It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US deploys drones 'against Americans'

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So how can you identify invisible chemtrails??


Spectroscopic analysis... if you happen to have access to one


Or get one of these...

BioLaz™ Real-Time Microbial Monitor

www.pmeasuring.com...

No CTer should be without one




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Is there anything on the market for the average joe that can detect when drones are near? Anyone know? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


UAV's in controlled airspace will require clearance just like any other aircraft - of course this doesn't help in many cases since most airspace is not controlled....but it is a start - you can monitor controlled airspace in the USA via flightaware.com... - I have not seen any drones on it yet, but I expect to see them there sooner or later.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So how can you identify invisible chemtrails??


Spectroscopic analysis... if you happen to have access to one


And important qualifier!




Or get one of these...

BioLaz™ Real-Time Microbial Monitor

www.pmeasuring.com...

No CTer should be without one


Sweet - but I bet they all are.....without one that is......

I look forward to seeing lots of results posted now you've advertised them....and asking chemmies how they seperated out the particles from the chemtrails from those that are dust from theirgardens and brake pads!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by americanbuffalo1
 


hahahahha shoot that bitch down and sell it on ebay hahahaha



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred it a smaller handheld drone to scope out the area?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred it a smaller handheld drone to scope out the area?


Eventually this will become this:

"They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred they risk officers lives instead of firing a single missile?"

And it will happen sooner than you think. I give it a year, tops.

And when people are put in the camps, some will say: "They were [insert scary sounding words] and charged with [insert political crime; now equated to low-level terrorism], would you rather they are out on the streets?"

And so it goes.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennylee
Is there anything on the market for the average joe that can detect when drones are near? Anyone know? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?


Go to a surplus store and pick up a "Man Portable Radar"

MSTAR

Man-portable Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar (MSTAR) provides long-range, wide-area surveillance and detection in an over-watch capability. The weight is about 30 kg.

www.navsea.navy.mil...

A little black ink but you get the idea


Spot em and has Target Acquisition built in
What more could you want



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
When I read things like this I'm not sure which emotion I feel the most, sad or pissed. I grew up in a very different America than the one my children are seeing. When I look to the future and imagine what it will be like 5, 10 or 20 years down the road, the ratio is 50/50. They seem to come up with more excuses every day to take away a bit more of our privacy and freedom. Those two words probably just got me on some watch list.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No, that would never happen. You don't see SWAT blowing the hell out of places now lacing the perimeter with C4 making the huge place a crater do you? Do they call in a airstrike now?

But I ask you again, would you rather have a handheld UAV keep surveillance on the area, instead of a full sized one? Or none at all and have no eyes on the situation?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla

No, that would never happen.


I used to say that about tasers: "American police will never use those implements of torture".

And about free speech zones: "That bill won't ever pass"

And torture: "Americans will never support torture"


Americans will eventually be killed with drones by their government. People will say they had it coming and pretend we are still free.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Laxpla
They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred it a smaller handheld drone to scope out the area?


Eventually this will become this:

"They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred they risk officers lives instead of firing a single missile?"


And what would be wrong with that??


Police already have guns - if you can take out an armed perp without risking anyone else's life what is the actual problem?? Except maybe your police get fat and lazy for not having to do any work!!





And when people are put in the camps, some will say: "They were [insert scary sounding words] and charged with [insert political crime; now equated to low-level terrorism], would you rather they are out on the streets?"

And so it goes.


Indeed - it goes to a place called reductio ad absurdium, which is where you think that using drones for surveillance - something hat is already done by other means and is NOT a new function for police - will lead to total loss of civil rights.

Oh and since this "when the people are put in camps.." is a paraphrase of "first they came...., you are also guilty of reductio ad Hitlerum - nice segue!!



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Laxpla
They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred it a smaller handheld drone to scope out the area?


Eventually this will become this:

"They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred they risk officers lives instead of firing a single missile?"


And what would be wrong with that??



Is that a serious question?

Or is it a funny one? Asked to cause laughter?

Hahah if it is - you are doing a good impression of an anti-american.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerisa
 


The Answer to this Threat on our Liberties ? ............. Military Surplus Stinger Missles , getum while their Hot......



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You still haven't really answered my question(s)

You don't get my point. Why wouldn't they just call in a air strike from a F-35 or F-16? Its got to be a drone? Hell, get a B-2 bomber in the mix to carpet bomb in area. Just because a drone is used to take surveillance in a likely situation that could turn bad, doesn't really mean they are out about to unload the MOAB or a tactical nuke. People get this automatic perception of something bad when the word "predator" or "drone" is used.

"Fearing a standoff, the sheriff called in ”reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.”

On top of all that, the sheriff also called in an unarmed Predator B (MQ-9 Reaper) drone, which belonged to the border patrol. He said the men on the ranch were carrying rifles, so law enforcement stood down for the night.

The next morning, the predator circled 2 miles above and, with its highly advanced sensor system, ascertained that the ranchers were unarmed. Police then swooped in and made arrests."

www.theblaze.com...

If SWAT would't have went in at the time they put there weapons down, it would have gotten ugly. Because of the drone, the topic on ATS "Swat gets into a shootout killing 10" is not made.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You still haven't really answered my question(s)


That is something you are going to have to get used to.

When you use questions as a form of tactics instead of as a way to seek answers, it is to be expected.

*Perhaps you should write someone in the military and ask then why drones are often used in lieu of manned aircraft.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1


Americans will eventually be killed with drones by their government.



I wouldn't be surprised if the F-22's laser isn't used against Americans.

Putting a laser on a drone is a natural step. If they don't like what you post on the internet they could use a infrared laser and heat up the gas cylinder under the computer chair you are sitting in, resulting in the extreme pressure in the gas piston shooting it's piston shaft straight up your keister.

Kinda makes you REALLY think about what the "classified" capabilities of the F-35 really were to justify it. Remember Obama said half the country is his enemy. Well Corporations enemies really, he's just their puppet.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Laxpla
They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred it a smaller handheld drone to scope out the area?


Eventually this will become this:

"They were in a standoff for 16 hours and armed. Would people have preferred they risk officers lives instead of firing a single missile?"


And what would be wrong with that??



Is that a serious question?


Yep.


Or is it a funny one? Asked to cause laughter?

Hahah if it is - you are doing a good impression of an anti-american.


Not as good an impression as you do of being evasive - what is wrong with law enforcement taking out armed perpetrators at long distance??



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





what is wrong with law enforcement taking out armed perpetrators at long distance??


By this you mean:

"what is wrong with law enforcement taking out armed suspects with drones??"

*I guess it depends on the new definition of wrong. See, alot of things used to be considered wrong: things such as genital fondling at the airport and torture, but now some people say they aren't wrong.

You can even watch youtube/liveleak of soldiers laughing while they kill.This used to be wrong, but not so much anymore.

Same for beatings. You can find all manner of violent acts on youtube which used to be considered wrong, but which now engender laughter.

Terrorism has a new definition too. Protest is low-level terrorism, (this used to be wrong - it used to be an incorrect statement)

edit on 15-12-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join