wiped out 15 completely innocent people? Destroying their lives and their families forever? Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? Shut down all armed drones. Review the entire use of them from top to bottom. This isn't a video game, there is no do-over.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
Difficulty level of jamming the HF uplink Predator and Global Hawk drones use? EDIT: 5 minutes with Google: http://uscrow.org/2013/08/05/how-to-kill-predator-drones-uavs/ http://uscrow.org/2013/08/05/how-to-kill-predator-drones-uav... "Predator Drone UAVs communicate with line of sight radio in Mil C-Band 500-1000 MHz. Communication between the UAV Operator and the Predator Drone, which can be jammed with a spark-gap (the space between electrical terminals that allows for the transient discharge pass) radio. A spark-gap transmitter is a device for generating radio frequency and electromagnetic waves using a spark gap. Surprisingly, 90% of all military ops are performed using C-Band." "If you weren’t paying attention, this means the predator drones utilize the same commercial civilian technology used to transmit television signals. Using simple commercial equipment such as Skygrabber you can jam the communications, blinding the operator and sending a signal to the UAV to return back to base or engage a holding pattern until retrieved. This entirely assumes the SSAAS system hasn’t been fully implemented highlighted in the article previously mentioned. You can read more about Skygrabber by clicking here." The insanity of nonchalant accidental drone killings of foreign nationals has got to stop.
MrZongle2 13y ago
Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? After the events of the last year, I don't have that much trouble imagining the US government doing that in a US city.
- agravier 13y ago
  It would be better accepted. The same way as the murder of a X citizen by another X citizen would be less of a fuss than the murder of a X-ian by a Y-ian.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Yes, no conceptual leap at all between the NSA getting U.S. communications caught up in filters targeted for foreigners and the military just blowing up people in U.S. cities. No fucking difference at all.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    Our government seems to be fine with willfully disregarding the 4th Amendment. What makes you think that it's such a great conceptual leap to the point where they disregard the 5th (due process)? They've already applied it to American citizens outside the country, if they're in the company of known terrorists. Ten years ago, twenty years ago, the scope of the NSA's constitutional violations would have been unthinkable. Now look where we are. If you can't conceive of such a "leap", that's your problem. It's hardly outrageous to worry about such things now.
- joering2 13y ago
  For now Bush does not travel by public planes, because of some places like Switzerland he [1] can be persecuted for war /torture crimes. If US forces truly invade Iraq to bring justice and democracy, then let's hope one day Iraqiis government will succeed in building that. And send a justified drone after Bush. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-to...
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    Persecuted? Or prosecuted? Because if we were to apply the laws, rules used at the Nuremburg trials, every US President from WWII onwards, Truman included, could be charged: 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace 3. War crimes 4. Crimes against humanity
MartinCron 13y ago
Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? You've just stepped into that intellectual minefield that's called "American Exceptionalism". Enjoy your stay.
- pekk 13y ago
  "American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be)
  - nfg 13y ago
    What does it mean then?
    - keiferski 13y ago
      It refers to the belief that Americans as a people are specially suited for doing things exceptionally.
      - basch 13y ago
        american exceptionalism generally refers to the state and its machine not the people.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > "American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be) The term was first used by Stalin to describe and condemn the position of the prominent voice in the Communist Party of the United States of America about how, precisely, the US was an exception to the rule of inevitability of revolution. While usage has shifted in terms of exactly what rule is at issue, what you reject is exactly what American Exceptionalism has always meant. (The idea of "American Exceptionalism", though not the term itself, is generally tied back to an older quote [EDIT: by de Toqueville -- not sure how I missed including that originally] in which particular traits were identified which made America exceptional as opposed to being an example through which democratic nations in general should be viewed -- or, IOW, that America broke rather than made the rules for democracies. Which, while from a different perspective than Stalin's use of the term, also is an instance of America being an exception to rules.)
lmkg 13y ago
> Wait, ANOTHER wedding? Didn't we do this a year or two ago also? More than that. I remember quite a few news reports of weddings in Pakistan being hit. On the flip side, I've also heard the authenticity of those reports called into question. If a Taliban lieutenant and his posse are drone-struck, the local warlord can claim it was a peaceful civilian wedding and score some PR points. I'm not justifying it, mind you. Commoditization of lethal force is something that scares me. I'm just pointing out the fog of war is particularly thick in that region.
