US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay

Originally posted by Xcathdra
How quickly you forget and downplay the 7/7 attacks on your subway system. Or the attacks on the Spanish train network. Appeasement does not nor has it ever worked, and as a European with UK / British citizenship you should know first hand what im referring to.

Your logic here appears to be that because I don't see something your way, I must not care about everything else. Its failed logic. Its an attempt at smearing that actually is quite hollow.

See, I don't forget those events and nor do I downplay them. But those events didn't exist in isolation. Its a big world.

Blind revenge is not a strategy.

I don't forget the bombings in London, Manchester, Warrington etc undertaken by the IRA. In fact, I was present at two of them. I was evacuated from Manchester City Centre, and was 10-15 minutes away from the Warrington explosion.

So I ask you again, would you be comfortable with UK armed forces acting in such a manner as we are discussing here in the USA - a nation which housed NORAID and several pro-IRA groups - defending itself from terrorist attacks, if the UK drafted a similar set of laws and delcaration.

And yes, the US government cooperated with Britain with regard to the IRA. In the same manner Pakistan has cooperated with the USA with regard to Al Quaeda. Yet the US now carries out attacks regardless of Pakistans opinion.

I assume you'd be fine with it. You are fine with the same thing happening elsewhere.

It has never beem proved those attacks were committed by Pakistanis or anyone but the governments of the countries they happened in
to claim they have been proved is disingenuous to say the least

Killing without justice is at the very best MURDER and the result of those murders is TERROR

And murder is what it will be when those drones start killing people here
Like the three year old on the no fly list, or the sexual groping of children in airports because of a FALSE flag like the underwearbomber, whom we know FOR CERTAIN was a falseflag..the murders will all be justifyed with propaganda to keep the sheeple lined up with their targets on.

reply to post by burntheships

Will you be sending a letter to the POTUS advising him as such?

Unnecessary. The President is not responsible for establishing Drone flight paths and theater ROE.

Then, 2008 the number skyrocketed to 33...

Note that 2008 was an election year. Obama did not take office until November.

The increase in drone strikes has more to do with the increased procurement for drone operations (more drones in the sky).

In 2007, drone-enabled commands were looking at some serious manpower surges and had active recruiting into their communities from aviation and related commands.

Chilling statement.
Do you consider your freedom and your life a luxury then?

You're hopelessly naive, child.

Freedom and life are a responsibility - not a right. They are a set of statuses that must be established and maintained with vigilance.

If I were to draw down on you with a firearm... what are you going to do? Pull out the Constitution?

Where's my trial when you act in self defense?

If someone is going to rape your wife - where's his (or her) trial when you act in her defense?

There is none. The power is in motion to take or seriously damage a life and you choose to take the steps to prevent it or you choose to allow it.

I'm of the variety that like to disallow such actions. You can choose to do what you will - but do not be surprised when your decision meets with a literal force of opposition. Many in this world have long understood that words are only as powerful as the will to heed them.

reply to post by neformore

So I ask you again, would you be comfortable with UK armed forces acting in such a manner as we are discussing here in the USA - a nation which housed NORAID and several pro-IRA groups - defending itself from terrorist attacks, if the UK drafted a similar set of laws and delcaration.

This is a moot argument. The U.S. actively works with foreign intelligence agencies to prosecute and extradite individuals accused of supporting terrorist operations. Just look at the "OMG! Mr. Doe was arrested for being a terrorist! We're next!" threads.

Further - you are comparing strategic and tactical scenarios on equal footing.

Since you're not military - I'll break the definition down for you.

Strategic scenarios are those developed as a standing policy. Contingency plans are strategic. They are a pattern for forces to follow. "Planned Time."

Tactical scenarios are dynamic and developed to act upon current threats. Field commands and fire support are tactical in nature. They are what most people identify as combat. "Real Time."

Launching a strike on NORAID cells in the U.S. is a strategic concept. Weeks - even months go into planning the operation, and it is carried out. Your mentioning of the tactical environment does not invalidate the strategic element that went into creating the tactical.

Thus - even though the operation may be in the -interest- of defense, it is an offensive measure due to the strategic nature of the operation.

Now - compare that to the drone strikes. Drones have been set up to patrol regions housing our forces and present allies because of attacks made upon installations by terrorist operatives in the region. That's the strategic element.

