Amnesty International drone report

This too shall pass.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Ibrahim »

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 49913.html
Malala and Nabila: worlds apart
Unlike Malala Yousafzai, Nabila Rehman did not receive a welcoming greeting in Washington DC.

On October 24, 2012 a Predator drone flying over North Waziristan came upon eight-year old Nabila Rehman, her siblings, and their grandmother as they worked in a field beside their village home. Her grandmother, Momina Bibi, was teaching the children how to pick okra as the family prepared for the coming Eid holiday. However on this day the terrible event would occur that would forever alter the course of this family's life. In the sky the children suddenly heard the distinctive buzzing sound emitted by the CIA-operated drones - a familiar sound to those in the rural Pakistani villages which are stalked by them 24 hours a day - followed by two loud clicks. The unmanned aircraft released its deadly payload onto the Rehman family, and in an instant the lives of these children were transformed into a nightmare of pain, confusion and terror. Seven children were wounded, and Nabila's grandmother was killed before her eyes, an act for which no apology, explanation or justification has ever been given.

This past week Nabila, her schoolteacher father, and her 12-year-old brother travelled to Washington DC to tell their story and to seek answers about the events of that day. However, despite overcoming incredible obstacles in order to travel from their remote village to the United States, Nabila and her family were roundly ignored. At the Congressional hearing where they gave testimony, only five out of 430 representatives showed up. In the words of Nabila's father to those few who did attend: "My daughter does not have the face of a terrorist and neither did my mother. It just doesn't make sense to me, why this happened… as a teacher, I wanted to educate Americans and let them know my children have been injured."

The translator broke down in tears while recounting their story, but the government made it a point to snub this family and ignore the tragedy it had caused to them. Nabila, a slight girl of nine with striking hazel eyes, asked a simple question in her testimony: "What did my grandmother do wrong?" There was no one to answer this question, and few who cared to even listen. Symbolic of the utter contempt in which the government holds the people it claims to be liberating, while the Rehmans recounted their plight, Barack Obama was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Doc »

Obama: "I am really good at killing people"

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2354
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Hoosiernorm »

You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
Been busy doing stuff
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Doc »

http://rt.com/usa/us-drones-internal-use-419/
FAA proposes widespread civilian drone use in US airspace by 2015
Published time: November 08, 2013 12:25
Edited time: November 10, 2013 12:44
Get short URL

John Moore / Getty Images / AFP
Download video (16.15 MB)
Share on tumblr

Tags
Drones, Gayane Chichakyan, Human rights, Information Technology, Intelligence, Thabang Motsei, USA

US authorities have presented a plan for the mass use of drones in American airspace. Though there have been few objections to the move so far, a global government surveillance drone program is likely to raise privacy concerns later on.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has presented a detailed plan for drones to roam across American skies within the next two years.

The plan sets September 2015 as a deadline for integrating UAVs into US airspace, and six possible drone test sites will be selected out of 26 proposed ones by the end of 2013.

The move has been continuously lobbied by the trade group Aerospace Industries Association, which expects great demand for civilian-use drones, including for agriculture, firefighting, weather forecast and tracking wildlife.

Within the next five years, after appropriate regulations are introduced, whole 7,500 small UAVs will be operating in US airspace, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said at an aerospace news conference in Washington on Thursday.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Enki »

Hoosiernorm wrote:You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
We are about 5 years away from open-source combat robots. Sure the government will stay a step ahead technologically, but hey, goatherders with handmade AKs hold their own against the Marines.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Doc »

Enki wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
We are about 5 years away from open-source combat robots. Sure the government will stay a step ahead technologically, but hey, goatherders with handmade AKs hold their own against the Marines.

If the Marines are kind enough to put their fire base in the low point of the valley where the goat herders can shoot down at them from above Sure.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Enki wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
We are about 5 years away from open-source combat robots. Sure the government will stay a step ahead technologically, but hey, goatherders with handmade AKs hold their own against the Marines.

If the Marines are kind enough to put their fire base in the low point of the valley where the goat herders can shoot down at them from above Sure.
Hey, as long as you know why you lost.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Enki wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
We are about 5 years away from open-source combat robots. Sure the government will stay a step ahead technologically, but hey, goatherders with handmade AKs hold their own against the Marines.

If the Marines are kind enough to put their fire base in the low point of the valley where the goat herders can shoot down at them from above Sure.
Hey, as long as you know why you lost.
What do you suppose the US was trying to "win"

Hint:

nTLIS6oOuRY
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Enki wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
We are about 5 years away from open-source combat robots. Sure the government will stay a step ahead technologically, but hey, goatherders with handmade AKs hold their own against the Marines.

If the Marines are kind enough to put their fire base in the low point of the valley where the goat herders can shoot down at them from above Sure.
Hey, as long as you know why you lost.
What do you suppose the US was trying to "win"
1. Defeat the Taliban and allow a more conventional government to replace it.

2. Reprisal against al Qaeda, who were based on Afghanistan at the time.

3. Reduce the global threat of terrorism by removing a base of operations for training.


2. was mostly a success, 1. has held as long as 100's of 1000's of US troops were there to support it, 3. was a total failure. Also, throughout the war the US military has destroyed its international reputation to an extent unprecedented since Vietnam, if not worse. Then there is the cost in US lives to death or injury, then the cost in dollars, and finally the cost in non-American lives, which is not something that concerns many people.