- Crito 13y ago
  > "On the flip side, I've also heard the authenticity of those reports called into question. If a Taliban lieutenant and his posse are drone-struck, the local warlord can claim it was a peaceful civilian wedding and score some PR points." Either way, for some purposes it does not matter. Either the surviving community members are being lied to and told the victims were civilians, or the victims really were civilians, but in both cases they walk away with the notion that America is blowing up civilians. That is how you "make more terrorists". If America wants to avoid getting caught in that sort of situation, they need to make it seem implausible that that they were involved. As long as America is droning 'baddies', the possibility that they are nailing some civilians too remains.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Shut down all armed drones. Before drones, we did the same thing with cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, special forces raids, etc., etc., etc. The particular weapon isn't the issue.
andrewfong 13y ago
> Shut down all armed drones. Review the entire use of them from top to bottom. This isn't a video game, there is no do-over. To be clear, this isn't a "drone" problem per so, so much as an "airpower" one. There have been plenty of incidents where the use of manned aircraft have resulted in similar (probably) inadvertent civilian casualties -- e.g. the AH-64 attack depicted in the "Collateral Murder" video or the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, not to mention all of the incidents during the Vietnam War and WW2. There has historically been a trade-off between risk to military personnel and civilian casualties. Ironically, the best way of reducing that trade off probably involves more robots, albeit ones that gives the military options other than "shoot" and "let potential militant get away".
- downer89 13y ago
  Consider the idea that reducing risk to military personnel actually provokes a steep increase in the propensity to indiscriminately wipe out civilians, simply because the fear of any consequence has been mitigated. So as you approach zero risk, the occurence of applied lethal force accelerates on a curve toward an asymptote.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Is that theory supported by any evidence? My guess is that under Obama and drones, fewer civilians have been accidentally killed then under say Clinton and cruise missiles.
    - downer89 13y ago
      This isn't a theory specific to the premise of drones. It's a natural human tendency. It's why school-yard bullies exist. In the absence of an principled, ethical personality, the discovery of impunity, combined with any obvious benefit obtained by way of abuse precipitates unrestrained abuse. A greedy person that can get away with something will act in favor of obtaining an object of desire.
- kubiiii 13y ago
  Reducing the military risk to zero while the civilian risk persists (even if it may be lower) does not appear to be fair from the (surviving) civilian POV. I am not saying that US should have its kids been killed in battlefield, but should pay the proper price for accidentally killing civilians. That means $, excuses, explanations, not total blackout on the topic.
chc 13y ago
Is it worse when a drone follows orders and does this than when a fighter pilot follows orders and does this?
winfred 13y ago
>Wait, ANOTHER wedding? Didn't we do this a year or two ago also? There is a reason for that. The locals use the US as their weapon of revenge. So if one family has an ongoing argument with another family and one of them is throwing a wedding, the other family reports it as an Al Quaida meeting. Often these family conflicts have lasted for years already and likely more people died in the past (not by drones) So it was a successful hit, you know, just not for the party that shot off the actual hardware.
- dsuth 13y ago
  Do you have any kind of source for that?
  - winfred 13y ago
    The book "War" by Sebastian Junger. I don't know the page but that doesn't matter, it is a good book.James Galbraith - The Predator State maybe a bit. Oh and Andrés Reséndez - A Land So Strange - The Epic Journey of Cabeza de Vaca of course!! Robert Dallek - Nixon and Kissinger - Partners in Power (2007), Epic of Gilgamesh, Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene, Niel Strauss - The Game. That about covers it. It took me about an hour to compose the list, the main point it brings across is a very nuanced understanding of what it is to be human, described by the people that often have experienced the what they write about. since I'm the composer, I think it might help to mention that I am rated near genius (just as a rough measure - I know it has downsides - however in my case I far exceed my actual score due to some other knobs and whistles I came pre-equiped with). You're welcome. Cunt. :P
X4 13y ago
Isn't that illegal? Or is that legal, because there is officially war between American and Yemen? (serious) I thought the legal implications of terminating people from a foreign country remotely is either an act of aggression or already war, depending on how the affected political party sees it. So either it means: a) America would have to pay for the losses and families. b) Yemen and America are in war. c) Yemen capitulated against America. Otherwise I don't understand. :-/ (Sorry, if someone feels that this is too logical, non-emotional. I'm of course, against killing and drone attacks.)
- joering2 13y ago
  or d) Nobody is big/strong/"stupid" enough to fuck with US.. at least not officially to start a war - so US can do whatever they want.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