The tactical element is as follows: a contact is identified by friendly forces and observed taking actions that flag it as having hostile intent (such as setting up a mortar tube). Drones respond according to their standard operating procedures (which can be many different things depending upon the actions the individual is taking - setting up a mortar tube will get a different response compared to digging holes for no apparent reason other than to bury mines or just for kicks).

The context of each tactical situation is entirely different because of the strategic level involved.

And yes, the US government cooperated with Britain with regard to the IRA. In the same manner Pakistan has cooperated with the USA with regard to Al Quaeda. Yet the US now carries out attacks regardless of Pakistans opinion.

No, it hasn't.

Of course - it's an issue Pakistan is really not equipped to handle. The country Pakistan is not a country in the same concept of western governments. Middle Eastern governments are largely divided amongst tribal lines - and imposing control on a tribe within a nation is something approaching impossible.

Which is why the government of Pakistan (and many other middle eastern countries) has to be taken with a grain of salt; both its good and bad points.

It's not much different from the UAE in terms of structuring. Dubai and Jebel Ali are one massive mall (don't let the individual malls confuse you - the place is commercialism incarnate); the supermarket turns into a #ing dance club in the evenings, for crying out loud (playing Lady Ga Ga and other scandalous music to contrast against the conservative Islamic garbs dotting the population).

Go over to Fujara and you'll get damned near thrown in jail for wearing shorts. There's also nothing to do there. Conservative Islamic trends are inversely proportional to gainful economic trends, apparently.

Both are part of the UAE.

Rude shoppers, though. They push carts like they drive vehicles... and when your hired professional driver runs straight into a small boulder on the highway like it's not even there - it should give you a clue of what you're dealing with. I've never been in a vehicle that hit a rock big enough and hard enough to instantly throw the wheels out of alignment.

Got to love this

"You're not military, you won't understand" stuff.

Heres how I read that - "I don't like your point of view because its inconvenient for me to contemplate it, and you aren't part of the US forces, and therefore you don't matter"

It kinda goes along with the other viewpoint being expressed here which is "The US congress passed it, the world just has to deal with it"

How patronising.

Originally posted by Danbones
the US passed a law allowing sex with beasties in the baraks
that don't make it right either

Actually no they did not.They repealed the section in the UCMJ that refered to sodomy because of the same sex ruling by the Supreme Court. The section removed, sodomy, involved bestiality in the same law however by directive it, beastiality, still is illegal as it violates several other directives in effect covering all branches of the military involving moral conduct.

There has never been a law passed that allowed / authorized beastiality...

Facts are your friend..

Originally posted by Danbones
Pakistan is an ALLY

No they aren't.

Originally posted by Danbones
to be killing the innocent there is the supremem hall mark of who the real Terrorists are
the same government that did 911

How are they innocent?
Al Queida is a terrorist group, not a government.

Originally posted by Danbones
preemptive attack based oin false flag is a NAZI thing

Not really but way to ignore history and fixate on the tired Nazi argument.
.

Originally posted by neformore
Your logic here appears to be that because I don't see something your way, I must not care about everything else. Its failed logic. Its an attempt at smearing that actually is quite hollow.

Not at all.. What I am pointing out is the manner in which you see the situation is without base. You are viewing it as some legal process when in fact it is a war.

You demanded to know where the legality of it came from and I provided that, and yet here you are, ignoring it and still trying to make an argument.

You demanded to know the legality when it comes to targeting individuals or groups and not nation states, and I provided the UN resolution for that as well.

You demanded to know where the US declared war on those individuals and not nation states and I provided you with that info as well.

This is not a legal exercise, it is a war and the rules, contrary to your argument, are not the same.

Originally posted by neformore
See, I don't forget those events and nor do I downplay them. But those events didn't exist in isolation. Its a big world.

Then why do you refuse to view the entire picture?

Originally posted by neformore
Blind revenge is not a strategy.

And naievity, complacency and the expectation of the rule of law by a group who has no nation state status, who does not recognize international laws or the rules of warfare is not a strategy either, unless your goal is to purposely lose because you think a judges ruling will somehow make things all better.

Originally posted by neformore
I don't forget the bombings in London, Manchester, Warrington etc undertaken by the IRA. In fact, I was present at two of them. I was evacuated from Manchester City Centre, and was 10-15 minutes away from the Warrington explosion.

