Dogs of war parachuted into Taliban land

Originally posted by SLAYER69

The German Shepherds are strapped with video cameras, which relay images to control rooms.

Originally posted by oozyism
A dog VS an Afghan insurgent with AK47.

Who do you think will win.

The guy in the control room who is about to launch a hellfire missile up the Taliban's rectum.

So you're saying that the insurgents will kill the dog and stay there and wait for the missile to come and kill them?

That will only work if the insurgents are animals actually even animals would learn after the first missile

no most likely they have a armed drone flying over any ways.. so it would be ten sec or more since the dog would find them.. get killed and maybe 10-15 untill they were hit.. learn alittle about our currant tech.. its cool.. we have flying mines now some really cool #

Originally posted by Reaper2137
no most likely they have a armed drone flying over any ways.. so it would be ten sec or more since the dog would find them.. get killed and maybe 10-15 untill they were hit.. learn alittle about our currant tech.. its cool.. we have flying mines now some really cool #

Actually drones are not effective at all, are you suggesting drones have some type of highly accurate laser in them which can kill individual targets, or is it just gonna send a missile and kill 1 insurgent and 20 innocent people?

That won't work at all, especially since killing innocent women and children won't help win the war and the new rules of engagement has asked US military to stop murdering innocent civilians, or at least decrease the number, while the drones kill innocent people in Pakistan.

reply to post by oozyism


Lol, how do you figure drones aren't effective?

Originally posted by rakkasansct
reply to post by oozyism

 

Lol, how do you figure drones aren't effective?

This is not the first time drones have been used, it isn't effective because it kill one insurgent and 20 innocent women and children.

Considering the objectives, where NATO is trying to win the hearts and minds of the people, it is a complete fail from all perspectives.

Just because Americans don't want to believe it is terrorism when killing 1 insurgent and 20 innocent women and children, doesn't mean the rest of the world don't believe also.

America using terrorism, to fight a war against terrorism, would be idiotic and against the objectives of the mission. If you want to eradicate terrorism, then the US has to eradicate itself first.

It is contradictory, it is hypocrisy, it is double standards, it is idiotic from every angle.

And such idiotic policy deem to fail, Afghanistan is an example of that failure. Not to mention Iraq, where the Democracy, I mean where's humanity.

Originally posted by oozyism
Actually drones are not effective at all, are you suggesting drones have some type of highly accurate laser in them which can kill individual targets, or is it just gonna send a missile and kill 1 insurgent and 20 innocent people?

More like 20 insurgence and one or two innocents VS the Taliban who kill 70 innocents who were praying and maybe 1 or 2 Pakistani Cops Guarding the mosque.

reply to post by oozyism


When civilians hang around insurgent fighters. When do they go from being civilians to part of the insurgent support network? Which is a viable military target in any operation. You have your numbers skewed on the insurgent to civilian kill ratio.

reply to post by SLAYER69

(Reuters) - A NATO airstrike in Afghanistan mistakenly killed 27 civilians, the government said on Monday, hurting a campaign to win over the local population and defeat Taliban insurgents.

In this case no insurgents were killed at all, 0 insurgents - 27 civilians. Jackpot!!

It all depends on how they publish the information right lol... Mistakenly

www.rawa.org...
www.reuters.com...



You have a habit of trolling

I'm joking, but I'm serious at the same time

Originally posted by rakkasansct
reply to post by oozyism

 

When civilians hang around insurgent fighters. When do they go from being civilians to part of the insurgent support network? Which is a viable military target in any operation. You have your numbers skewed on the insurgent to civilian kill ratio.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/594a697b08fc.jpg[/atsimg]

Viable insurgent target

I see the mentality now, I never thought the military worked that way, I wonder what is the true number of innocent deaths under NATO bombings if they consider insurgents and innocent civilians as insurgents.

www.rawa.org...

reply to post by oozyism


Yeah again Those Evil Americans.

reply to post by oozyism


And how many civilians are killed by the insurgents? Or do you not want to talk about that? Or are you gonna say it only happens because were there? Civilians were killed by them before we were there. Or do you chose to forget that?

How does offering a different opinion from you equal trolling? Or do you just want to spew your propaganda without having a debate?

Originally posted by rakkasansct
reply to post by oozyism

 

And how many civilians are killed by the insurgents? Or do you not want to talk about that? Or are you gonna say it only happens because were there? Civilians were killed by them before we were there. Or do you chose to forget that?