by ck2 13y ago

toomuchtodo 13y ago

Difficulty level of jamming the HF uplink Predator and Global Hawk drones use? EDIT: 5 minutes with Google: http://uscrow.org/2013/08/05/how-to-kill-predator-drones-uavs/ http://uscrow.org/2013/08/05/how-to-kill-predator-drones-uav... "Predator Drone UAVs communicate with line of sight radio in Mil C-Band 500-1000 MHz. Communication between the UAV Operator and the Predator Drone, which can be jammed with a spark-gap (the space between electrical terminals that allows for the transient discharge pass) radio. A spark-gap transmitter is a device for generating radio frequency and electromagnetic waves using a spark gap. Surprisingly, 90% of all military ops are performed using C-Band." "If you weren’t paying attention, this means the predator drones utilize the same commercial civilian technology used to transmit television signals. Using simple commercial equipment such as Skygrabber you can jam the communications, blinding the operator and sending a signal to the UAV to return back to base or engage a holding pattern until retrieved. This entirely assumes the SSAAS system hasn’t been fully implemented highlighted in the article previously mentioned. You can read more about Skygrabber by clicking here." The insanity of nonchalant accidental drone killings of foreign nationals has got to stop.

MrZongle2 13y ago

Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? After the events of the last year, I don't have that much trouble imagining the US government doing that in a US city.

agravier 13y ago
It would be better accepted. The same way as the murder of a X citizen by another X citizen would be less of a fuss than the murder of a X-ian by a Y-ian.
rayiner 13y ago
Yes, no conceptual leap at all between the NSA getting U.S. communications caught up in filters targeted for foreigners and the military just blowing up people in U.S. cities. No fucking difference at all.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Our government seems to be fine with willfully disregarding the 4th Amendment. What makes you think that it's such a great conceptual leap to the point where they disregard the 5th (due process)? They've already applied it to American citizens outside the country, if they're in the company of known terrorists. Ten years ago, twenty years ago, the scope of the NSA's constitutional violations would have been unthinkable. Now look where we are. If you can't conceive of such a "leap", that's your problem. It's hardly outrageous to worry about such things now.
joering2 13y ago
For now Bush does not travel by public planes, because of some places like Switzerland he [1] can be persecuted for war /torture crimes. If US forces truly invade Iraq to bring justice and democracy, then let's hope one day Iraqiis government will succeed in building that. And send a justified drone after Bush. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-torture_n_819175.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bush-switzerland-to...
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  Persecuted? Or prosecuted? Because if we were to apply the laws, rules used at the Nuremburg trials, every US President from WWII onwards, Truman included, could be charged: 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace 3. War crimes 4. Crimes against humanity

MartinCron 13y ago

Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? You've just stepped into that intellectual minefield that's called "American Exceptionalism". Enjoy your stay.

pekk 13y ago
"American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be)
- nfg 13y ago
  What does it mean then?
  - keiferski 13y ago
    It refers to the belief that Americans as a people are specially suited for doing things exceptionally.
    - basch 13y ago
      american exceptionalism generally refers to the state and its machine not the people.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > "American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be) The term was first used by Stalin to describe and condemn the position of the prominent voice in the Communist Party of the United States of America about how, precisely, the US was an exception to the rule of inevitability of revolution. While usage has shifted in terms of exactly what rule is at issue, what you reject is exactly what American Exceptionalism has always meant. (The idea of "American Exceptionalism", though not the term itself, is generally tied back to an older quote [EDIT: by de Toqueville -- not sure how I missed including that originally] in which particular traits were identified which made America exceptional as opposed to being an example through which democratic nations in general should be viewed -- or, IOW, that America broke rather than made the rules for democracies. Which, while from a different perspective than Stalin's use of the term, also is an instance of America being an exception to rules.)

lmkg 13y ago

> Wait, ANOTHER wedding? Didn't we do this a year or two ago also? More than that. I remember quite a few news reports of weddings in Pakistan being hit. On the flip side, I've also heard the authenticity of those reports called into question. If a Taliban lieutenant and his posse are drone-struck, the local warlord can claim it was a peaceful civilian wedding and score some PR points. I'm not justifying it, mind you. Commoditization of lethal force is something that scares me. I'm just pointing out the fog of war is particularly thick in that region.