Yet you ignore the past to prohibit action in the present that affects the future.

Originally posted by neformore
So I ask you again, would you be comfortable with UK armed forces acting in such a manner as we are discussing here in the USA - a nation which housed NORAID and several pro-IRA groups - defending itself from terrorist attacks, if the UK drafted a similar set of laws and delcaration.

What I would expect, using your apples to zebra comparison with the application of the current situation, would be for Britain to notify the US of the people they want and to request their arrest and extradition. On the off chance you failed to notice the US did that with Afghanistan, and the response by Afghanistan was not acceptable. They were willing to turn him over provided we gave all evidence we had and only if Bin Laden went to a third party coutry of THEIR choice for trial.

The other part you fail to recognize is the area in which the drone strikes are occuring are autonomous tribal areas within Pakistan. Pakistan has been given ample time to resolve the issue and has failed to do so.

IF the US refused to turn people over to the UK then the UK has every right to proceed in the manner they see fit. Pakistan harbored bin laden and their claims that they never knew he was in country is BS. Pakistan recognized the Taliban government, the ISI worked closely with the Taliban and Al Queida.

Originally posted by neformore
And yes, the US government cooperated with Britain with regard to the IRA. In the same manner Pakistan has cooperated with the USA with regard to Al Quaeda. Yet the US now carries out attacks regardless of Pakistans opinion.

No Pakistan has not cooperated with the US. They harbored Bin Laden.... They harbor the groups who launch cross border attacks against US and NATO forces within Afghanistan from autonomous zones within tribal areas of Pakistan.

You also ignore the fact that Pakistan for the longest time allowed the US to operate those drones out of a Pakistani base. So while Pakistan complains in public, all politics are local, and I seriously doubt they have issues with our attacks in zones their central government doesnt control in the first place.

Originally posted by neformore
I assume you'd be fine with it. You are fine with the same thing happening elsewhere.

I am all about a nation defending itself and its people. When war breaks out its because the politicians failed, not because some judge made the wrong ruling.

You cannot view this in a legal courtroom context...
You cannot apply international laws that were never meant to deal with this type of situation.

The actions are valid under US law...
The actions are valid under international law / rules of war...
The actions are valid under UNSC resolutions....

3 things provided to resolve your challenges yet you conntinue to ignore them while at the same time trying to make your argument using some non existant situation in an effort to blur the legal argument you failed to make yet keep reintroducing while constantly changing the hypothetical each time you get called out and refuted by law.

Originally posted by neformore
Got to love this

"You're not military, you won't understand" stuff.

Heres how I read that - "I don't like your point of view because its inconvenient for me to contemplate it, and you aren't part of the US forces, and therefore you don't matter"

It kinda goes along with the other viewpoint being expressed here which is "The US congress passed it, the world just has to deal with it"

How patronising.

Its not patronizing in the least.. What it is is education for those who dont know / understand the difference between militqry action and the rules and laws that cover those actions and the rules and laws in a domestic / civilian setting.

If you aren't going to bother to understand the difference and the reasons for those differences then your argument is going to fail each and every time. This has nothing at all to do with agreement and everything to do about understanding the situation and the setting it is in and how issues in that box work.

By trying to constantly invoke a courtroom argument into a theater of war makes no sense because the 2 are NOT compatible in the least. Hence the reason the military is governed by the UCMJ and not the Civilian Federal body of US Law. Its why our forces are governed by the Geneva Convention and the Rules of war and not international laws dealing with civilian matters.

If you dont understand the differnece then how can you make a logical comparison, let alone an informed criticism of the action itself.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

By trying to constantly invoke a courtroom argument into a theater of war makes no sense because the 2 are NOT compatible in the least.

What war?

When was war declared?

Did I miss something?

Originally posted by drwizardphd
What war?

When was war declared?

Did I miss something?

Apparently so...

start here

reply to post by Xcathdra

Facts are your friend..

Originally posted by Danbones
Pakistan is an ALLY

No they aren't.

oh Pakistan IS NOT An ALLY OF THE US ????!!!!

Pakistan is a Major non-NATO ally of the United States and also the second-largest supplier of military equipment to Pakistan after China, and largest economic aid contributor as well.[2][3][4]....