So cumulatively it looks like a failure/loss/defeat, or however you want to phrase it.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Enki wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:You would think that secondary market utilization would drive better field operations for drones. If there were a better civilian market for the technology it would compel drone manufacturers to make a vehicle that operated more efficiently. If it can't fly missions over whereeverstan with any degree of operational success then how will it fly airplanes full of products and goods? If it runs over civilians then how can we let it drive down our streets? If it can't gather intelligence and pin point targets then why is it being used? Is it being used the way we want it to operate?
We are about 5 years away from open-source combat robots. Sure the government will stay a step ahead technologically, but hey, goatherders with handmade AKs hold their own against the Marines.

If the Marines are kind enough to put their fire base in the low point of the valley where the goat herders can shoot down at them from above Sure.
Hey, as long as you know why you lost.
What do you suppose the US was trying to "win"
1. Defeat the Taliban and allow a more conventional government to replace it.

2. Reprisal against al Qaeda, who were based on Afghanistan at the time.

3. Reduce the global threat of terrorism by removing a base of operations for training.


2. was mostly a success, 1. has held as long as 100's of 1000's of US troops were there to support it, 3. was a total failure. Also, throughout the war the US military has destroyed its international reputation to an extent unprecedented since Vietnam, if not worse. Then there is the cost in US lives to death or injury, then the cost in dollars, and finally the cost in non-American lives, which is not something that concerns many people.

So cumulatively it looks like a failure/loss/defeat, or however you want to phrase it.
1)Why would defeating the Taliban be a goal worthy of calling their destruct a win? They did not attack the US on 911 radical Islam did.
2) Reprisal against Idea is not a win. Killing or convincing all of them to stop killing others is. By making it very hard for members of Al Qaeda to live and taking away any basis for their "demands" by giving the Arab world a different vision of how to govern themselves(DONE). (It is not possible to give them a different type of government only to give the vision) And alternately make the US non dependent on ME Oil(DONE). that is a win. And don't tell me it was the Palistinian/Israeli conflict. Bin Laden never even mention that. He wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia as his demand.
3)As I recall no one in history has actually conquered Afghanistan. At least not for very long. The real problem in that part of the world was coming out of Pakistan from the ISI. All that could be accomplished in Afghanistan was to kill as many members of Al Qaeda as possible when they were concentrated there. Something that was not done particularly well.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Amnesty International drone report

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote: What do you suppose the US was trying to "win"
1. Defeat the Taliban and allow a more conventional government to replace it.

2. Reprisal against al Qaeda, who were based on Afghanistan at the time.

3. Reduce the global threat of terrorism by removing a base of operations for training.


2. was mostly a success, 1. has held as long as 100's of 1000's of US troops were there to support it, 3. was a total failure. Also, throughout the war the US military has destroyed its international reputation to an extent unprecedented since Vietnam, if not worse. Then there is the cost in US lives to death or injury, then the cost in dollars, and finally the cost in non-American lives, which is not something that concerns many people.

So cumulatively it looks like a failure/loss/defeat, or however you want to phrase it.
1)Why would defeating the Taliban be a goal worthy of calling their destruct a win? They did not attack the US on 911 radical Islam did.
"Radical Islam" is a concept, not an organization. Al Qaeda (the original version) orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda was given sanctuary and some modest support from the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

2) Reprisal against Idea is not a win.
It was a reprisal against a country that sheltered an organization.
Killing or convincing all of them to stop killing others is. By making it very hard for members of Al Qaeda to live and taking away any basis for their "demands" by giving the Arab world a different vision of how to govern themselves(DONE).
Are you aware that Afghans are not Arabs? In any case all US invasions proved to Afghan, Iraqis, and the rest of the world is that US soldiers are torturers, rapists, and murderers. And they occasionally hand out candy and are nice to people, but everyone remembers that from WW2. The torture/rape/murder was a new addition to the reputation of the US military, and one that most people remember. Moreso than they remember puppet regimes.

And alternately make the US non dependent on ME Oil(DONE)
Why did given KBR and Halliburton billions in no-bit contracts to repair and develop the Iraqi oil industry help to make America "non-dependant on ME oil," which is a nonsensical claim anyway because your entire economy is entirely dependent on ME oil, simple to stabilize prices. And in any case increasing domestic production didn't require a trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq.


And don't tell me it was the Palistinian/Israeli conflict. Bin Laden never even mention that. He wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia as his demand.
Who brought this up in this context? i'm aware of what Bin Laden said about his motivations for organizing attacks against the US were.

3)As I recall no one in history has actually conquered Afghanistan.
Yup. Add yourselves to the list.

All that could be accomplished in Afghanistan was to kill as many members of Al Qaeda as possible when they were concentrated there. Something that was not done particularly well.
Actually a huge percentage of the AQ members living in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion were killed. It was the ongoing occupation, and constant killing of Afghan civilians as well as local fighters, some of whom didn't particularly care about politics beyond the fact that foreigners had invaded their country, that guaranteed failure.

Should have left after four months and called it a huge success. I've said that for years.
Post Reply