Crito 13y ago
> "On the flip side, I've also heard the authenticity of those reports called into question. If a Taliban lieutenant and his posse are drone-struck, the local warlord can claim it was a peaceful civilian wedding and score some PR points." Either way, for some purposes it does not matter. Either the surviving community members are being lied to and told the victims were civilians, or the victims really were civilians, but in both cases they walk away with the notion that America is blowing up civilians. That is how you "make more terrorists". If America wants to avoid getting caught in that sort of situation, they need to make it seem implausible that that they were involved. As long as America is droning 'baddies', the possibility that they are nailing some civilians too remains.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Shut down all armed drones. Before drones, we did the same thing with cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, special forces raids, etc., etc., etc. The particular weapon isn't the issue.

andrewfong 13y ago

> Shut down all armed drones. Review the entire use of them from top to bottom. This isn't a video game, there is no do-over. To be clear, this isn't a "drone" problem per so, so much as an "airpower" one. There have been plenty of incidents where the use of manned aircraft have resulted in similar (probably) inadvertent civilian casualties -- e.g. the AH-64 attack depicted in the "Collateral Murder" video or the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, not to mention all of the incidents during the Vietnam War and WW2. There has historically been a trade-off between risk to military personnel and civilian casualties. Ironically, the best way of reducing that trade off probably involves more robots, albeit ones that gives the military options other than "shoot" and "let potential militant get away".

downer89 13y ago
Consider the idea that reducing risk to military personnel actually provokes a steep increase in the propensity to indiscriminately wipe out civilians, simply because the fear of any consequence has been mitigated. So as you approach zero risk, the occurence of applied lethal force accelerates on a curve toward an asymptote.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Is that theory supported by any evidence? My guess is that under Obama and drones, fewer civilians have been accidentally killed then under say Clinton and cruise missiles.
  - downer89 13y ago
    This isn't a theory specific to the premise of drones. It's a natural human tendency. It's why school-yard bullies exist. In the absence of an principled, ethical personality, the discovery of impunity, combined with any obvious benefit obtained by way of abuse precipitates unrestrained abuse. A greedy person that can get away with something will act in favor of obtaining an object of desire.
kubiiii 13y ago
Reducing the military risk to zero while the civilian risk persists (even if it may be lower) does not appear to be fair from the (surviving) civilian POV. I am not saying that US should have its kids been killed in battlefield, but should pay the proper price for accidentally killing civilians. That means $, excuses, explanations, not total blackout on the topic.

chc 13y ago

Is it worse when a drone follows orders and does this than when a fighter pilot follows orders and does this?

winfred 13y ago

>Wait, ANOTHER wedding? Didn't we do this a year or two ago also? There is a reason for that. The locals use the US as their weapon of revenge. So if one family has an ongoing argument with another family and one of them is throwing a wedding, the other family reports it as an Al Quaida meeting. Often these family conflicts have lasted for years already and likely more people died in the past (not by drones) So it was a successful hit, you know, just not for the party that shot off the actual hardware.

dsuth 13y ago
Do you have any kind of source for that?
- winfred 13y ago
  The book "War" by Sebastian Junger. I don't know the page but that doesn't matter, it is a good book.James Galbraith - The Predator State maybe a bit. Oh and Andrés Reséndez - A Land So Strange - The Epic Journey of Cabeza de Vaca of course!! Robert Dallek - Nixon and Kissinger - Partners in Power (2007), Epic of Gilgamesh, Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene, Niel Strauss - The Game. That about covers it. It took me about an hour to compose the list, the main point it brings across is a very nuanced understanding of what it is to be human, described by the people that often have experienced the what they write about. since I'm the composer, I think it might help to mention that I am rated near genius (just as a rough measure - I know it has downsides - however in my case I far exceed my actual score due to some other knobs and whistles I came pre-equiped with). You're welcome. Cunt. :P

X4 13y ago

Isn't that illegal? Or is that legal, because there is officially war between American and Yemen? (serious) I thought the legal implications of terminating people from a foreign country remotely is either an act of aggression or already war, depending on how the affected political party sees it. So either it means: a) America would have to pay for the losses and families. b) Yemen and America are in war. c) Yemen capitulated against America. Otherwise I don't understand. :-/ (Sorry, if someone feels that this is too logical, non-emotional. I'm of course, against killing and drone attacks.)

joering2 13y ago
or d) Nobody is big/strong/"stupid" enough to fuck with US.. at least not officially to start a war - so US can do whatever they want.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]