...Pakistan – United States relations or Pakistan-American relations, refers to the international, historical, and cultural bilateral relationship between the State of Pakistan and the United States, with both countries first establishing diplomatic relations on October 20, 1947, roughly two months after the establishment of the former country after the Indian partition by Great Britain. With the United States being among the very first nations to have established relations with Pakistan, the relationship since then has been based primarily on U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan

en.wikipedia.org...


dont try to BS me Ex...I'll kick your butt

reply to post by Danbones


Britain is an ally of the US.

Pakistan is not an ally....

and bring it

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Danbones
to be killing the innocent there is the supremem hall mark of who the real Terrorists are
the same government that did 911

How are they innocent?
Al Queida is a terrorist group, not a government.

where is the PROOF that alciaduh did 911 or 77 or the UNDERWEARBOMBER ( who was put on the plane in front of whitnesses buy a special US agent ) for that matter again?

Even days after the alleged atrocity unfolded, no evidence has been produced to match the torrent of sensational headlines now being exploited by the West and the UN to justify another round of condemnation and threats against the Syrian government. As with all atrocities committed with impeccable timing to be paraded out before the world on the eve of pivotal UN meetings, little more than “activist” hearsay is used to condemn the Syrian government to more foreign pressure and edge it ever closer to a US-engineered sectarian war planned as early as 2007. Kofi Annan as well, after posing as “peacemaker” for months, finally dropped all pretenses and credibility to “blame” the Syrian government for the failure of his plan, a deceitful ploy from the very beginning. Western policy makers openly admit that the goal in Syria is not to restore peace and order, but to topple the government, even if it means purposefully, and indefinitely prolonging the violence to do so. Brookings Institution in their Mar 2012 Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” openly states that:

The US might still arm the opposition

niqnaq.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Danbones

 

Britain is an ally of the US.

Pakistan is not an ally....

and bring it

what no reference???

I just did
Good night
have a nice day





here let me kick it again

Hillary Clinton Admits the U.S. Government Created al-Qaeda

tv.globalresearch.ca...
Hillary on video

reply to post by Danbones


We funded the muhajadeen against the Soviet Union... It was not until the soviets left and we ended funding, much to the irritation of those groups who wanted the US to assist them in consolidating power in afghanistan, did Bin Laden decide the US was evil should be attacked.



Please read and listen to what people state before making a claim thats not true. Even your own source contradicts your claim.

Germany and the Soviet Union were "allies" until Germany invaded them. Pakistan is our "ally" simply to prevent them from aiding the groups they are currently aiding. Pakistan is not an "ally" and all funding should be cut. The reason we have not done so and have tolerated them is because of their nukes.

reply to post by neformore

Got to love this

"You're not military, you won't understand" stuff.

Certainly not with that attitude, you won't.

I offered an explanation. Denying ignorance is an optional evolution that requires a little effort on your part.

Heres how I read that - "I don't like your point of view because its inconvenient for me to contemplate it, and you aren't part of the US forces, and therefore you don't matter"

How did you pull that out of it?

I am perfectly capable of contemplating your standpoint. There really isn't much to your standpoint, honestly. You attempt to treat all uses of force the same and to attempt to judge them in the same manner that a civilian court of law would.

It's a self-deluded arrogance that one is properly informed to make a judgment call.

What you are doing is comparable to arguing with a mechanic over the cause of the gripe with your vehicle. Rather than learning why the mechanic has the opinion he/she does and developing an appreciation for that person's experience and opinions - you want to stand on the basis that you are unquestionably correct and anything to the contrary is wrong.

It kinda goes along with the other viewpoint being expressed here which is "The US congress passed it, the world just has to deal with it"

You really have to come to terms with reality, here, my delusional moderator.

To be a leader, one must have people willing to follow you (by some compulsion or another). Power comes from the ability to elicit an effect.

The concept of right and wrong is a luxury afforded by those who wield power to the extent that survival is no longer dependent upon its use. We can debate over whether or not killing an individual is right or wrong because that issue is not currently one of our own survival.

What's wrong with a culture that accepts duels? Nothing, really, if that is what people wish to allow. Most modern societies don't recognize it as a lawful practice - and a surviving duelist will likely be charged with murder because of our culture's fixation upon the idea that life should be unquestionably preserved to the abandonment of all logical and economic reasoning.

If a bunch of pro-duelists were to affect change in such a manner as to make them the leaders of modern civilization - then the killing of a person in a duel would become an acceptable event. Perhaps honor would surround the practice - for both the victor and individual defeated. The perception of right and wrong is different.