No I don't, because the MSM talks about that enough apparently I'm here to bring the other side of the story.

Back to topic, these dogs, and your claim that drones are flying around to bomb the dog and the insurgents and the civilians in to bits, and you justify it by claiming any civilians who are around insurgents are viable targets.

Why not use Satellites? Still doesn't make sense to me. One member stated that Satellites can't see trough houses, then again the dogs won't be able to see inside the houses either, dogs are not allowed inside duuuuh, especially dogs with cameras on their heads

How does offering a different opinion from you equal trolling? Or do you just want to spew your propaganda without having a debate?

I said I was joking and wasn't joking at the same time. That is between me and Slayer, back to topic.

I still want to know what the real purpose of these dogs are. Maybe some type of biological weapon they are testing?

reply to post by oozyism


The dogs will surely be spotted and killed immediately. Probably any dog now that they can't be sure if they are working dogs or not. They use them as expendable units that can't be interrogated if captured. I know about the museums and medals and all of the pomp surrounding these animals and I think it to be total b.s. These animals care not for any of that. I know that they are treated well and that their handlers sometimes develop strong feelings towards them. How could that be avoided? They are gentle, loving creatures that know nothing of war.

STH

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Again, dogs can't go inside the houses, you have to give me an explanation how you think the dogs would get in the houses?

1. Afghans mostly don't like dogs.

2. Afghans have doors too, and their doors are never open.

3. It would be pretty obvious if you see a dog with a camera. I don't think the insurgents are that stupid to allow a dog with a camera on his head to roam around freely, or let them in their house.

Dogs have never been used for surveillance, yes dogs have been used as guards, yes dogs have been used to bite, for terror etc, but never for surveillance.

It is just not viable.

I suspect it is more than surveillance, I suspect it is either for terrorism, or to trick the insurgents in to killing the dog and taking the camera back to their hideouts etc..

Well.. I would trust that they wouldn't drop the dogs into a facility they knew the dogs couldn't access so the door thing is a null point. Second, do you know for a fact they have never been used for surveillance?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Now you are debating for the sake of debate, common man

1. Are you suggesting that the dogs are parachuted straight in to a house?

Or can these dogs go through walls? I'm sure Afghans don't leave their doors open, I lived in Afghanistan, I'm sure they don't live in tents.

They have privacy issues, they tend to keep their doors closed.

2. Even if they are used for surveillance, I'm asking, why isn't satellites being used. It just doesn't make sense, why waste money on training a dog, and waste money on the camera attached on the dog, and waste money parachuting the dog, when you can just use a satellite in the sky already operating.



I suspect there is one of two reasons why these dogs are parachuted into insurgent land.

1. They are newly built biological weapons. Or probably spreading a disease of some sort.
2. They can go through walls.

I don't see any other viable use for these dogs being parachuted in insurgent land.

ok.. sats can only see thru a house in infra red.. ok? how does that help have you ever looked at any thing via infra red? it doesn't tell you much and they don't just shoot missiles? and I've been to afganistan their housing would be Condemned so a dog going inside wouldn't be a problem.. besides these dogs have handlers and they really would be the ones kicking in doors.. so you do know they don't send these dogs in by the self's either.. the army works in teams there would at least be a squad backing these guys up..en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Reaper2137
ok.. sats can only see thru a house in infra red.. ok? how does that help have you ever looked at any thing via infra red? it doesn't tell you much and they don't just shoot missiles? and I've been to afganistan their housing would be Condemned so a dog going inside wouldn't be a problem.. besides these dogs have handlers and they really would be the ones kicking in doors.. so you do know they don't send these dogs in by the self's either.. the army works in teams there would at least be a squad backing these guys up..en.wikipedia.org...

OK now I get it, I thought the dogs were sent by themselves, a lot in the battle field with cameras strapped.

That is why I was confused, thinking why would they send the dogs alone?? How..

that I can understand.. there are still things I don't understand about them as well.. its I've already said that these dogs have rank as well as get paid well there not supposed to get paired with some one under their pay grade but it happens lol.. but they go in teams with a squad backing them one dog one handler they humans also may wear cameras on their helmets as well.. dogs could hunt them with as many as four to eight other dogs also four to eight other handlers as well as soldiers backing them up. also these dogs are really taken care of.. to the point that if one goes down you can bet your ass that guy got it worse.. these dogs are our best friends as well as out partners. they want for nothing and while they most of the times come over harms way. but their are handlers who will take a billet for those dogs lol..