Similarly - if someone has a weapon pointed at my head... my options that include my survival narrow considerably. Rights go out the window. Laws go out the window. "Humanity" goes out the window. At that point - it's you and the threat. You're an individual with tools at your disposal and discretion to utilize to affect the outcome.

You either take action to preserve your desired outcome - or you yield to the opposing outcome and accept those consequences. There's no other resolution to a conflict of that nature. The sooner you understand that reality and accept the responsibility of managing that reality - the sooner we can begin making progress beyond cyclic battles over non-issues.

How patronising.

It comes with the territory. I'm often described as a highly intelligent individual with a bit of an ego. Also, a wide range of 'alternative' descriptions place me as being an ancient soul - possibly among the first.

You youngin's are so quick to pop up with your ideals and think you're going to be able to change nature before you've even experienced it.

The real key to the universe is learning that the ideal of perfection is an abstract construct brought about by the illogical assumption that things are currently anything other than as they should be.

Nothing happens the way it shouldn't. It happens the way it is. The adventure is the setting of personal goals and attempting to achieve them.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by burntheships

 

The increase in drone strikes has more to do with the increased procurement for
drone operations (more drones in the sky).

In 2007, drone-enabled commands were looking at some serious manpower surges and had active recruiting into their communities from aviation and related commands.

Really? Going on that logic then the more drones in the sky, the more killing.

Drones equal cars on the freeway do they? The more cars on the freeway the more
accidents the more deaths. Drones do not equal cars on the highway.
Your logic fails. Drones have targets....

Someone is authorizing a "kill list" those would be otherwise known as targets.
Last I checked with the NYT it was the POTUS. Or we can wait for the Hollywood
version.

Freedom and life are a responsibility - not a right. They are a set of statuses that must be
established and maintained with vigilance.

Yes, indeed.

If I were to draw down on you with a firearm... what are you going to do? Pull out the Constitution?

If a drone strikes you from the sky on your property, what are you going to do?

Where's my trial when you act in self defense?

Where is your trial when your dead?

If someone is going to rape your wife - where's his (or her) trial when you act in her defense?

If someone shoots your wife from the sky what is your defense? Where was hers?

There is none.

Indeed.

The power is in motion to take or seriously damage a life and you choose to take
the steps to prevent it or you choose to allow it.

As I pointed out earlier, you are ok with that, as long as your on the "strike" panel.
When its you below your logic fails you.

reply to post by burntheships

Really? Going on that logic then the more drones in the sky, the more killing.

The more drones in the sky - the more platforms you have scanning for suspect behavior - the more weapon systems can be brought against appropriate targets.

Ostensibly - a number of engagements involving the drones were in support of other, more conventional, forces; which means the same targets would have likely been engaged (perhaps with different success rates) but fall under a different "cause of death" (which would not involve drones to rouse your Orwellian suspicions).

Drones equal cars on the freeway do they? The more cars on the freeway the more
accidents the more deaths. Drones do not equal cars on the highway.
Your logic fails. Drones have targets....

Combat drones can be assigned targets. Most of the time - they will not have a target.

Just like I sit behind an M-240 Bravo with 200 rounds of ammunition and hundreds of third country nationals every day for several hours. Me and several other people. There's not been a single Negligent Discharge - let alone the injury of a TCN due to employment of those weapon systems.

In all probability - there never will be. Thousands of potential targets can be engaged with what we have on those stations. We have to replace the ammo because it corrodes from sitting in the sun and humidity so long. It's not going to ever be fired.

Someone is authorizing a "kill list" those would be otherwise known as targets.
Last I checked with the NYT it was the POTUS. Or we can wait for the Hollywood
version.

Combat drones aren't what's going to fly over the U.S.

Most of them would be converted airliners. Computers are simply far better at some things than human beings. Computers will never gun-deck an operations check. They will never fail to scan a region of space they are programmed to. They will never suffer from tunnel vision, distraction, sleep deprivation, etc. Basically - a computer never grows complacent.

Sure - I want to have a pilot there to be able to react to situations that are well outside the computer's handling parameters - but the computer is going to be far more effective at flying a safe approach than a pilot is (studies have shown that pilots can and will miss unexpected but plausible hazards - such as an airliner on the runway they are approaching - with alarming regularity due to inherent physiological phenomena involving information processing in the brain - humans just cannot be aware of everything at one time).

Honestly, I don't fear drones being used against the population. They are high cost-effect weapons. For the cost of one four-hour drone mission to assassinate an individual - one could pay a team of rogue professionals to do the same on the ground (and track the individual for months).

Drones are just not a cost-effective solution to urban police operations. Not as they exist today (perhaps some blimp-like drones could be employed for traffic monitoring, C3, and situational networks). And they certainly aren't going to be very effective in establishing an Orwellian state. The population is simply too large, too well armed, and the drones have to land sometime.

reply to post by burntheships

If a drone strikes you from the sky on your property, what are you going to do?

He'd better be a good shot - or I will make life on its base of operations hell.

Here's the more pertinent question: Why is a drone any more to fear than a hired assassin?

Which is cheaper, easier to employ, and will have the best success rate?

The hired assassin. Why? Because drones involve huge support networks of individuals that can have differing opinions regarding the legitimacy of a target. In the deserts of Afghanistan - you can get away with being a little trigger-happy because the challenge to such an order is, at best, on technical grounds. Something involving the killing of an individual in their back yard in the continental U.S. is going to strike a much stronger empathetic chord.

Certainly - if they could kill me in my back yard: a veteran and supporter of American industrial and military dominance... why couldn't they also be targeted? Or their friends? Or their families? They won't serve in that squadron forever. Just as I won't serve in my squadrons and units forever - but still have put time into the same community.

Where is your trial when your dead?

You just asked the same question, but left out the context.

If someone shoots your wife from the sky what is your defense? Where was hers?

Damned good shot to make that while paragliding.

I jest.

Why do drones represent a greater threat than the jealous neighbor or the drunken hunter? They don't.

However - if such a weapon is employed against me, I am an intelligent and resourceful individual who is recognized as such (along with sound strategic planning) among my peers. Many of whom are also veterans or otherwise of value in making sure said drone strikes cease.

Like I said - I have no problem eliminating a threat. It really doesn't matter where that threat comes from. In my opinion - there are individuals in the military who need to be executed for their abuse of their rank and the innate hypocrisy in their orders. They are a threat to the teams of good, sensible people who often work under them - often to their own long-term detriment.

But I don't, and likely never will, command enough clout to change what's broken about the military command structure (not that it would require executions... I just have a knack for using intense concepts to make things worse for myself when expressing my views).

I'm pretty equal opportunity when it comes to threats. The only threats I find difficult to accept as such come from females. If someone really wanted to get to me - they'd use a woman to do it. Where I have little tolerance for challenges, threats, and gripes of other males; I have almost infinite patience and forgiveness for females that I have to consciously remind my instincts is a very polarized and vulnerable view.

As I pointed out earlier, you are ok with that, as long as your on the "strike" panel.
When its you below your logic fails you.

An interesting concept has recently crossed my voracious reading as of late: The Red Queen.

It comes from 'Through the Looking Glass' - en.wikipedia.org... - the concept in evolutionary biology being that life is a constant "Red Queen's Race" - whereby evolution is a sort of Arms race against the environment and other individuals of the species.

It's quite interesting, really, and a very revealing concept upon human psychology.

I'll apply it, here.

You are never universally on the "strike" panel or under the cross hairs. As you move to counter the threat posed from one source, you make yourself vulnerable to another. As such - you are constantly shifting between states of advantage and disadvantage, never being able to remain certain of any advantage for long.

I accept that life is a state of shifting vulnerability and advantage. I've technically already died a few times in life - and really don't see the big deal about worrying that it might happen again. It most certainly will. If someone is stupid enough to make an attempt on my life without finishing the job - I will make sure they are no longer capable of finishing the job. Otherwise - the effort of worrying about it is a distraction from what really matters in life - and that is ensuring that my family is taken care of and will have the best chances to prosper.

Unless sufficient evidence can be presented that rules drones to be a present and imminent threat to that; I don't see the issue when a malevolent shadow entity could just as easily contract rogue elements to have me eliminated (and far less conspicuously than a missile slamming into my patio - a media worthy event to be certain).

reply to post by neformore


i know that right now there is a smear campaig going on to try and convince th US public that the gov is not using drones for spying on them.

good luck w that. stuxnet here we come